THE ANTIQUARY’S BOOKS
GENERAL EDITOR: J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A.
PARISH LIFE IN
MEDIÆVAL ENGLAND
[Illustration: PASSIONTIDE:
OFFICE OF THE PENITENTIARY, THE LENTEN VEIL, ETC.]
PARISH LIFE IN
MEDIÆVAL ENGLAND
BY
ABBOT GASQUET, D.D.
AUTHOR OF
“ENGLISH MONASTIC LIFE”
WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS
SECOND EDITION
METHUEN & CO.
36 ESSEX STREET W.C.
LONDON
_First Published_ _October 1906_
_Second Edition_ _1907_
CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF MANUSCRIPT AND PRINTED AUTHORITIES xi
CHAPTER I
THE PARISH 1
CHAPTER II
THE PARISH CHURCH 21
CHAPTER III
THE PARISH CHURCH (_continued_) 44
CHAPTER IV
THE PARISH CLERGY 71
CHAPTER V
THE PARISH OFFICIALS 102
CHAPTER VI
PAROCHIAL FINANCE 124
CHAPTER VII
THE PARISH CHURCH SERVICES 140
CHAPTER VIII
CHURCH FESTIVALS 164
CHAPTER IX
THE SACRAMENTS 187
CHAPTER X
THE PARISH PULPIT 211
CHAPTER XI
PARISH AMUSEMENTS 233
CHAPTER XII
GUILDS AND FRATERNITIES 253
INDEX 275
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
PAGE
Thurible, found near Pershore 33
Twelfth Century.
Pax 34
_Arch. Journal_, ii. 149.
Bracket with Suspended Dove and Cover 37
Viollet le Duc, _Dictionnaire du Mobilier_, i. 249.
Sacramental Dove 38
_Ibid._, 50.
St. Martin’s Mass, showing Disposition of Altar
Furniture--Fourteenth Century 47
Didron, _Annales Archæologique_, iii. 95.
Pyx, and Canopy, open 48
Pyx Canopy, closed 49
Shaft Piscina, Treborough 52
Double Piscina, Cowlinge, Suffolk 52
Outside Entrance to Rood-Loft, St. John’s, Winchester 55
_Journal of Arch. Assoc._, ix. 1.
Corona of Lights, St. Martin de Troyes--Fifteenth Century 61
Viollet le Duc, _Dictionnaire du Mobilier_.
Backless Benches, Cawston, Norfolk 63
Font, St. Michael’s, Sutton Bonnington, Notts 64
Holy Water Stoup, Wootton Courtney, Somerset 65
Sacrament of Ordination 79
From _The Art of Good Lyvinge_.
Rectory, West Dean, Sussex 89
Turner’s _Domestic Architecture_, i. 168.
Holy Water Clerk 113
B. Museum, Royal MSS., 10 E. 4.
Blessing of Food by Holy Water Clerk 114
B. Museum, Royal MSS., 10 E. 4.
Alms Box, Blythburgh, Suffolk 130
Organ--Twelfth Century 144
Didron, _Annales Archæologique_, iv. 31.
Low Side Window, Barnard Castle, Durham 147
Holy Water Vat and Sprinkler 155
_Dictionnaire du Mobilier_, ii. 35.
The Sacrament of Penance 169
From _The Art of Good Lyvinge_.
Easter Sepulchre, Arnold, Notts 178
Sacrament of Baptism 191
From _The Art of Good Lyvinge_.
Sacrament of Confirmation 195
_Ibid._
Sacrament of Extreme Unction 202
_Ibid._
Hearse and Pall--Fifteenth Century. Cantors at Lectern 205
“Vita et pass. S. Dyonisii Areop.,” _Biblio. Nat._
_Dictionnaire du Mobilier_, ii. 127.
Sacrament of Matrimony 208
From _The Art of Good Lyvinge_.
Pulpit, 1475, St. Paul’s, Truro 212
Stone Pulpit Bracket, Walpole St. Andrew, Norfolk 215
Church House, Lincoln 234
Turner’s _Domestic Architecture_, i. 168.
LIST OF PLATES
Passiontide _Frontispiece_
B. Museum, Add. MS., 25698, f. 9.
Rood-Screen and Pulpit, Haberton Church _To face page_ 44
From a Photograph by J. Valentine & Sons, Ltd.
Screen, Withycombe, Somerset ” 56
Acolythes and Baptism ” 76
B. Museum, Royal MSS., 6 E. vi., ff. 40, 171.
Houseling Cloth for Holy Communion ” 106
_Ibid._, 2 B. vii., f. 260b.
Archidiaconal Visitation and Marriage ” 216
_Ibid._, 6 E. vi., ff. 133, 375.
Confirmation and Youths receiving Holy Communion ” 222
_Ibid._, 6 E. ff. 472, 337d.
LIST OF MANUSCRIPT AND PRINTED AUTHORITIES
As in _English Monastic Life_, the volume I have already contributed
to this series of “The Antiquary’s Books,” I have, in this book, been
advised by the Editor to avoid multitudinous footnotes and references.
I here give a list of works, in print and manuscript, out of which I
have endeavoured to reconstruct the picture of _Parish Life in Mediæval
England_, which I have tried to sketch in the following pages.
CHANTRIES
P. R. O. Exchequer, Augmentation Office, _Chantry Certificates_.
P. R. O. Exchequer, _Ministers’ Accounts_, 2-3, Edward VI.
_Chantries within the County of Lancaster_ (Chetham Soc.).
_Somerset, Survey and Rental of Chantries._ ed. E. Green (Somerset
Record Soc.). 1888.
_Yorkshire, Certificates as to Chantries_, etc. (Surtees Soc.). 2 vols.
CHURCHWARDENS’ ACCOUNTS
_Ashburton_ (1479-1580). ed. J. H. Butcher.
_Arlington, Sussex_ (1456-1479). Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 33,192.
_Bath, St. Michael’s without the North Gate._ ed. C. B. Pearson
(_Somerset Archæol., etc., Soc. Proceedings_, vol. xxiii. p. 6). Cf.
also Somerset Record Soc. 1890.
_Bedwardine, St. Michael’s (Worcester)_, 1539-1603. ed. J. Amphlett.
_Bishop Stortford St. Michael’s._ ed. J. L. Glasscock. 1882.
_Blythburgh, Suffolk._ ed. J. Gardner (1754), _Hist. of Dunwich,
Blythburgh, and Southwold_, 147-159.
_Bodmin, Receipts and Expenses in the Building of._ ed. J. J.
Wilkinson (Camden Soc., Misc., vii. 1874).
_Bramley, Surrey_ (transcript kindly lent by C. R. Peers, Esq.).
