THE PARISH CHURCH
The “parish” is described by Bishop Hobhouse as the community dwelling
in an area defined by the Church, organised for Church purposes, and
subject to Church authority. “Within this area,” he says, “every
resident was a parishioner, and, as such, owed his duty of worship
and contribution to one stated church, and his duty of confession and
submission to the official guidance of a stated pastor, entitled his
Rector, or to the Rectors deputy, entitled Vicar.”
The centre of every mediæval parish, then, was its church. It was,
as it were, the mainspring of the machinery of parochial life, which
cannot be understood without a full knowledge of its position in regard
to the people generally, and of all that it was to the inhabitants of a
district in pre-Reformation days.
For our present purposes, we need not, of course, concern ourselves
with trying to solve the vexed question as to who it was that first
built the parochial churches. About this there is, and probably will
remain, much obscurity. In the first instance, in England, very
possibly, they were the creation of some nobles or rich landlords, who
desired to secure the services of religion for the people dwelling
upon their estates, as tenants, servants, or serfs, and who, having
obtained from the bishop of the district his leave to set up an
oratory or church, obtained the ministration of a priest. Whatever the
origin, it is certain that long before the fourteenth or fifteenth
centuries the parish church had practically come to be the property
of the parishioners generally in a very definite manner, and, with
certain exceptions, to which reference will presently be made, upon
the inhabitants of a parochial district as a corporation lay the duty
of repairing and rebuilding the fabric, of beautifying the edifice, of
maintaining the services, and of seeing generally to its well-being.
This they did as a matter of well-recognised obligation and duty; but
obviously also as a matter which afforded them much satisfaction and
pleasure.
The fabric of the church consisted of the _nave_, with its chapels and
aisles, when it had any, and the _chancel_, which included the choir
and presbytery. In England, at least, there was a well-recognised and
very general distinction between the chancel and the nave. The former
was sometimes called the “parson’s freehold,” and to him belonged the
entire care of his “chancel,” and the duty of keeping it in repair. In
fact, it was not disputed that one part of the tithe received by the
priest from the parish was intended to furnish him with ample means for
fulfilling this duty, and in the event of death removing an incumbent,
where there were dilapidations in the chancel, which had not been seen
to by him, his successor could, and frequently did, claim compensation
from the heirs of the deceased.
The synodal directions given with regard to the care and repair of the
chancels are definite. “In parish churches,” says one of 1350, taken
as an example, “the chancel is to be found and maintained fittingly
in all things by the Rector.” Bishop Brantyngham, of Exeter, issued
a “declaration” as to the custom in his diocese as laid down by his
predecessor, Bishop Quevil. In this he says that--
“the work of constructing and repairing the chancels of all mother
churches belongs to the rectors of the parishes; but that of the naves
pertains to the parishioners, without regard to any contrary custom.
In the case of chapels, which have their distinct parochial district,
the entire duty of maintenance belongs to the parishioners of the
chapel, as it is for their convenience such chapels are built, and,
moreover, they may be obliged to assist, in case of need, the mother
church.”
This was the ordinary rule in England, as we see from the gloss on
the Constitutions of Cardinal Othoboni, where Lyndwood calls it “the
common custom in England that the parishioners repair the nave of the
church where they sit,” and that if the rector has the fourth part
of the tithe, which was intended for the repairs of the church, he
should by law see to all the repairs. “By praiseworthy custom,” in
England, however, the author adds, the repair of the chancel only is
an obligation of the rector, although he cannot entirely free himself
of all responsibility for the rest of the church. Sometimes, however,
as the canonist notes, as, for example, in some London churches
and elsewhere, the care of the chancel is also a matter for the
parishioners, and the parson, although taking “the fourth part of the
tithe” intended to meet the general expenses of church repairs, is yet
held to be free of the obligation.
Sometimes, as may be seen in the visitations of parochial churches,
difficulties arose about the precise obligation of parson and people as
to the repair even of the chancel. In the Register of Bishop Stapledon,
for instance, at the inquiry held in 1301, at St. Mary Church, the
parishioners represented that, up to the time of the then vicar,
they had been accustomed to repair the chancel, and because of this
the tithe on all store cattle had not been demanded of them. The new
vicar had made them pay this, but yet had not done the repairs to the
chancel, and wanted them to continue to do so. So, too, during Bishop
Grandisson’s episcopate, the question whether the parishioners paid the
“decimas instauri” was the determining reason as to whether they should
be compelled to repair the chancels or not.
