THE PARISH CLERGY
The head of every parish in pre-Reformation days was the priest. He
might be a _rector_ or _vicar_, according to his position in regard to
the benefice; but in either case he was the resident ecclesiastical
head of the parochial district. The word “parson,” in the sense of
a dignified personage--“the person of the place”--was, in certain
foreign countries, applied in the eleventh century, in its Latin form
of _persona_, to any one holding the parochial cure of souls. English
legal writers, such as Coke and Blackstone, have stated the civil law
signification of the word as that of any “person” by whom the property
of God, the Patron Saint, the church or parish was held, and who could
sue or be sued at law in respect to this property. In ecclesiastical
language, at any rate in England, according to Lyndwood, the word
“parson” was synonymous with “rector.”
Besides the rector or parson and the vicar, several other classes of
clergy were frequently to be met with in mediæval parishes. Such were
curates, chantry priests, chaplains, stipendiary priests, and sometimes
even deacons and subdeacons. About each of these and their duties and
obligations it will be necessary to speak in turn, but before doing so
something may usefully be said about the clergy generally, and about
their education, obligations, and method of life. From the earliest
times the clerical profession was open to all ranks and classes of
the people. Possibly, and even probably, the English landlords of
the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries were only too glad to bestow
livings, of which they had the right of presentation, upon younger
sons or relations, who had been educated with this end in view. But
in those same centuries there is ample evidence that the ranks of the
clergy were recruited from the middle classes, and even from the sons
of serfs, who had to obtain their overlord’s leave and pay a fine to
him for putting their children to school, and thus taking them from the
land to which they were by birth _adscripti_, or bound. Mr. Thorold
Rogers has given instances of the exaction of these fines for sending
sons to school. In one example 13_s._ 4_d._ was paid for leave to put
an eldest son _ad scholas_ with a view of his taking orders; in another
5_s._ was paid, in 1335, for a similar permission for a younger son.
In the diocesan registers, also, episcopal dispensations _de defectu
natalium_ are frequent, and show that a not inconsiderable number of
the English clergy sprang from the class of “natives” of the soil, or
serfs, upon whom the lord of the manor had a claim. Examples also could
be given of a bishop allowing his “native” (_nativus meus_) permission
to take sacred orders and to hold ecclesiastical benefices--acts of
kindness on the bishops’ part shown to some promising son of one of the
serfs of the episcopal domains.
The practice of introducing into the body of the clergy even those
sprung from the lower ranks of life was not altogether popular, and
the author of _The Vision of Piers Plowman_ has left a record of the
existing prejudice on the subject. He thinks that “bondmen and beggars’
children belong to labour, and should serve lords’ sons,” and that
things are much amiss when every cobbler sends “his son to schole” and
“each beggar’s brat” learns his book, “so that beggar’s brat a Bishop
that worthen among the peers of the land prese to sytten ... and his
sire a sowter (cobbler) y-soiled with grees, his teeth with toyling of
leather battered as a saw.”
In 1406 the more liberal spirit of encouraging learning wherever it
was found to exist asserted itself, and by a statute of the English
Parliament of that date it was enacted that “every man or woman, of
what state or condition he be, shall be free to set their son or
daughter to take learning at any school that pleaseth them within the
realm.” That such schools existed in the past in greater numbers than
has been thought likely does not now appear open to doubt. Besides
the teaching to be obtained at the cathedrals, religious houses, and
well-known grammar schools, the foundations of education were furnished
by numerous other smaller places, taught by priests up and down the
country. This is proved by the numbers of students who came up to
the Universities for their higher work at the age of fourteen or so,
after they had been prepared elsewhere, and the numbers of whom fell
off almost to a vanishing point on the destruction of the religious
houses, and the demolition of the smaller schools, under cover of the
Act for dissolving Chantries, etc. In the Chantry certificates mention
is made of numerous parochial schools taught by priests, who also
served the parish in other ways, or by clerks supported by money left
for the purpose of giving free education. These proofs appear on the
face of the certificates, in order that a plea might be made for their
exemption from the operation of the general dissolution of chantries
and guilds; it is needless to add that the plea had no effect. In
some places, too, as for example at Morpeth and Alnwick and Durham,
a second school of music, called the “song school,” was kept. At the
latter place a chantry was founded in the cathedral for two priests
“to pray and to keep free schools, one of grammar and one of song, in
the city of Durham, for all manner of children that should repair to
the said schools, and also to distribute yearly alms to poor people.”