_Bristol, St. Ewen’s._ Sir J. Maclean (in Transactions of Bristol and
Glouc. Archæol. Assoc., xv. 1890-1891).
_Cambridge, St. Mary the Great_ (1504-1635). ed. J. E. Foster
(Cambridge Antiq. Soc.). 1905.
_Canterbury, St. Dunstan’s_ (1484-1580). ed. Cowper. 1885. (Reprinted
from Archæologia Cantiana, xvi., xvii.)
_Cowfold_ (1471-1485). Rev. W. B. Otter, in Sussex Archæol. Coll. ii.,
pp. 316-325.
_Cratfield parish_ (1490-1642). ed. Rev. W. Holland.
_Croscombe, Pilton, Yatton, Tintinhull, Morebath, and St. Michael’s,
Bath._ ed. Bishop Hobhouse (Somerset Record Soc. 1890).
_Derby, All Saints_ (1465-1527). ed. J. C. Cox and W. H. St. John
Hope. 1881.
_Dover, St. Mary’s_ (1536). Brit. Mus. Eg. MS. 1912.
_Exeter, St. Petrock’s_ (1425-1590). R. Dymond (Devon Assoc. for the
Advancement of Science, etc. 1902).
_Hawkhurst._ ed. W. J. Lightfoot (Archæologia Cantiana, vol. v. p. 78).
_Hedon, St. Augustine’s, in E. Riding of Yorks_ (in _Early History of
the Town and Port_. J. R. Boyle), Appendix, ciii. _seqq._
_Hertfordshire._ Inventory of Church Furniture. ed. J. E. Cussans.
_Hythe_ (1412-1413) in Archæol. Cantiana, x. pp. 242-249.
_Leicester, St. Martin’s._ ed. Thomas North. 1884.
_Leverton_, Lincolnshire (in Archæologia, vol. xli. pp. 333 _seqq._).
_Lincolnshire_, in _Church Goods_, ed. Peacock, pp. 202 _seqq._
_London, St. Martin’s, Outwich_ (1570), in Sir J. Nichols’ _Illust. of
Manners, etc._, pp. 270 _seqq._
_London, St. Dionysius, Backchurch_ (in Lond. and Midd. Archæol., iv.
pp. 203 _seqq._).
_London, St. Mary-at-Hill_ (1420-1559). ed. H. Littlehales, 2 parts,
1904-1906 (Early English Text Soc.).
_London, St. Michael’s, Cornhill._ ed. Overall and Waterlow. 1870.
_London, St. Peter Cheap_ (Journal of Archæological Association, vol.
xxiv. pp. 248 _seqq._).
_Ludlow_ (1469-1749). ed. Ll. Jones (in Shropshire Archæol., etc.,
Soc., vols. 1, 2, 4, 5).
_Melton Mowbray._ ed. Thomas North (in Leicestershire Architect. and
Archæol. Soc. Trans. III. 1874).
_Morebath_, Somerset (see Croscombe).
_Norfolk Church Goods_ (in Norfolk Archæol., vii.).
_North Elmham_ (1539-1577). ed. A. G. Legge. 1891.
_Norwich Church Goods_ (in Norfolk Archæol., vi. p. 360).
_Nottinghamshire Church Goods_ (P. R. O. Exch. Q. R. Church Goods,
7/38-7/39).
_Oxford, St. Peter-in-the-East_ (1444). ed. R. S. Mylne (in Soc. of
Antiquaries Proceedings, 2nd Series, X., 25-28).
_Pilton, Somerset_ (see Croscombe).
_Piltington_ and other parishes in diocese of Durham. 1580. (ed.
Surtees Soc. 1888.)
_Reading, St. Giles._ ed. W. L. Nash. 1881.
_Saffron Walden_, Extracts, 1439-85 (in _History of Audley End and
Saffron Walden_, by Richard, Lord Braybrooke).
_Salisbury, St. Edmund’s and St. Thomas’_ (1447-1702), (Wilts Record
Soc.).
_Shere, Surrey._ Manning and Bray’s _Surrey_, i. 529-531.
_Steyning, Surrey_, ed. T. Medland (in Surrey Archæol., viii. 133-140).
_Stratton, Cornwall_, Highcross Wardens (1512-1577). Brit. Mus. Add.
MS. 32,243 (Archæologia, xlvi. pp. 195-236).
_Stutterton, St. Mary’s_ (1461-1536). Bib. Bodl. MS. Rawlinson 786.
_Surrey Church Goods_ (in Surrey Archæol., iv. pp. 1-189).
_Tavistock_, Extracts, 1385-1725 (in Calendar, etc. ed. R. N. Worth.
1887).
_Thame_, Extracts 1443-1638 (in _History, etc._ ed. F. G. Lee, pp.
15-87).
_Tintinhull, Somerset_ (see Croscombe).
_Walberswick_ (1451-1550), in Sir J. Nichols’ _Illust. of Manners,
etc._, pp. 183 _seqq._
_Wells, St. Cuthbert’s_, early accounts (in _Historical Account of St.
Cuthbert’s_). 1875.
_Westminster, St. Margaret’s_ (1460-1461), in Sir J. Nichols’ _Illust.
of Manners, etc._, pp. 1 _seqq._
_Westminster, St. Margaret’s_, Extracts 1478-1492 (in _Caxton
Memorial_, reprinted from the _Builder_, Aug. 7 and 21, 1880).
_Wigtoft_ (1484-1497), in Sir J. Nichols’ _Illust. of Manners, etc._,
pp. 77 _seqq._
_Wing_, Bucks, (in _Archæologia_, xxxvi. pp. 219-241).
_Worcester, St. Helen’s_ (1519-1520). ed. J. Amphlett.
_Yatton, Somerset_ (see Croscombe).
_London, St. Mary Woolnoth_, Deeds relating to. B. Mus. Harl. MS. 877.
CLERICAL LIFE
_Baculus Viatoris_, to give priests material for instruction. Brit.
Mus. MS. Reg. 8, F. vii. (ff. 41-51_d_).
_Cilium Oculi Sacerdotis._ Harl. MS. 4968 (ff. 1-46_d_), and Harl. MS.
211 (ff. 51_d_ _seqq._).
_Cura Clericalis._ Wynkyn de Worde. 1532.
_De Oculo Morali._ Bishop Grosteste. MS. Reg. 7, C. i. Also printed at
Augsburg, 1480, and at Venice, 1496.
_Dieta Salutis._ R. Halcot. B. Mus. Harl. MS. 2250 (ff. 64-68); MS.
Reg. 7, D. xxii.; 5, F. xiv.; 7, 6, I.; Add. MS. 11,437.