In regard to the care of the fabric the case of appropriated churches
was somewhat peculiar. The corporation to which the living was
impropriated held the position of rector, the cure being administered
by a vicar appointed by it and licensed by the bishop, just as in
the case of a nomination to any benefice by a patron. As a rule the
religious house, college, or official holding the impropriated tithes,
got rid of the rectorial obligation of seeing to the maintenance of
the chancel, by arranging with the bishop that the vicar should have
sufficient regular income to cover all the expenses of dilapidations.
In this case the usual practice was that, upon first becoming lawfully
possessed of the appropriated tithe, the corporation was bound by
the bishop, as one condition of his assent, to place the chancel in
thorough repair and to see that everything, which the rector had been
bound by custom to provide, was in good order. After this had been
done, it was calculated, and indeed arranged, that out of the income
of the vicar these could be maintained in good order. The arrangement,
however, was subject to revision by the bishop, and although in
practice the original agreement was usually upheld, there are to be
found examples of the holders of impropriated tithes being compelled by
the ecclesiastical authority to contribute to the repairs of chancels,
etc., and even to undertake the entire work, where the means of the
vicars were obviously inadequate to do what was necessary.
Some examples of this will illustrate the matter more completely than
any statement of the practice. In 1296, Bishop Thomas de Bytton, of
Exeter, was called upon to adjudicate upon this question in regard
to the vicarage of Morwenstowe, the greater tithes of which had been
previously appropriated to the Hospital of St. John at Bridgewater by
Bishop Peter Quevil, with the consent of his canons. The grant had been
made with the provision that fitting support should be allowed for
the vicarage, the amount to be determined and arranged by the bishop
and his successors. This, Bishop de Bytton did, in fact, determine by
the document referred to. The vicar, according to this settlement, by
reason of his vicarage, was to take certain tithes, which, amongst
others, were to include that of all the hay and the mills in the whole
parish, as well as the rent of certain crofts, etc. The brethren of
the Hospital were to find or renew all the ornaments and books not
provided by the parishioners, and it was agreed that these, once being
set right, must afterwards be maintained by the vicar. He was also to
see to all ordinary repairs, and even extraordinary repairs up to the
amount of the fourth part of the tithe received by him. But “any other
extraordinary expense, together with the upkeep, repair, or rebuilding
of the chancel of the church, was to be met by the said religious
brethren” of the Hospital of Bridgewater.
That this settlement was not at all exceptional could be proved by many
documents; one must suffice. When Bodmin church was rebuilt between the
years 1469 and 1472 the patrons, the Monastery of St. Petrock, defrayed
the entire expenses connected with the chancel. On the other hand, to
illustrate the usual practice, the case of the vicarage of Launcells in
Devonshire may be cited. The Abbot and Monastery of Hartland held the
appropriated tithes, and in 1382, the chancel standing in need of great
repairs, apparently amounting almost to rebuilding, the vicar refused
to carry out the injunctions of the archdeacon forthwith to undertake
the work, on the plea that this was the duty of the Abbey of Hartland.
The convent denied their obligation, but submitted themselves in the
matter to the judgment of the bishop of the diocese. After holding an
inquiry, Bishop Thomas Brantyngham declared that the vicar received
tithes for the purpose of carrying out all repairs to the chancel, and
that consequently the monks were free from the obligation.
What the material church was to the parishioners of a mediæval parish
is well described in the synodical Constitutions of Bishop Woodlock, of
Winchester, at the beginning of the fourteenth century.
“If the Israelites,” he says, “living in the shadow of the law,
required specially dedicated places in which to worship the Lord, with
how much more reason are Christians, to whom the loving-kindness and
the humanity of the Saviour has appeared, bound by all the means at
their disposal to obtain consecrated churches, in which day by day the
Son of God is offered in Sacrifice.”
Then after saying that churches that have not been consecrated are to
be solemnly dedicated as soon as possible, he continues--
“The anniversaries of the dedications of parish churches are to
be kept by the parishioners, and those attending chapels in the
neighbourhood not themselves dedicated. The day and the year of the
consecration, with the name of the consecrating prelates, are to be
entered in the calendar and other books belonging to the church.”