At Lavenham, in Suffolk, a priest was paid by the parish to “teach the
children of the town” and to act as “secondary” to the curate.
By the will of Archbishop Rotheram, in 1500, the foundation of a
college in his native place was laid. In this will the archbishop,
after saying that he had been born at Rotheram, gives an interesting
biographical note about his early years--
“To this place a teacher of grammar coming, by what chance, but I
believe it was God’s grace that brought him thither, taught me and
other youths, by which others with me attained to higher (paths of
life). Wherefore wishing to show my gratitude to our Saviour, and to
celebrate the cause of my (success in life), and lest I should seem to
be ungrateful and forgetful of God’s benefits and from whence I came,
I have determined in the first place to establish there a teacher of
grammar to instruct all without charge.”
Archbishop Rotheram’s case was not singular. Bishop Latimer, in one of
his sermons before Edward VI., gives an account of his early life.
“My father,” he says, “was a yeoman, and had no lands of his own; only
he had a farm of three or four pounds by the year at the uttermost,
and hereupon he tilled so much as kept half a dozen men. He had a walk
for a hundred sheep, and my mother milked thirty kine. He was able and
did find the king a harness and his horse. I remember that I buckled
on his harness when he went to Blackheath field. He kept me to school,
or else I had not been able to have preached before the King’s majesty
now.”
An ordinance of the diocese of Exeter in the synod of Bishop Quevil
seems also to suggest that schools of some kind existed in most cities
and towns. He had always understood, he says, that the benefice of the
“Holy Water bearer” was in the beginning instituted in order to give
poor clerks something to help them to school, “that they might become
more fit and prepared for higher posts.” In this belief the bishop
directs that in all churches, not more than ten miles distant from the
schools of the cities and towns of his diocese, the “benefices” of the
“Holy Water bearers” should always be held by scholars.
Seager’s _Schoole of Virtue_, although written in Queen Mary’s reign,
refers, no doubt, to a previous state of things. The author seems to
take for granted that attendance at school is a very common, if not
the ordinary thing, and that it is in the power of most youths to make
their future by study and perseverance.
“Experience doth teche, and shewe to the playne
That many to honour, by learninge attayne
That were of byrthe but simple and bace
Such is the goodness of God’s speciale grace.
For he that to honour by vertue doth ryse
Is doubly happy, and counted more wyse.”
The writer then warns the boys he is addressing to behave themselves
when leaving school. On their way home they would do well to walk two
and two, and “not in heaps, like a swarm of bees.” Another educator,
Old Symon, in his “Lesson of Wysedom for all maner chyldryn,” urges
diligence and plodding upon his pupils, with a jest as to possible
positions to which the student may in time attain.
“And lerne as faste as thou can,
For our byshop is an old man,
And therfor thou must lerne faste
If thou wilt be byshop when he is past.”
It is unnecessary to pursue the subject of the education of the
parochial clergy further. After his elementary education had been
received in the schools, the student’s preparation for the reception of
Orders was continued and completed at the Universities. The ordinary
course here was lengthy. Grammar, which included Latin and literature
with rhetoric and logic, occupied four years. The student was then
admitted a Bachelor. In the case of clerical students this was followed
by seven years’ training before the Bachelor’s degree in Theology was
bestowed, and only after a further three years’ study of the Bible,
and after the candidate had lectured at least on some one book of the
Scriptures, was he considered to have earned his degree of Doctor in
Theology.