_Doctrinal of Sapience._ Caxton. 1489.
_Instructions for Priests._ Printed by De Worde.
_Elucidarium_ of William of Coventry. Harl. MS. 5234 (ff. 88 _seqq._).
_Exornatorium Curatorum._ Printed by Notary, de Worde and Pepwell.
_Exposition of the Commandments._ By John Nydar.
_Flos Florum._ Thomas Hibernicus or Palmeranus. Brit. Mus. Burney MS.
356. Printed at Venice in 1550 and several times afterwards;
sometimes known as the _Flores dictorum_ and _Manipulus Florum_.
_Gallicantus._ By Bishop Alcock, of Ely. Printed by Pynson, 1498.
_Liber Bonitatis._ Harl. MS. 2379 (ff. 15_d_-12_d_).
_Liber Festivalis._ Sixteen printed editions between 1483-1532.
_Manipulus Curatorum._ Six printed editions in Latin from 1500-1509,
and in translations as _Livre de Sapience_ and _The Doctrinal of
Sapience_.
_Manuale Sacerdotis._ Harl. MS. 5306.
_Oculus Sacerdotis._ B. Mus. Harl. MS. 1307; MS. Reg. 6, E. i.; 8, c.
ii. (ff. 52-180); 8, B. xv. (ff. 1-163).
_Pupilla Oculi._ J. de Burgo. Harl. MS. 5442, and several early
editions in print.
_Quatuor Sermones_ (giving matter for instructions ordered four times
a year). Printed by Caxton, 1483, etc.
_Regimen Animarum._ Harl. MS. 2272.
_Speculum Curatorum._ Ralph Higden. Harl. MS. 1004.
_Speculum Eduardi._ B. Mus. Harl. MSS. 2379; 2383; 2388; 3363; MS.
Reg. 8, F. vii.
_Speculum Sacerdotum._ Harl. MS. 2346.
_Stella Clericorum._ Printed by Pynson.
_Summa Magri._ _Thomæ de Cabaham._ Harl. MS. 4065.
_Sermo Exhortatorius Cancellarii Eboracensis._ Printed by Wynkyn de
Worde, 1494 (?).
EPISCOPAL REGISTERS
CANTERBURY.--_Registrum Epistolarum Fratris Johannis Pecham_ (Rolls
Series, 3 vols.).
DURHAM.--_Reg. of Bishop Richard de Kellawe_ for 1311-1316 in
_Registrum Palatinum Dunelmense._ (Rolls Series.)
_Reg. of Bishop Bury_, 1338-1343. (Surtees Soc.)
EXETER.--In Prebendary Hingeston-Randolph’s monumental work already
published are the following:--
_Bishop Bronescombe_, 1272-1280 }
_Bishop Quevil_, 1280-1291 } 1 vol.
_Bishop Bitton_, 1292-1307 }
_Bishop Stapeldon_, 1307-1326.
_Bishop Berkeley_, 1327 }
_Bishop Grandisson_, 1327-1350 } 3 vols.
_Bishop Brantyngham_, 1370-1394.
_Bishop Stafford_, 1395-1419.
BATH AND WELLS.
_Bishop Walter Giffard_, 1265-1266. (Somerset Record Soc.)
_Bishop Drokensford_, 1309-1329. (Ibid.)
_Bishop Ralph of Shrewsbury_, 1329-1363. (Ibid.)
_Bishop Bowett_, 1401-1407. (Ibid.)
_Bishop Richard Fox_, 1492-1494. ed. E. C. Batten. 1889.
WINCHESTER.--The Hants Record Soc. has published:--
_Bishop John de Sandale_, 1316-1320 } 1 vol.
_Bishop Rigaud de Asserio_, 1320-1323 }
_Bishop W. of Wykeham_, 1366-1404. 2 vols.
WORCESTER.--The Worcestershire Hist. Soc. has published translations
and abstracts of:--
_Bishop Giffard_, 1268-1301.
_Sede Vacante_, 1301-1435.
YORK.--The Surtees Soc. has published:--
_Archbishop Walter Gray_, 1217-1255.
_Archbishop Giffard_, 1266-1279.
_Statuta Eccl. Cath. Lichfeldensis._ Cott. MS. Vitell, A. x. (ff.
163-205).
_Visitations of Churches in Exeter Diocese_, A.D. 1440. Harl. MS. 862,
ff. 32-36.
_Visitation of Archd. of Norwich_, A.D. 1363. P. R. O. Misc. of Exchq.
Q. R. Vol. 30.
_Visitation of Churches belonging to St. Paul’s, London._ ed. W. S.
Simpson (Camden Soc.). Misc. ix. pp. 1-38.
_Forms of Letters._ Harl. MSS. 670; 862; 3378; 2179; 3300. Add. MS.
32,089; 33,089.
GUILDS AND MYSTERY PLAYS
Ansell, Chas., _Treatise on Friendly Societies_.
Ashley, W. J., _Introduction to English Economic History_. 3 vols.
(especially vol. 1).
_Corpus Christi Guild at St. Botolph’s, Boston._ Register of Harl. MS.
4795.
F. F. Fox, _Some Account of Merchant Tailors of Bristol_. 1880.
_Statutes of the Guylde of the Puryficacion, Bury St. Edmund._ 1471.
Harl. M.S. 4626.
_Cambridge Guilds, Notes on._ Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 5813.
_Cambridge Guild Records_, ed. Mary Bateson (Cambridge Antiq. Soc.).
_English Gilds._ ed. Toulmin Smith (E. English Text Soc.). 1870.
Gross, Charles, _Gild Merchant_. 1890.
Gross, Charles, _Bibliography of British Municipal History, including
Gilds, etc._ 1897.
E. B. Jupp, _Company of Carpenters_. 2nd edition. 1887.
_Pynner Guild, London_ (1464). Brit. MS. Eg. MS. 1142.
_Vintners’ Company_, temp. Hen. VIII. Brit. Mus. Eg. MS. 1143.
Ludlow.--_Palmers’ Gild_ (in _Shropshire Archæol. Soc._, i. pp. 333
_seqq._).
_Sleaford Guild Accounts_ (1477-1545). Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 28,533.
_Norfolk Guild Certificates_ (ed. W. Rye for _Norfolk, etc._,
_Archæol. Soc._, xi. 105-36. 1892).
Ed. Smirke, _Ancient Ordinances of the Gild Merchant of Southampton_
(_Archæol. Journal_, xvi. 283-96, and 343-82. 1859).
_Stamford, Annals of_ (in _Peck’s Antiq._, Bk. xii. pp. 18-20).
_The Towneley Mysteries._ (Surtees Soc. 1836.)