The dedication of the church to God was the essential condition of its
endowment. According to Bracton, the dower made to the church with
church lands at its dedication, was a possession of “pure and free
alms,” in distinction “from a lay feud,” seeing that it “is with more
propriety called free, since it is dedicated as it were to God.”
“If,” says the Constitution of Cardinal Otho for the English
Church--“if under the Old Testament the Temple was dedicated to God
for the offering of dead animals, with how much more reason should the
churches of the New Law be specially consecrated to Him when on the
altars is daily offered for us by the hands of the priest the living
and true Victim, that is, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.”
The reverence due to churches, and things once dedicated to the service
of churches, was universal in the Middle Ages. Cloths, used as chrism
cloths at Baptism or Confirmation, were to be devoted to ecclesiastical
purposes or destroyed, and those who turned anything thus once offered
to God to any secular use were considered gravely blameworthy. The
gloss upon a Constitution of St. Edmund of Canterbury to this effect
extends this prohibition of desecration to everything connected at any
time with a church. Even the woodwork of a building, once dedicated,
was to be destroyed, unless it was capable of being used for another
ecclesiastical purpose. So too the “cloths used on the altar, the
seats, candlesticks, veils, and sacred vestments too old to use,” were
to be burnt and the ashes buried.
The parishioners, as already pointed out, were bound by law and custom
to provide for the repair of the nave of their parish church, and for
the general upkeep of the church services. There was little need to
compel them to fulfil this duty, for the churchwardens’ accounts and
other documents, especially during the fifteenth century, when we
have the fullest information, show us that over the entire length and
breadth of England the people were gladly rebuilding and beautifying
their parish churches. A few examples of this spirit may be of interest
as showing what God’s house was to the entire people in pre-Reformation
days. The labours of Prebendary Hingeston-Randolph on the diocesan
registers of the Exeter diocese enable the inquirer into parochial
manners and customs of the past to find ample material. In the register
of Bishop Stafford of Exeter (1394-1419) an account of the rebuilding
of the parish church of Broadhempston is given. The parishioners, about
A.D. 1400, petitioned the bishop to be allowed to rebuild their church:
they represented that it was in a ruinous condition and notoriously
clumsily constructed. It was their wish, they said, to build it on a
larger scale, and in a different part of the churchyard. To this the
bishop assented, on condition of their promising to complete the new
church within two years of pulling down the old, and he granted an
Indulgence to all who should contribute to “so great and pious a work.”
On the 22nd November, 1401, the work of the new church was apparently
far enough advanced for use, for a licence was granted for one year to
celebrate Divine service “in the church or basilica newly erected and
constructed in the cemetery,” and this licence was twice renewed for
the years 1402 and 1403.
The editor of the _Receipts and Expenses in Building Bodmin Church_,
published by the _Camden Society_, says that “there is scarcely a
parish in Cornwall that does not bear testimony to the energy displayed
in church restoration” in the last quarter of the fifteenth century.
He might have added that like activity is manifested at this time in
almost every quarter of England; but certainly Bodmin furnishes us
with an interesting example of the religious energy displayed by the
inhabitants of a mediæval parish. For the year 1469-70 the wardens
account for £196 7_s._ 4½_d._ collected and £194 3_s._ 6½_d._
spent--large sums considering the then value of money, and specially
great when it is remembered that besides this there were the gifts of
material, such as windows, trees, etc., and that the labour of the
workmen was given without other reward than what came from their love
of the work. From the preface of the editor of these accounts we glean
some interesting particulars, all the more interesting as we have no
reason to think that Bodmin was any exception. The accounts “exhibit a
remarkable unanimity in the good work. Every one seems to have given
according to his means and up to his means. Many who gave money gave
labour also; many who could not give money laboured as best they
might, and others gave what they could.” We have gifts of lambs, of a
cow, and of a goose. One woman, in addition to her subscription, sold
her crock for 20_d._; and all found its way into the common treasury.