[Illustration: ACOLYTHES]
[Illustration: SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM]
The age when the candidate for Orders could be promoted to the various
steps leading to the priesthood was settled by law and custom. A
boy of seven, if he showed signs of having a vocation to the sacred
ministry, might be made a cleric by receiving the tonsure. In “rare
instances” and under special circumstances he might then receive an
ecclesiastical benefice, and so get the wherewith to live while he was
studying to fulfil the duties attached to his office. In the course
of the next seven years the youth could be given the minor Orders of
“doorkeeper,” “lector,” “exorcist,” and “acolyte.” He would then be at
least fourteen years of age, and thus at the time of life at which in
those days students were supposed to begin their University course. At
eighteen the candidate to the priesthood might be ordained Subdeacon;
at twenty he could take the diaconate, and at twenty-five be ordained
Priest. It will be noticed that these ages in some way generally
correspond to the academic degrees. Going to the University at
fourteen, a clerical student might have, and no doubt frequently had,
received the various steps of minor Orders. Four years of the liberal
arts enabled him at eighteen to take his degree of Bachelor of Arts.
It was at this age that he could be ordained Subdeacon. Then seven
years of theological study enabled him to become a Bachelor of Divinity
at twenty-five, at which time he was of the right age to receive the
priesthood. This was the regular course; but without doubt the greater
number of candidates for the ministry did not pass through all the
schools. Some, no doubt, after entering sacred Orders, became attached
to cathedrals, colleges of priests, and even parochial churches, where,
in the midst of a more or less active life, they prepared themselves
for further ecclesiastical advancement. Wherever they were, however,
they would have to prove themselves to be sufficiently lettered
and of good life before they would be accepted for Ordination, and
their examination and proof was put as a conscientious duty upon the
bishop before he determined upon accepting and ordaining them. For
a candidate to become a cleric there was not much difficulty, if he
showed sufficient diligence and good-will, and the various minor Orders
were also bestowed without any serious question as to the likelihood
of failure, etc., in the ecclesiastical career. With the subdiaconate,
however, this was in no sense the case, and no one was allowed to be
ordained without what was called a “title,” that is, he was required to
show that he had been nominated to a benefice sufficient for his proper
maintenance, or had been given a responsible guarantee of adequate
support for one in sacred Orders. In the case of sons of well-to-do
parents the bishop might accept the possession of sufficient property
as guarantee under the title of “patrimony.” Moreover, the Episcopal
Registers show for what large numbers of clergy the religious houses
became surety for a fitting maintenance in the event of failure of
health or withdrawal of ecclesiastical resources. A certificate of
Orders received was to be furnished by the bishop’s official, the fee
for each of which was settled in the English Church by Archbishop
Stratford at 6_d._
The entry into the clerical state, with its duties and privileges, was
outwardly manifested by the tonsure and _corona_. The former, as the
gloss upon the Constitution of Cardinal Otho declares, was the shaving
of a circle on the crown of the cleric as a sign of the laying aside
all desire for temporal advantages and avaricious thoughts. “And,”
says the author, “in the proper tonsure of clerics, I believe, is
included the shaving of beards, which, contrary to the law, many modern
clerks grow with great care.” The _corona_, although apparently in
time it became synonymous with the “tonsure,” in its original English
meaning certainly signified the close crop of the hair, on the upper
part of the head, as “a sign that clerics sought only the Kingdom of
God.” One curious instance of a bishop giving the tonsure in a parish
church may be mentioned. In 1336, Bishop Grandisson, of Exeter, went
to St. Buryan to terminate a serious quarrel between the inhabitants
and himself, in which they had practically rejected his jurisdiction.
He was attended by many of the gentry and the clergy, one of whom
translated the bishop’s address into Cornish, for those who only
understood that language. The parish then renewed their obedience “in
English, French, and Cornish,” and the bishop absolved them from the
penalties of their disobedience. After which, says the record, “he gave
the first tonsure, or sign of the clerical character, to many who were
natives of that parish.”