York, _Reg. of Guild of Corpus Christi_. ed. Surtees Soc. 1872.
York, _Corpus Christi Guild Register_. Brit. Mus. Lansd. MS. 403.
_Extracts from the Municipal Records of the City of York._ R. Davis.
Appendix.
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION AND PREACHING
_Confession, Forms of._ Harl. MS. 172 (ff. 11-19); Add. MS. 15,239 (f.
88 _seqq._); Harl. MS. 985; 7641; 1845; 6041 (f. 97 _seqq._); Sloane
MS. 774.
_De Confessione, Tractatus._ Mag. Willi. de Montibus, Brit. Mus. Cott.
MS. Vesp. D. xiii. (f. 115 _seq._).
_De Missis Celebrandis._ Brit. Mus. Cott. MS. Nero A. iii. (f. 131-57).
_Dives et Pauper._ Harl. MS. 149; MS. Reg. 17 c. xx. and 17 c. xxi.
Printed by Wynkyn de Worde, 1496; Pynson, 1493; and by Berthelet,
1536.
_Excommunications._ Brit. Mus. Harl. MS. 1307, f. 436. Cf. Harl. MS.
2399; Ar. MS. 130; Cott. MS. Claud. A. 11. Printed by W. de Worde in
Lands. MS. 379.
_Explanation of Commandments, etc._ Add. MS. 27,592.
_Expositio S. Jeronomi in Symbolum Apostolorum._ Printed by Roode,
1468.
_For Parish Priests._ Harl. MS. 4172 (written 1426, _vide_ f. 62 d).
_Fratris Laurentii Gulielmi de Savona Margarita Eloquentiæ._ Printed
by Caxton, 1479-80.
_Langforde’s Meditacyons for ye tyme of Mass._ Bib. Bodl. MS. Wood. 9.
John Myrc, _Instructions for Parish Priests_. Brit. Mus. Claud. A. ii.
ed. E. Peacock (E. English Text Soc.). 1868.
_Pœniteas cito._ A practical work on Confession, printed by Wynkyn de
Worde in 1510 and again in 1520. Well known abroad; Quentell issued
six editions.
_Sermones Michælis de Ungaria._ 1510.
_Speculum Christiani._ John Watton. Harl. MS. 206; 2250. Lansd. MS.
344; Add. MSS. 21,202; 22,121; 10,052; 15,237. Cf. also MSS. Reg.
8 E. v. and 9 D. xv. Printed four times before 1513.
_Speculum Christianorum._ Ushaw Coll. Lib.
_Speculum Peccatorum_, or “The Glasse for a Sinner.” Harl. MS. 3363
(ff. 59-64); MS. Reg. 8 F. vii. f. 24d.
_Speculum Penitentis_, by W. de Montibus. Cott. MS. Vesp. D. xiii.
(ff. 60-67).
_Summa Magistri Alani._ Brit. Mus. Cott. MS. Vesp. D. xiii. (ff.
67d-100).
_Tabula Fidei Christiani._ Brief statement for priests. Add. MS.
15,237 (ff. 9-54).
_Tabular Instructions._ Harl. MS. 1648.
MISCELLANEOUS
Wilkins’ _Concilia_.
_Lay Folks Mass Book._ ed. T. F. Simmons for E. Eng. Text Soc. 1879.
Lyndwood’s _Provinciale._
_Deed of Induction to a Benefice._ Harl. Ch. 44 c. 35.
_Valor Ecclesiasticus._
The _Lay Folks Catechism_ (E. Eng. Text Soc.). 1901.
Rock’s _Church of our Fathers_.
_The Prymer or Lay Folks Prayer Book_ (ed. H. Littlehales for E. Eng.
Text Soc.). 1897.
J. S. Burn, _History of Henley-on-Thames_, 1861 (particularly Chapter
V.).
H. Swinden, _History of Great Yarmouth_ (sect. xxii., St. Nicholas’
Church).
_Testamenta Eboracensia_ (Surtees Soc.). 6 vols.
_Chester Wills_ (copies). Brit. Mus. Harl. MS. 2067.
_Calendar of Wills in the Court of Hustings London._ ed. R. R. Sharpe.
_Fifty Earliest English Wills_ (E. Eng. Text Soc.). 1882.
_Wills and Inventories of Northern Counties._ 2 pts. (Surtees Soc.).
_Calendar of Wills._ Worcester, ed. E. A. Fry (Worc. Hist. Soc.).
Manship, _Hist. of Great Yarmouth_, ii. p. 114 _seqq._
J. J. Raven, _The Church Bells of Suffolk_.
W. A. Scott-Robertson, _Mediæval Folkestone_. 1876.
J. Gardner, _Hist. Account of Dunwich, Blithburg, and Southwold_. 1754.
A. Gibbons, _Early Lincoln Wills_, 1888.
C. Bailey, _Transcripts from Municipal Archives of Winchester_ (p. 66,
The Corpus Christi Procession).
_The Babees Book_ (ed. F. J. Furnivall for E. Eng. Text Soc.). 1868.
R. Whytforde, _A Werke for Housholders_. 1533.
Archbishop Hamilton, _The Catechism_.
T. C. Smith, _Records of Preston Parish and Amounderness_.
C. Atchley, _The Parish Clerk_.
Dr. Jessopp, _Parish Life in England before the Great Pillage_ (two
articles in _The Nineteenth Century_, January and March, 1898).
J. J. Wilkinson, _Receipts and Expenses in building Bodmin Church_.
1469-1472 (Camden Soc. Misc. vi. 1874).
_English Prayers_, printed (Sarum Horæ, 1527; B. Mus. c. 35, h. 9).
_The Prymer in English._ 1538.
Chr. Wordsworth, _Notes on Mediæval Services in England_. 1898.
_Parish Clerk, Duties of_ (_vide_ in _Clifton Antiq. Club_, i. 143).
_The Clerk’s Book of 1549._ ed. J. Wickham Legg (H. Bradshaw Soc. vol.
xxv.).
T. Sharp, _Illustrations of the History of Holy Trinity Church,
Coventry_. 1818.
James Christie, _Some Account of Parish Clerks_. 1893.
O. J. Reichel, _The Rise of the Parochial System in England_. 1905.
H. W. Clarke, _The History of Tithes_. 1887.
H. Grove, _Alienated Tithes_. 1896.
Lupset, T., _Exhortation to Younge Men_. 1535.