No age or sex seems to have kept aloof. We find an “hold woman”
contributing 3_s._ 4½_d._, while the maidens in Fore Street and
Bore Street gave subscriptions in addition to the sums received from
the Guild of Virgins in the same streets. The vicar gave his year’s
salary, and the “parish people” who lived out of the town “contributed
19_s._” After an examination of the accounts, the editor attributes the
working up of the zeal of the people to the guilds, and he adds that
“religious life permeated society in the Middle Ages, particularly in
the fifteenth century, through the minor confraternities.” Of these
societies it will be necessary to write at some length later, and here
it will be sufficient to say that almost every inhabitant of Bodmin
appears to have belonged to one or more of these societies. From the
long list of voluntary subscriptions, it appears that all were eager
to have a part in the work of building up their church--a church which
should be a credit to Bodmin. All sorts and conditions of men and women
are entered as contributors on the roll of parishioners, more than 460
in number. Servants appear as well as masters and mistresses, sons and
daughters as well as their fathers and mothers.
The same sort of story is told in every set of parish accounts that
we possess--a story of popular devotion to the material fabric of
the parish church. To take another and later example: At St. Mary’s,
Cambridge, 1515, it was necessary to build a porch and a vestry, and
the people determined to make a voluntary collection for the work each
Sunday during the last six months of the year. At these, from 6_s._
to 8_s._--from £4 to £5 of our money--was gathered each time, and the
building was carried out under the supervision of the churchwardens.
The evidence of mediæval wills is the same as to this very general
interest in church building. For example, Robert Dacres of Beverley, a
weaver, who died in 1498, left £16 for the making of the north aisle of
the church--the parish church in which he had worshipped--provided the
wardens began the work within a year. If they did not do so, then the
money was to be spent on ornamenting the church. So, too, the will of
Robert Pynbey, a chantrey priest of Hornby, shows that, conjointly with
another priest, he had established a chantry, having previously built
the south aisle of Hornby parish church. So, too, in 1490, the sub-dean
of York leaves many legacies to assist in the repairs of the various
churches with which he had been connected. In the same way some of the
chantry certificates of the reign of Edward VI. reveal the fact that
lands had been left to the churchwardens to sell for the purpose of
rebuilding certain parish churches, and that they had been disposed of
to that end.
It must, of course, be remembered that buildings and repairs of this
kind were not lightly undertaken by the wardens without the full
knowledge and consent of the parishioners generally. For example, in
1512-13 it was proposed to do some extensive works at St. Mary-at-Hill
in London, and the entry in the churchwardens’ book is as follows:--
“It is determined that they shall go in hand with the building of the
church at March next. Memorandum: that John Allthorpe and Stephen
Sondyrson have promised to take charge and keep reckoning to pay all
such workmen as shall make the battlements of our church of brick or
stone or lead, as shall be thought best and determined by Mr. Alderman
and the parishioners, and Mr. Parson is to assist them with his good
diligence and wisdom to the best that he can, for the same: and Thomas
Monders is chosen by the said parish to wait upon the said Stephen
and Allthorpe in their absence and at their commandment for the
furtherance of the same work.”
The obligation of all to contribute to the common work of God’s house
was well understood, and it was taught in many books of instructions
popular in those days. For example, in _Dives and Pauper_ the former
is made to declare that “many say, God is in no lond so well served
in holy Church, nor so much worshipped in holy Church, as He is in
this lond of England. For so many fair churches, ne so good aray in
churches, ne so fair service, as many say is in none other lond as it
is in this lond.” _Pauper_ does not deny this, but thinks that it is
perhaps done from a spirit of pomp, “to have a name and worship thereby
in the country, or for envy that one town hath against another.”
_Dives_, with this lead, suggests that it might be better if the money
thus spent “in high churches, in rich vestments, in curious windows,
and in great bells,” were given to the poor. But _Pauper_ urges that
this is just what Judas thought, and declares that it is the common
business of all, rich and poor alike, to look to the beautifying of
God’s house.
By law, then, according to the statute of Archbishop Peckham in 1280,
which remained in force till the Reformation, the parish, broadly
speaking, was bound to find all that pertained to the services--such
as vestments, chalice, missal, processional cross, paschal candle,
etc.--and to keep the fabric and ornaments of the church proper in
repair. In 1305 Archbishop Winchelsey somewhat enlarged the scope of
the parish duties.