[Illustration: SACRAMENT OF ORDINATION]
The dress of clerics was legislated for by the Constitutions of
Cardinal Ottoboni, to which subsequent reference was constantly made
by the English bishops. Thus the same Bishop Grandisson, in 1342,
issued a monition to his clergy on the subject, in which he speaks of
the sensible legislation of the cardinal. All clerics were directed
to follow this law as to their dress; it was not to be so long or so
short as to be an object of ridicule or remark. The cassock or clerical
coat in length was to be well above the ankles (_ultra tibiarum medium
attingentes_), and the hair was to be cut so that it could not be
parted and showed the ears plainly. In this way, by their _corona_
and tonsure, and by the exterior form of their dress, they might be
clearly known and distinguished from laymen. Cardinal Otho likewise
enforced the regulation about clerical dress, and declared that some of
the English clergy looked rather like soldiers than priests, an opinion
which the author of the gloss endorsed with the saying that it is not
only in their dress that some offend, but in their open-mouthed laugh
(_risus dentium_) and their general gait. The cardinal directs that all
clerics shall use their outer dress closed, and not open like a cloak,
and this in particular in churches, in meetings of the clergy, and by
all parish priests, always and everywhere in their parishes.
The status of the English clergy, generally from a legal standpoint, is
thus described in Pollock and Maitland’s _History of English Law_--
“Taken individually, every ordained clerk has as such a peculiar
legal status; he is subject to special rules of ecclesiastical law
and to special rules of temporal law.... Every layman, unless he were
a Jew, was subject to ecclesiastical law; it regulated many affairs
of his life, marriages, divorces, testaments, intestate succession;
it would try him and punish him for various offences, for adultery,
fornication, defamation; it would constrain him to pay tithes and
other similar dues; in the last resort it could excommunicate him, and
then the State would come to its aid.... The ordained clerk was within
many rules of ecclesiastical law which did not affect the layman,
and it had a tighter hold over him, since it could suspend him from
office, deprive him of benefice, and degrade him from his Orders.”
So much about the clergy generally and about the way in which they
entered the clerical state and mounted the various steps of the minor
and sacred Orders, until their reception of the sacred priesthood
brought them into the close relations which existed between the
clergyman and his flock. It is now time to turn to the consideration
of the various kinds of parochial clergy. And first (1) The _Rector_
or _Parson_ was appointed to his benefice by the patron of the living,
with the approval of the bishop, by whose order he was also inducted
or instituted. Among the _Harleian Charters_ in the British Museum is
an original deed of induction to a living, which sets out the ceremony
and prescribes the feast to follow. The benefice after his induction
became the rector’s freehold. In the language of Bracton, the position
of a rector differed legally from that of a vicar, inasmuch as he could
sue and be sued for the property or benefice he held, which he did in
the name of the Church. And to this “only rectors of parochial churches
are entitled, who have been instituted as parsons by bishops and by
ordinaries.” It was the duty of the archdeacon, either personally or
by his official, on the certificate of the bishop, to put the rector
into possession of his benefice. The fee to be paid, according to the
Constitution of Archbishop Stratford, was not to exceed 40_d._ when the
archdeacon came in person, “which sum is sufficient for the expenses of
four persons and their horses;” or two shillings when the official came
with two or three horses.
Previously to this, however, and before issuing his letters of
induction, the bishop was bound to satisfy himself that the priest
presented to fill the rectory had the necessary qualities of a good
pastor of souls. In the Constitution of Cardinal Otho on this point,
after recalling the saying of St. Gregory that “the guidance of souls
is the art of arts,” the cardinal goes on to say that “our Catholic
art” requires that there “should be one priest in one church,” and that
he should be a fitting teacher, “by his holy life, his learning, and
his teaching,” and upon this last quality Lyndwood notes that he should
be able to adapt his instructions to his audience. “Whilst to the wise
and learned he may speak of high and profound things, to the simple
and those of lesser mental capacity he should preach plainly about few
things, and those that are useful.” As to these qualifications the
bishop had to satisfy himself within two months after the presentation,
in order that the parish should not be kept vacant longer than was
necessary. Besides the above-named qualities, by ordinary law of the
English Church, any one presented as a rector was bound to be a cleric;
to be at least five and twenty years old; to be commendable in his
life and knowledge; and if not a priest, he was at least to be fit
to receive the priesthood within a year. As a rule each rectory, or
benefice for a rector, had but a single rector; but there are instances
where in one place, at Leverton, for example, there were two parsons
appointed to one church, with two houses, with the tithes divided, and,
of course, with the obligations distinct. In a few cases, as at Darley
Dale, Derbyshire, there were three or even more rectors for the one
parish.