PARISH LIFE IN MEDIÆVAL ENGLAND
CHAPTER I
THE PARISH
Any account of parish life in mediæval England must include much more
than might at first sight be supposed. To imagine that the story of
the parson and his church could adequately represent the story of the
parish, even with all that the one had to do for his people and all
that in the other was contained and done, is somewhat like thinking
that the biographies of kings and nobles and the chronicle of their
battles and achievements would tell properly the story of a people or a
country. The fact is, that in those far-off days the parish church was
the centre of popular life all the country over, and that the priest
and other parochial officials were the recognised managers of many
interests beyond those of a strictly ecclesiastical nature. Religion
and religious observances then formed an integral part of the English
people’s very existence in a way somewhat difficult for us to grasp in
these days, when the undoubted tendency is to set God and the things
of God outside the pale of ordinary worldly affairs, and to keep them
out as far as possible. It is unnecessary here, of course, to determine
which method is right and which is wrong; but it is useful, to say the
least, that the fact of this change of attitude should be borne in mind
in any examination into the parish life of mediæval England. To fail to
appreciate the intimate connection between the Church and the people
throughout that period of our national life will cause the observer to
misread many of the facts, upon which a correct judgment of that time
must depend. A writer in the _National Review_ does not overstate the
truth when he says--
“In the Middle Ages the conscious sharing in a world-wide tradition
bound the local to the universal life, and through art and ritual the
minds of the poor were familiarised with facts of the Christian faith.
By our own poor I fear these facts are very dimly realised to-day.”
THE PARISH
At the outset it will be well to determine the exact meaning of the
word “parish,” and to establish as far as is possible the origin of
the English parochial system. As an institution, although occupying
so important a position from the early Middle Ages, the division of
the country into parishes does not appear to have come down from great
antiquity. The word “parish”--the English equivalent for the Latin
_parocia_--is derived from the Christian use of the Greek word παροικία
in the sense of a district or diocese under the rule and jurisdiction
of a bishop. In a recent paper on “The Rise of the Parochial
System,” printed in the _Transactions of the Exeter Architectural
and Archæological Society_, the author, the Rev. Oswald Reichel, has
treated this question fully and in a most satisfactory manner. What
has been so well done need not be done over again. I consequently make
no apology for here following very closely his line of argument and
presenting his conclusions.
In Rome, Carthage, and other large cities, “for the sake of the
people,” as Pope Innocent I. says in a letter written in A.D. 416,
there were district clergy appointed to preside at the services on the
Sundays. Even then, however, in order that they might not consider
themselves “separated from his communion,” he sent to them by his
acolytes what he calls the “fermentum,” made by himself, which has
been variously interpreted to mean the Holy Eucharist consecrated by
him as bishop, or bread he had blessed, as a symbol of the communion
of all the district churches with the central one; but which is almost
certainly the former.
These district clergy, however, were not parish priests as we
understand them. For (1) they belonged to the church of the bishop,
though from time to time detailed for duty in the various churches,
which existed according to need in each region or division of the city.
Over each of these regions a deacon presided as the bishop’s delegate.
(2) The direct government of the church and the cure of souls belonged
to the bishop in all places within his jurisdiction, and services were
performed by him, assisted by the city clergy, on fixed days in various
churches in rotation. (3) Although it is possible to trace separate
revenues for separate churches as early as the end of the fifth
century, the offerings of the churches of a district were not kept
apart, but were administered by the deacon of the region to which they
all belonged as contributions to a common fund.
It is obvious, therefore, that the district clergy, thus described,
cannot be claimed as the origin of our parochial system. The English
parish priest was established to meet the needs of the country rather
than of the city; and, beginning in the first instance to act as
chaplains of landowners, who required the services of religion for
themselves or their tenants, they gradually acquired the position of
ecclesiastical freeholders. Appointed by the patron, they received
their office and their spiritual faculties from the bishop of the see;
and, whilst subordinated to him according to law, were yet irremoveable
except by the strict process of canonical law and for serious offences.
Whatever may have been the early dependence of the priest on the
patron, by the fourth Council of Orleans, A.D. 541, the bishop was
directed to control and protect these clergy and in A.D. 813 the
Council of Mainz forbade laymen to deprive presbyters of churches which
they served or to appoint them without episcopal sanction. It was not,
however, till the twelfth century, according to Mr. Reichel, that the
country parson had acquired full recognition as the permanent and
official ruler of a portion of the Lord’s vineyard presided over by the
bishop of the diocese.
The sphere of work of the local clergy was the parish, which was
by no means the same as the town, hamlet, or manor. According to
an authority, in the thirteenth century the distinction was fully
recognised. “For in one town there may be several parishes,” he says,
“and in one parish several manors, and several hamlets may belong
to one manor.” The parochial system, then, in the Middle Ages, had
come to occupy three separate _functions_. It had acquired, in the
first place, the notion of a well-defined group of families organised
for the purposes of social order and the relief of needy brethren.
Secondly, the word “parish,” applied to the same group, was regarded as
a sub-unit of ecclesiastical administration, directly under the parish
priest, indirectly under the bishop. Thirdly, it was the name of the
foundation property or estate.
From the earliest times in the Christian Church the duty of all to
assist according to their means in the support of their poorer brethren
was fully recognised. The peculiar method, however, of enforcing this
duty by the regular payment of tithes was apparently insisted on in the
West by the second Council of Macon in A.D. 585, and in the Council of
Rouen in A.D. 650. In England, to speak only of it, by the middle of
the tenth century the religious duty of paying tithe was enforceable
at law, and this tax was commonly called “God’s portion,” “God’s
consecrated property,” “the Lord’s Bread,” “the patrimony of Christ,”
“the tribute of needy souls.” This was undoubtedly the view taken in
pre-Reformation days of the duty of all to pay the tenth portion of
their goods for the use of the Church. What that use was has frequently
been entirely misrepresented and misunderstood. In the words of the
author of the tract on the _Rise of the Parochial System in England_--
“it must be always remembered that in the view of the Church, tithes
other than first fruits, and tithes of increase, were destined not to
provide a maintenance for the clergy, but for the relief and support
of the poor; and the rector, whether of a religious house or parochial
incumbent, was supposed to administer them for these purposes, he
being only a ruler or administrator of them.... During the whole of
the time that the English Church was ruled as an integral part of the
Western Patriarchate, this view of the destination of tithes, and of
the rector’s or administrator’s duty in respect of them, was never
lost sight of.”
In regard, then, to the general notion of a parish, and as to how the
parochial system was extended and developed in England, Mr. Reichel’s
general summary at the end of his tract is important and interesting.
It began, he concludes, in Saxon times, and assumed its complete form
in the Councils of London and Westminster in the twelfth century.