[Illustration: THURIBLE, FOUND NEAR PERSHORE]
“For the future,” he says, “we will and ordain that the parishioners
be bound to provide all the following: Legend, Antiphonal, Grayle,
Psalter, Tropary, Ordinale, Missal, Manual, Chalice, the best Vestment
with Chasuble, Dalmatic and Tunicle, and a Cope for the choir with all
their belongings (that is, amice, girdle, maniple and stole, etc.):
the frontal for the High altar, with three cloths; three surplices;
a rochet; the processional cross; a cross to carry to the sick; a
thurible; a lantern; a bell to ring when the Body of Christ is carried
to the sick; a pyx of ivory or silver for the Body of Christ; the
Lenten veil; the Rogation Day banner; the bells with their cords; a
bier to carry the dead upon; the Holy Water vat; the osculatorium for
the Pax; the paschal candlestick; a font with its lock and key; the
images in the church; the image of the patron Saint in the chancel;
the enclosure wall of the cemetery; all repairs of the nave of the
church, interior and exterior; repairs also in regard to the images of
the crucifix and of the saints and to the glazed windows; all repairs
of books and vestments, when such restorations shall be necessary.”
All other repairs, Archbishop Winchelsey adds, “of the chancel and of
other things not the object of special custom or agreement, pertain to
the Rectors or Vicars, and have to be done at their expense.”
[Illustration: PAX]
It did not, however, require any very great rigour on the part
of ecclesiastical authorities to enforce this law. The various
churchwarden accounts and the church inventories prove beyond
dispute that the people of England were only too anxious to maintain
and beautify their parish churches, and that frequently between
neighbouring churches there was a holy rivalry in this labour of love.
To take some examples of this. The inventory of the parish church of
Cranbrook, in Kent, made in 1509, gives the details of all gifts and
donations, in order that the names of the donors and the particulars
of their benefactions might be remembered. The value of the presents
varies very considerably, but nothing apparently was too small to be
noted. Thus we have a monstrance of silver gilt, which the wardens
value at £20, “of Sir Robert Egelyonby’s gift.” In regard to this
donor the inventory says, “This Sir Robert was John Roberts’ priest
thirty years, and he never had other service or benefice.” And it adds,
“The said John Roberts was father to Walter Roberts, Esquire.” Again,
one John Hindley “gave three copes of purple velvet, whereof one was
of velvet upon velvet, with images broidered;” and, _ad perpetuam rei
memoriam_, adds the inventory, “he was grandfather of Gervase Hindley
of Cushorn, and of Thomas (Hindley) of Cranbrook Street.” And again,
to take another example of these entries, it is recorded that the “two
long candlesticks before our Lady’s altar fronted with lions, and a
towel on the rood of our Lady’s chancel,” were the gift of “old moder
Hopper.”
In the same way, the churchwardens’ accounts of Leverton, a parish
situated in the county of Lincoln about 6 miles from Boston, evidence
the same voluntary effort on the part of the people to adorn their
church. In 1492 William Murr left money for work at the Great Crucifix
and to several of the altars. In 1495 a great effort was made to
procure another bell, and we find the expenses for preparing the
bell-chamber, for the carriage of the great bell, and for the hanging
of it by one William Wright, of Benington. All the parish apparently
contributed, and the parson promised 10_s._ 8_d._ towards the expenses;
but when he came to settle, it was found that some one had paid for
him. This was the above-named William Wright; and as the clergyman’s
name was John Wright, perhaps the kindly thought which prompted the
payment came from some bond of relationship. Three years later it
was determined to build the steeple, and the parishioners were eager
for the work. The owner of a neighbouring quarry gave leave to take
whatever stone was required. “A tree was bought at Tombe Wood,” and a
carpenter was engaged for the scaffolding and timber work. The tree was
sawn into boards; lime was purchased to make the mortar, and tubs to
mix it in. Later, another tree was bought and cut up for scaffolding
purposes. All was entirely the work of the parish, and the ordering of
everything was done by the wardens the people had chosen, whilst each
one took a lively and personal interest in the common work.
In 1503 another bell was made, and a deputation of the parish went to
Boston to see it “shot.” The local blacksmith, Richard Messur, made
all the necessary “bolts and locks,” and attended professionally to
see it hung, although the chief responsibility rested upon John Red,
“bellgedor of Boston,” who had the “schotyng” of the bell, and received
£3 6_s._ 8_d._ for his work. At the same time the parish paid for a
Sanctus bell, which was made by the local plumber, and the young men of
the parish formed themselves into a school to be taught how “to toll
the bells.” In the same year a new font was made for the church at
Freeston, about three miles away, and a committee of the parish made
two journeys, one to look at the progress of the work and another to
pass and approve it.