In the first chapter it has been pointed out what were the tithes
payable to the rector of a parish, and that they frequently brought in
a considerable sum of money. On the other hand, there were many and
constant claims made upon the revenues of the parochial church, and
this not accidentally or casually, but by custom and almost by law. The
repair of the chancel and the upkeep of choir-books and other things
necessary for the services, which were not found by the people, had to
be met out of the “fourth part” of the tithe, which was supposed to be
devoted to such purposes. Another constant claim was the relief of the
poor, strangers, and wayfarers, called “hospitality.” This, according
to Lyndwood, was well understood and practised in England, where the
churches, to meet those calls, were better endowed than they were
abroad.
This claim, there can be no doubt, was fully accepted and carried
out. If a rector was for some reason or other non-resident, by law
his charity or “hospitality” had to be administered either by the
curate who served the church, or by a resident proctor appointed for
the purpose. In acknowledgment of this obligation, in the wills of
the period we find the clergy directing money to be paid by their
executors to the poor of the parishes which they had served. Thus
William Sheffield, Dean of York, who died in 1496, after arranging that
this distribution should be made in proportion to the time during which
he had held each benefice, adds: “For the goods of the Church are the
property of the poor and therefore the conscience is heavily burdened
in the spending of the goods of the Church. For badly spending them
Jesus have mercy.”
In the record of the visitation of churches in the diocese of Exeter,
in 1440, there are many references to the “hospitality” kept by the
clergy. In one instance the rector is praised for having rebuilt his
chancel and added two good rooms to the rectory, one for himself
and one for the purposes of hospitality. In another there is a note
“that, from time immemorial to the day of the present rector, great
hospitality had been maintained, and the goods of the church had been
made the property of the sick and the poor,” but that this had ceased.
It seems to us, indeed, almost strange in these days to see what was
the teaching of the mediæval Church about the claims of the poor, and
to remember that this was not the doctrine of some rhetorical and
irresponsible preacher, but of such a man of law and order as was
the great Canonist Lyndwood. There can be no doubt that the proceeds
of ecclesiastical benefices were recognised in the Constitutions of
legates and archbishops as being in fact, as well as in theory, the
_eleemosynæ_, the _spes pauperum_--the alms and the hope of the poor.
Those ecclesiastics who consumed the revenues of their cures on other
than necessary and fitting purposes were declared to be “defrauders of
the rights of God’s poor,” and “thieves of Christian alms intended for
them;” whilst the English canonists and legal professors, who glossed
these provisions of the Church law, gravely discussed the ways in which
the poor of a parish could vindicate their right--_right_, they call
it--to a share in the ecclesiastical revenues of their Church.
This “jus pauperum,” which is set forth in such a textbook of English
law as Lyndwood’s _Provinciale_, is naturally put forth more clearly
and forcibly in a work intended for popular instruction, such as
_Dives et Pauper_. “To them that have the benefices and goods of Holy
Church,” writes the author, “it belonged principally to give alms and
to have the cure of poor people.” To him who squanders the alms of the
altar on luxury and useless show the poor man may justly point and
say, “It is ours that you so spend in pomp and vanity!... That thou
keepest for thyself of the altar passing the honest needful living, it
is raveny, it is theft, it is sacrilege.” From the earliest days of
English Christianity the care of the helpless poor was regarded as an
obligation incumbent on all; and in 1342 Archbishop Stratford, dealing
with _appropriations_, or the assignment of ecclesiastical revenue to
the support of some religious house or college, ordered that a portion
of the tithe should always be set apart for the relief of the poor,
because, as Bishop Stubbs has pointed out, in England, from the days of
King Ethelred, “a third part of the tithe” which belonged to the Church
was the acknowledged birthright of the poorer members of Christ’s
flock. All the old diocesan registers of English sees afford like
instances of specific injunctions as to bestowing part of the income of
the benefice on the poor when appropriations were granted.