In the centuries which followed, and with which we are concerned,
the administration of tithes was frequently entrusted to the actual
incumbent, and in some cases to religious houses or collegiate
establishments. But in any case the duty of the administrator was
understood and acknowledged, and, it must be supposed, acted upon. The
mistaken notion as to this has arisen probably from a neglect to bear
in mind what happened at the period of the Reformation.
“At and since the Reformation,” says our author, “custom has
persistently regarded such administrations as endowments of the
parson, clerical or lay, not as gifts to the poor, of which he is only
the administrator. Monastic parsons were then simply deprived of them
by law, and the administrations they held were granted as property
to laymen, whilst, to meet the wishes of a married clergy, parochial
incumbents were released from all claims at law for charitable
purposes.”
It is important to bear in mind that a properly organised “parish” was
a corporation, and acted as a “corporation,” and as such no lords of
the manor or political personages had any sort of power or authority
over it. They might be, and, in fact, of course always were, members
of the corporation--parishioners--and their positions entitled them to
respect and gave, no doubt, authority to their suggestions. But the
records of the old parishes that have come down to our time clearly
prove that “Squire-rule” over parson and people in mediæval parochial
life did not exist. Sometimes, no doubt, the “great men” of a place
tried to have their own way, but they were quickly shown that the
“corporation” of the parish was under the protection of a power greater
than any they possessed--the power of the Church; and, as a matter of
fact, this was so well recognised that it is difficult enough to find
individual instances of any great landlords who were willing to try
conclusions with the paramount Spiritual authority. To “Holy Mother
Church” all were the same, and within God’s House the tenant, the
villain, and the serf stood side by side with the overlord and master.
In fact, at times, as when a feast fell upon a day when work had to be
done by custom for the lord of the manor, the law of the Church forbade
these servile works, and the master had perforce to acquiesce. In other
words, the parish, so far as it was organised, had been the creation of
the Church, and was free.
“The parish,” writes Bishop Hobhouse, “was the community of the
township organised for Church purposes, and subject to Church
discipline, with a constitution which recognised the rights of the
whole body as an aggregate, and the right of every adult member,
_whether man or woman_, to a voice in self-government, but at the same
time kept the self-governing community under a system of inspection
and restraint by a central authority outside the parish boundaries.”
One thing especially bound the parish together most firmly. The fact
that the belief and practice of all was the same--that every soul in
the parish worshipped in the same church and in the same way, that
all kept the same fasts and feasts and were assisted by the same
Sacraments, gave a unity to the corporation almost impossible now to
conceive. But over and above this, the knowledge that parson and people
were bound together by the parochial system, and, so to speak, existed
for each other, strengthened even the ties of pure religion. In nearly
all the documents illustrating parish life of, say, the fifteenth
century, there is evidence of the community of purpose of pastor and
people which is really astounding. As already pointed out, every rector
and vicar throughout England not only regarded himself in theory as a
steward of the _panis Dominicus_ (the Lord’s Bread), under which name
was meant charity to all that came to claim support; but if the laws
of the English Church and Lyndwood’s authoritative gloss mean anything
whatever, this sacred duty was carried out in practice. Wherever
rectors do not reside in the place of their cures, says Archbishop
Peckham, they are bound to keep proctors or agents to exercise proper
hospitality or charity as far as the means of their churches will
allow, and at the very least to relieve every parishioner in extreme
necessity; and the gloss adds that the rector of a church on the
high-road and in a frequented place will obviously have to spend much
more than one whose cure lies off the beaten track. For this reason,
it says, the clergy of the churches in England are well endowed,
especially where the calls upon them for this hospitality are great.
This duty of considering the revenues of a parish as common property
to be held in trust for the needs of hospitality and the relief of
the poor is inculcated in every tract dealing with the subject, and
acknowledged in numberless ways. In the will of William Sheffield, Dean
of York in 1496, for example, the testator, after making some small
bequests, says--
“I will that the rest of my goods be distributed amongst the poor,
in all the benefices that I have ever held or now hold--more or less
being given according to the length of time I have lived in them
and maintained hospitality--for the property of a church is the
property of the poor, and for this reason the conscience is greatly
burdened in the disposal of the goods of the Church. And for the heavy
responsibility of these distributions, Jesus have mercy.”
In another case, in the diocese of Exeter in 1440, a rector is
specially praised at a Visitation, and it is declared that he “has
done much good, in his parish, because he has rebuilt the chancel of
his church, and has added two good rooms, one for himself, and ‘one to
exercise hospitality’ in behalf of those who need it.”
Here, before speaking of the working of a parish in pre-Reformation
days, it may be convenient briefly to treat about the somewhat
intricate question of tithes. The gifts offered by the faithful to the
Church for the support of the ministers, the upkeep of its officers, or
as an acknowledgment of special services, such as baptisms, marriages,
the churching of women, and burials, were roughly classed under two
main divisions--tithes and oblations. The latter were personal, and
to a large extent voluntary, although custom had somewhat determined
the minimum fees which all who could were expected to pay for
services exercised in their behalf. In England, as Lyndwood notes,
oblations were almost wholly made in the form of money; and by law
these offerings were regarded more as being the personal property
of the priests than were tithes, and for this reason they might be
spent more freely, according to the wishes of the clergy. Still, even
in regard to this, the insertion of the word “generally” in the law
seems to the author of the gloss to point to the fact that the clergy
are not altogether free as to the application of any surplus from
these oblations made to them, if for no other reason than because any
apparent squandering of such ecclesiastical revenues might “tend to
destroy the devotion of the people.” In oblations of this sort, of
course, are not included such as were made in kind for the service of
the altar and offered to the priest during the Mass, such as the bread
and wine for the Sacrifice, brought in turns by the chief parishioners
on Sundays and Feast-days.
_Tithes_ are commonly defined as “the tenth part of all fruits and
profits justly acquired, owed to God in recognition of His supreme
dominion over man, and to be paid to the ministers of the Church.” In
the Old Dispensation this recognition was made by Abraham, promised
under vow by Jacob, and legally regulated by Moses. In early Christian
times, if there is no evidence of the existence of the practice, it
is only because the voluntary offerings of the faithful were ample to
supply the needs of the Church and its ministers, whilst the community
of goods practised by the first Christians hardly allowed the existence
of real poverty among them. As the Church grew, its needs, and in
particular the less obvious needs of the faithful poor, required some
more regular and certain resources than the irregular and voluntary
alms of its richer members. So in the Council of Macon in A.D. 585 is
found the first express declaration of the Christian obligation of
paying tithes, not indeed as a new law, but as the assertion of an
admitted Christian principle. In the eighth century these payments
began to be regularly made throughout the Western Church, and in
England, according to the Saxon Chronicle, in A.D. 855 the father of
King Alfred, Ethelwulf of Wessex, is said to have “assigned to the
Church the tenth part of his land all over his kingdom for the love
of God and his own everlasting weal.” In this it is almost certain
that the Chronicle is wrong in the form of expression, and that what
Ethelwulf did was to decree the payment of a tithe of the produce,
and not hand over a tenth of the land as an endowment of the Church.