For some few years the expenses were normal; but in 1512 the desire
to possess more bells again came upon the parish. In the same year
the people purchased “a pair of censer chains, when the parson was in
London,” and they renewed the device “for hanging up the Sacrament”
over the altar. In 1516 the bells evidently did not ring well, and a
man was brought over from Boston to set them right. In the same year
there are entered expenses for hanging a lamp and for making “a lectern
in the choir.” The following year the north side of the church was
found to stand in need of repair, and there are expenses for propping
the wall up during the work. This year, also, the parish purchased a
new vestment and a chalice; and in 1519, after the repairs, the bishop
came to reconsecrate the church, and the people paid his fee of 40_s._
for doing so. In 1525 an item of expense is of interest: “To Isabel
Frendyke for marking all the lynen clothis: St. Thomas’ with a mark of
black sylke +, and O. Lady’s with a M.”
[Illustration: BRACKET WITH SUSPENDED DOVE AND COVER]
[Illustration: SACRAMENTAL DOVE]
In 1526 there was a movement to beautify the rood-screen. An “alybaster
man,” otherwise called “Robert Brook the carver,” was procured, and
money was gathered in the town for his support, and some who gave no
money gave cheese. William Franckis, one of the parishioners, died this
year, and left a legacy of 46_s._ 8_d._ to buy “images of alybaster to
be set in ye rood-loft.” There were apparently in all seventeen images,
and “in earneste thereof” the carver was paid a shilling on account;
but when he got to work he found that he could only do sixteen of the
figures for the 46_s._ 8_d._, at 3_s._ 4_d._ each. Apparently, however,
William Franckis had provided for contingencies; he had probably
looked at the vacant niches during the many Sundays he had knelt in
front of the rood, had determined that they must be all filled, and so
had charged his wife Janet to see to it. At any rate, the widow found
the other 3_s._ 4_d._, “that every stage might be filled.”
And so the parish life at Leverton went on without much change. The
ordinary expenses were met out of the ordinary receipts, and when
anything extraordinary was required the people were apparently ever
ready to come forward to provide it. In 1528 there is a note to
say that “John Bell, quondam Rector,” on his deathbed gave to the
wardens the sum of £6 13_s._ 4_d._ to be used upon the church. In
1531 a curious memorandum is worth recording. It is to this effect:
on October 22, Richard Shepperd, the parson, called a meeting of the
parish, to take into consideration the accounts of the late wardens.
The meeting showed their entire confidence in the priest and their
cordial unanimity with him by asking him to appoint the wardens for
the following year, which he did. Also it was shown to the meeting
that by the last will of Walter Bowsche, of Leverton, three acres of
land had been left to the parish for the purpose of being sold, in
order that with the proceeds a new cope might be bought. The will was
apparently destroyed by the wardens, and the money obtained from the
sale had been spent upon the church work in which at the time they
were chiefly interested, namely, the making of bells. The parishioners
determined that they were in conscience bound to rectify this plain
breach of trust, and to make up the money for the new cope. Lastly, in
1540, the parson, John Wright, presented the parish with a suite of
red-purple vestments, and in recording this gift the wardens note in
their account-book, “for the which you shall all specially pray for the
souls of William Wright and Elizabeth his wife,” the father and mother
of the donor, “and other relations, as well them as be alive as them
that be departed to the mercy of God, for whose lives and souls” these
vestments are given “for the honour of God, His most Blessed Mother,
our Lady St. Mary, and all His saints in heaven, and the blessed matron
St. Helen, his patron, to be used at such principal feasts and times as
it shall please the curates so long as they shall last.”
In this way the names of benefactors and the memory of their good deeds
were ever kept alive in the minds of those who benefited by their
gifts. The parish treasury was not looked on as so much stock, the
accumulation of years, of haphazard donations without definite history
or purpose; but every article, vestment, banner, hanging, chalice,
etc., called up some affectionate memory both of the living and the
dead. On high day and feast day, when all that was best and richest in
the parochial treasury was brought forth to deck the walls and statues
and altars, the display of parish ornaments recalled to the minds of
the people assembled within its walls to worship God the memory of good
deeds done by generations of neighbours for the decoration of their
sanctuary.