Besides the regular revenues from parochial tithes, the rector had
other sources of income. Such, for instance, were the offerings made
for various services rendered to individuals, as baptisms, marriages,
churching of women, and funerals. An offering, also, for a special Mass
said or sung for a particular person or intention, was made to the
rector if he officiated, which by the Constitution of Lambeth he could
only do when the special service did not interfere with the regular
duties of his cure. In 1259-60 Bishop Bronescombe settled the Mass fee
at “one penny;” and in the churchwardens’ accounts of Dover there is an
entry, in 1536, of a payment “for ten Masses with their offeryng pens,
which was for Grace’s obit,” 4_s._ 4_d._ In law these offerings were
known as “memorial pence” (_denarii memoriales_), or “earnest pence”
(_denarii perquisiti_), because, on account of this “retaining fee,”
the priest engaged to offer Mass on a special day.
Various “oblations,” moreover, were apparently made to the parson
regularly. At Folkestone, for example, according to the _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_, an oblation of 5_d._ was made to the priest each
Sunday. Lyndwood lays down, as the law regarding regular oblations
“made on Sundays and Festivals, etc.,” that they belong to the priest
who had the cure of souls, “whose duty it was to pray for the sins
of the people.” Other priests, who might be attached to the church,
had no claims upon them except by agreement, as those who make the
offering are not their parishioners. Oblations of this kind were not
always voluntary, and they could be recovered for the clergyman by the
bishop, as, for instance, when they were made according to a previous
agreement, or promise, or in any special need of the Church, as when
the minister had not sufficient to support himself properly; or when
such offering was made according to established custom.
Bishop Quevil, in the Synod of Exeter, states what were the
long-established customs in the English Church as to regular oblations.
Every adult parishioner above the age of fourteen years had to make an
offering four times a year, at Christmas and Easter, on the patronal
feast, and on the dedication feast of his parish church, or, according
to custom, on All Saints’ day. The bishop also desired that the people
of his diocese should be persuaded to bring Pentecost offerings also to
their parish churches, or at least to send them to their parsons. To
induce them so to do, special indulgences granted to all benefactors
of churches were to be published on each of the three Sundays before
the feast, and all such offerings were to be taken to the place where
the Whit-Sunday processions assemble. Bishop Rigaud de Asserio, of
Winchester, in 1321, makes the same claim as to the regular four
payments, but puts the age at eighteen, and even then only claims the
oblation as a right in the case of those possessing some movables of
their own. In some instances, apparently, a portion of the offerings
made for any special object was by custom given to the priest for his
own use, as a well-understood tax. This, for example, was the case at
St. Augustine’s church at Hedon, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, where
in the fifteenth century “a third of the oblations to the Holy Cross
was given to the Vicar.”
The rectory house, which was situated near to the church, would no
doubt in these days be considered very poor. A living-room and a
bedroom, with perhaps a room in which to exercise “hospitality,” with
some necessary offices and a kitchen, were all that, as far as can be
ascertained, constituted the dwelling-place of the parochial priest.
“Religious feelings,” says Dr. Rock, “sweetened the homeliness of
everyday life.” Over the parlour chimneypiece in the vicarage house
at Besthorpe, Norfolk, built by Sir Thomas Downyng, priest, are these
lines--
“All you that sitt by thys fire warmyng
Pray for the sowle of Sir Jhon Downyng.”
Probably, in some place attached to the rectory there would have been
some kind of enclosure, or priest’s garden. Occasionally, mention is
made of the existence of one, as, for instance, in the visitation of
churches of the archdeaconry of Norwich, in 1363, where in one case
the rector is said to have in his use a house and garden “next to
the rectory on the north side.” But this seems to have been really
parish property, as it is recorded that it “was sufficient to find all
the candles in the church.” Sometimes, no doubt, the priests’ houses
would have been larger than they usually appear to have been from the
examples that survive or the records which are available. Thus in the
early fifteenth century the Bishop of Lincoln granted a priest in his
diocese permission to have a private oratory in his rectory house, on
condition that the oratory was fittingly adorned, and that no other
rite but Mass was celebrated in it. The Holy Sacrifice might be offered
there either by him or any other priest in his presence.