And here it may be well to remark that there was obviously nothing
sacro-sanct about the tenth portion payable for Church purposes. It is
merely a portion that is taken to represent what is generally a fair
offering to God, and one not too burdensome on those who had to pay. In
some cases it might be and indeed, according to custom, was greater or
less in different places.
Tithes were usually divided into two kinds--_predial_ and _personal_;
“some coming of the earth,” says the author of _Dives and Pauper_,
“as corn, wine, bestayle, that is brought forth by the land, and such
thyngs be clepyd _predyales_ in latyn. Some thyngs comyth oonly of
the person, as be merchandy and werkmanschyp, and such bene clepyd
_personales_ in latyn.” In these a man is to account his expenses, and
then see whether he has gained, and so pay a tithe of his profit; but
this may not be done in the case of the predial tithes. In these “he is
not to count his expenses, but pay his tithe of all, neither the worst
nor the best, but as it comes.”
The Council of Merton, in 1305, set forth a schedule of the things
upon which tithes had to be paid by law; this included the cutting and
felling of trees and woods, the pasturage of the forests, and the sale
of the timber; the profits of vineyards, fisheries, rivers, dovecots,
and fish-stews; the fruits of trees, the offspring of animals, the
grass harvest, and that of all things sown; of fruits, of warrens of
wild animals, of hawking, of gardens and manses, of wool, flax, and
wine; of grain and of turf, where it was dug and dried; of pea-fowl,
swans, and capons; of geese and ducks; of lambs, calves, and colts,
of hedge cuttings, of eggs, of rabbits, of bees with their honey and
wax; together with the profits from mills, hunting, handicrafts of all
sorts, and every manner of business. As to these, _Dives and Pauper_,
on the authority of canonists, teaches that people should be reminded
that tithe is, in the first place, an acknowledgment to God for what
He has Himself first given to men. Consequently, all should willingly
pay this tribute to Him, and thus continue to deserve His blessings:
also, that they should remember that nothing was exempt from this
tribute--wind-mills and water-mills, tanneries and fulling-mills,
all mines of silver and other metals, all quarries of stone, and all
profits of the merchant and the craftsman.
_Predial_ tithe, in a word, was payable on the annual crops of corn,
wine, oil, and fruits, etc., and on the natural increase of cattle,
including milk and cheese. These predial tithes were distinguished,
again, into the _Greater_ tithe--that is, on corn, wine, and wool;
and the _Lesser_ tithe on vegetables and fruits, etc. The tithes
_personal_ were to be paid on profits of trade and business. All this
was acknowledged as sanctioned or ordered by “Divine law or custom.”
All tithes on the land-predial were to be paid to the rector of the
parish in which the land was situated or the animals usually fed; all
tithes on business occupation, to the parish where the tithe-payer was
bound by law to receive the Sacraments. “Tithes personal,” says the
author above quoted, “as of merchandise and of crafte, man shall payen
to his parish church where he dwelleth and taketh his Sacraments and
heareth his service, but tithes predial shall been payed to the church
to which the manor and the land belongeth, unless custom be in the
contrary.” Difficulties sometimes necessarily arose as to cases where
flocks of sheep, etc., were at different times in different parishes,
but by episcopal constitutions this was settled on the common-sense
principle of dividing the tithe receivable, according to the proportion
of the time spent in each parish. It was otherwise in the case of
cattle feeding on land in several parishes--“horn with horn,” as the
natives called such a practice; in this case the tithe was to be
paid to the parish in which the permanent sheds of the cattle at the
farmstead were situated. With difficulties of this nature it is not
necessary to deal, and the foregoing examples are given merely to show
how universal the practice was and how carefully the obligation was
fulfilled.
Bishop Peter Quevil, in the Synod of Exeter, held in 1287, lays down
several principles which are to guide the authorities in the levying of
tithes. It will be remembered that it is from these Constitutions that
so much as to the practical working of the Church of England in the
thirteenth century is known. From what he says as to tithes, it seems
that there was growing up a practice of seeking to deduct the cost of
production before counting the tithe. This might seem not unreasonable,
but the bishop condemns it, and says that “expenses are by no means to
be deducted first.” In the same way he refused to recognise as right
any claim to set aside a tenth part of a field and to count as tithe
of the whole whatever was grown upon that portion. So, too, in the
west country a practice had grown up in certain places for farmers to
refuse to pay their dues until the parson had given a harvest feast and
a pair of gloves to the workmen. This is forbidden as contrary to law.
In the same way, as the bishop says, “many and well-nigh unanswerable
questions” arose in the levying of the tithe; but from time to time
these were made the subject of synodal directions, as may be seen in
Wilkins’ great collection, and in practice these difficulties would
appear generally to have answered themselves by the application of a
little common sense, assisted by a measure of good-will, which most
certainly existed in those days.
It is usually difficult to obtain information about the amounts of
the tithe derived from the various sources titheable. Generally the
accounts do not set out the items, and give merely the totals. For the
diocese of Rochester, however, in 1536, the _Valor Ecclesiasticus_
gives the details in many instances. From these we learn that the
tithe generally had a twofold division; for instance, the Rector of
Huntingdon, besides £9 a year derived from the rectory house and the
rent of 21 acres of pasture, accounted for the tithe of grain and hay,
which produced, according to the then money value, 26_s._ 8_d._, and
the tithe of wool and of lambs, bringing in £4 8_s._ 9_d._ He received
also an annual average of £17 2_s._ 5_d._ from oblations and private
donations. In the same way the Vicar of Dartford received £16 13_s._
4_d._ for the tithe of wool and lambs, £2 for the hay tithe, and £25
13_s._ 4_d._ for all other tithes and oblations.
A word must now be said about the impropriation of parochial tithes
to cathedrals, monasteries, and collegiate establishments. It is
very generally stated that this was one of the great abuses of the
mediæval Church redressed at the time of the Reformation. Without in
any way wishing to defend the practice of assigning tithes to purposes
other than the work of the parish in which they were receivable, it
should in justice be borne in mind that this was never done without
the sanction of the bishop, and upon the condition that the vicar
should receive amply sufficient for his support and for the purpose
of his parochial work. The notion of “the great robbery” of parishes
to endow monasteries, and of the “miserable stipends” on which those
who occupied the post of vicars existed or starved, is in view of
records not borne out by facts. The “miserable stipends” formed only
part of the emoluments of those who served impropriated churches;
they had also the lesser tithes and all oblations made to them, and
the bishops were bound by law to see, and in fact did see, that their
income was sufficient. Moreover, though not very numerous, there are
in the episcopal registers a sufficient number of examples to show
that the arrangements, made between the impropriators and the vicar,
and sanctioned by the bishop, were open to readjustment if necessary.