“The immense treasures in the churches,” writes Dr. Jessopp, “were the
joy and boast of every man and woman and child in England, who, day by
day and week by week, assembled to worship in the old houses of God
which they and their fathers had built, and whose every vestment and
chalice, and candlestick and banner, organ and bells, and pictures
and images, and altar and shrine, they look upon as their own, and
part of their birthright.”
It might reasonably be supposed that this was true only of the greater
churches; but this is not so. What strikes one so much in these parish
accounts of bygone days is the richness of even small, out-of-the-way
village churches. Where we would naturally be inclined to look for
poverty and meanness, there is evidence to the contrary. To take an
example or two. Morebath is a small, uplandish, remote parish of
little importance on the borders of Exmoor; the population, for the
most part, have spent their energies in daily labour to secure the
bare necessaries of life, and riches, at any rate, could never have
been abundant. Morebath may consequently be taken as a fair sample of
an obscure and poor village. For this hamlet we possess full accounts
from the year 1530, and we find that at this time, and in this very
poor, out-of-the-way place, there were no less than eight separate
accounts kept of money intended for the support of different altars of
devotions. For example, we have the “Stores” of the Chapels of our Lady
and St. George, etc., and the Gilds of the young men and maidens of the
parish. All these were kept and managed by the lay-elected officials
of the societies--confraternities, I suppose, we should call them--and
to their credit are entered numerous gifts of money and specific gifts
of value of kind, such as cows, and swarms of bees, etc. Most of them
had their little capital funds invested in cattle and sheep, the rent
of which proved a considerable part of their revenues. In a word, these
accounts furnish abundant and unmistakeable evidence of the active and
intelligent interest in the duty of supporting and adorning their
church on the part of these simple country folk at large. What is true
of this is true of every other similar account to a greater or less
degree, and all these accounts show unmistakeably that the entire
management of these parish funds was in the hands of the people.
Voluntary rates to clear off obligations contracted for the benefit
of the community--such as the purchase of bells, the repair of the
fabric, and even for the making of roads and bridges--were raised by
the wardens. Collections for Peter’s pence, for the support of the
parish clerk, and for every variety of church and local purpose, are
recorded, and the spirit of self-help manifested, on every page of
these accounts. To return to Morebath. In 1528 a complete set of black
vestments was purchased at a cost--considerable in those days--of £6
5_s._, and to help in the common work the vicar gave up certain tithes
in wool that he had been in the habit of receiving. These vestments,
by the way, were only finished and paid for in 1547, just before the
changes under Edward VI. rendered them useless. In 1538 the parish made
a voluntary rate to purchase a new cope, and the general collections
for this purpose produced some £3 6_s._ 8_d._ In 1534 the silver
chalice was stolen, and at once, we are told, “ye yong men and maydens
of ye parysshe dru themselves together, and at ther gyfts and provysyon
they bought in another chalice without any charge of the parish.” Sums
of money, big and small; specific gifts in kind; the stuff or ornaments
needed for vestments, were apparently always forthcoming when needed.
Thus at one time a new cope is suggested, and Anne Tymwell, of Hayne,
gave the churchwardens her “gown and her ring”; Joan Tymwell, a cloak
and a girdle; and Richard Norman, “seven sheep and 3 shillings and 4
pence in money,” towards the cost.
These examples could be multiplied to any extent, but the above will
be sufficient to show the popular working of mediæval parishioners in
support of their church. The same story of local government, popular
interest, and ready self-help, as well as an unmistakeable spirit
of affection for the parish church as theirs--their very own--is
manifested by the people in every account we possess. Every adult of
both sexes had a voice in the system, and the parson was little more in
this regard than chairman of the village meetings, and, as I have more
than once seen him described, “chief parishioner.” In the management
of the fabric, the service, and all things necessary for the due
performance of these, the people were not merely called upon to pay,
but it is clear the diocesan authorities evidently left to the parish
a wise discretion. No doubt the higher ecclesiastical officials could
interfere in theory, but in practice interference was obviously and
wisely rare. It will be necessary in a subsequent chapter to describe
the various methods employed to replenish the parochial exchequer.
There was apparently seldom much difficulty in finding the necessary
money, and it will be of interest to see how it was expended by some
further examples.