At East Anthony, in the diocese of Exeter, for example, this is
exemplified, and the settlement made by Bishop Grandisson is confirmed
by Bishop Stapeldon, and the principle is laid down that “the Bishop
and his successors have power, should they see fit, to encrease,
diminish, or change the amount to be paid to the holder of the vicarage
and the conditions upon which it is held.”
It will be useful to take one or two examples of the division of
tithes between the impropriator and vicar in an impropriated living.
The rectory of Preston, in the county of Kent, for instance, was
impropriated to St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, which derived £16 a year
from it. Out of this sum 53_s._ 5_d._ in money was paid by way of
pension to the vicar, and 6_s._ 8_d._ in lieu of a certain quantity of
corn--in all £3. This, however, was not by any means the whole income
enjoyed by the vicar, for he also received from the lesser tithes and
personal oblations another £6 15_s._, bringing his stipend up to the
sum of £9 15_s._ a year, or ample, according to the value of money in
the sixteenth century, to live upon. Again, the church of Monketon and
that of Birchington, in the same county of Kent, were impropriated to
the monastery of Christ Church, Canterbury. From them the monks derived
£66 13_s._ 10_d._ for their house, and out of this £1 12_s._ 4_d._ had
to be spent upon the poor of the place, and £12 1_s._ 8_d._ was paid
to the vicar as his stipend. He received also £11 annually from tithes
and oblations, and paid two curates, to serve Birchington and another
annexed chapel, £9 13_s._ 4_d._ This left him still £13 8_s._ 4_d._ as
his own annual stipend, which was about three times what he considered
sufficient for each of his curates. To take one more example: from the
church of Chistlett the monks of St. Augustine’s, Canterbury--who, by
the way, were lords of the manor--received from the rectorial tithes
£40 a year; the vicar’s tithes, together with the glebe lands, bringing
him £30 a year.
It would appear from these instances, which could be multiplied
indefinitely, that, except for the fact that tithe was taken from
the district where it was raised, the grievance of which so much has
been made, is an academic rather than a real one, and one of modern
invention rather than one existing in the Middle Ages. That there
were complaints occasionally may be allowed. Still, not only were
they rare, but in the episcopal registers it may be seen that, in the
few instances where they came before the bishop, they were declared
to be groundless. They generally arose out of the Visitations when
the vicar had been ordered to repair the chancel of his church, or
procure some choir-books, or to do some other work for which by law the
incumbent was held responsible. The vicar pleaded as his excuse for
the dilapidation, or for his inability to do the work required, that
the impropriator should be made to do all this, as he took so much of
the tithe away from the place. It is rarely indeed that such a claim
was considered reasonable, and for the most part the reply was that
this had been considered at the time of the original impropriation, and
that sufficient had been allowed to the vicar to carry out these legal
obligations, and that all things had been made fitting and all repairs
seen to before the vicarage had been established.
The grounds upon which impropriation made by lawful authority was
justified in the Middle Ages were, apparently, that originally tithe
had been paid to the bishop of the diocese for the general good of the
entire district. By his administration of these diocesan funds he was
enabled to assist good works of every kind at his discretion. When
in process of time the parish became a sub-unit of administration,
the local tithe passed into the administration of the local parson;
but never without the dormant notion, not only of episcopal control,
but fundamentally of ultimate episcopal authority over it. Up to the
Reformation it was taught that tithe really ought to be divided into
four parts: one part to go to the bishop, if he needed it; one to the
ministers; one to the poor; and the fourth part for the repair of
the church fabric. The notion that it was the great landowners who
in the first instance endowed the parish churches with tithes, and
subsequently took them, or a portion of them, away and gave them to
religious houses and colleges, is for the most part quite imaginary.
Tithe was, as already pointed out, the recognition of God’s supreme
authority over the world, and a public acknowledgment that all things
came from His hands, and the idea, which is a product of modern
notions, that it was a charge made upon the land for the benefit of
religion, is wholly alien to the spirit of pre-Reformation days. The
very fact that this does not explain the existence of personal tithes,
shows that the giving of tithes generally did not depend upon the
generosity of any landowner or lord of the manor.
Neither was the tithe ever regarded as the absolute property of the
incumbent. Besides his recognised duty in regard to the repairs of
the chancel, the poor were regarded as having legal claims upon what
was received by him. What seems to us a somewhat strange custom was
occasionally practised in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. This
was the farming out of tithes by the rectors, or, in other words,
raising money upon their expected receipts. For this the sanction of
the bishop had previously to be obtained, and any pledging of the tithe
for more than the current year was illegal. Beyond this, where a rector
or prelate put his benefice out to farm, according to the law, he was
bound to get four of his parishioners, approved by the bishop, to be
surety for the faithful payment of the full portion (_pinguis portio_)
of the tithe due to the poor of the parish. “I hold,” however, says the
canonist Lyndwood, that this is not necessary “in the case of a rector
or prelate, who, after farming out his tithes lawfully, continues
to live in his benefice, unless he is suspected of not intending to
succour those in poverty.”
The duty of paying lawful tithes was constantly inculcated by synodal
decrees, by bishops’ letters, and from the pulpit. Thus John Myrc, in
his _Instructions for Parish Priests_, tells them--
“Teche hem also welle and greythe
How they schell paye here teythe
Of all thynge that doth hem newe
They shuld teythe welle and trewe
After the custome of that cuntraye
Every mon hys teythynge schale pay.”
The author, however, says that he has no need to speak much of that
matter, as priests will see to it that their tithes are paid in due
time; and in a _Sarum Manuale_ it is found set down that by law “men
of religion, freres, and all other,” who “go about and preache Goddes
worde,” are commanded to preach eight times in the year upon the nature
of tithes and on the obligation of paying them to the parish priests.
That this duty was recognised, and that on the whole it was cheerfully
complied with in the Middle Ages, would appear to be certain. It is,
moreover, no less apparent that these payments were regarded, not in
the light of a charge upon the land, but of a genuine acknowledgment to
God of His supreme governance of the world, that all things were His,
and that in His hands were the ends of the earth. The general spirit
in which the obligation was regarded may be seen in the wills of the
period, where the testators not only desired that all lawful tithes
might be paid from their estates, but very generally left benefactions
to their parish churches “for tithes forgotten.”