[Illustration: RECTORY, WEST DEAN, SUSSEX]
A curious example of a poor rector being received as a boarder into
a religious house is recorded in the register of Bishop Stapledon.
The parish of Charles, in Devonshire, was, in 1317, found to be
burdened with great debt, and its state evidently almost bankrupt.
With the consent of the bishop, the rector, Walter de Wolfe, called
upon the Prior of Pilton to help him out of his difficulties. It was
consequently agreed that the best way was for the rector to come and
live in the priory, and for the prior to farm the revenues of the
parish for five years, during which time he should serve it, and with
the savings pay off the debts of the rector.
The _Vicar_ in many ways had the same work and responsibility as a
rector in regard to all parochial duties. He was legally, however, as
the word implies, one who took the place, or was the deputy of the
rector. Although a rector, actually in possession of a parish and
engaged in working it, could with permission and for adequate reasons
appoint a vicar as _locum tenens_, in England almost universally by a
“vicar” was meant the priest appointed to work a parish in the case
of an impropriated living. The nature of these benefices has already
been explained, and it is unnecessary here to do more than recall the
fact, that although the greater tithes went to the monastery, college,
or dignity to which the living had been impropriated, the appointed
vicar had his portion of tithe, the oblations made to the church he
served, and a pension settled by the episcopal authority. These, at any
rate, with the rest of the income, afforded adequate support, with, in
addition, sufficient to enable him to do the repairs of the chancel,
which, in the case of the rectorial benefice, were incumbent on the
parson.
This position of vicars only requires to be illustrated here very
briefly. In 1322, Bishop Rigaud de Asserio, of Winchester, settled the
means of support and the duties of the Vicar of Romsey, as between him
and the abbess and convent. Every day the vicar was to have from the
abbey two corrodies equal to what two nuns had. He was to take the
tithes on flax, on hemp, and on fifteen other products of the soil; he
was to have all funeral dues, and all legacies of dead people, except
those specifically left for the repair, etc., of chancel; he was also
to have certain lands to work for his own purposes, and to take all
oblations made in the church. On the other hand, besides his ordinary
duties, he was to pay all ecclesiastical dues and taxes; to find all
books and ornaments of the church, and to repair and maintain them, as
well also as to keep up and repair the entire chancel of the church. To
take another case: the monks of Glastonbury, the impropriators of the
parish of Doulting, in Somerset, received £18 a year in the sixteenth
century from their portion of the impropriated tithe. Their vicar at
the same time, with the duty of looking after the annexed chapels, took
£43.
The mode of institution for a vicar was very much that of a rector. He
was appointed by the impropriator of the living, acting as patron, and
he had to receive the assent of the bishop of the diocese. By a statute
of Cardinal Otho, confirming the practice of the English Church, “no
one could be appointed to a vicarage unless he were a priest, or a
deacon ready to be ordained a priest at the next _Quatuor temporum_
ordination.” On his appointment, he had to surrender every other
ecclesiastical benefice, and to take an oath that he would reside
continually in his vicarage, so that any absence beyond the space of
three weeks was unlawful.
The above legislation, of course, regarded only what were known as
_perpetual vicars_--those, namely, that were appointed to impropriated
livings with a tenure of office similar to that of rectors. The author
of the gloss on the Constitution of Otho notes that in England there
were really four kinds of vicars, or four classes of priests who were
accounted or known as vicars: (1) those who for a stipend took the
cures of rectors, or of perpetual vicars, temporarily, and at the will
of those who engaged them--these did not require the licence of the
bishop, unless under special diocesan law; (2) those sent by the Pope,
etc., to certain parts of the world were called vicars; (3) vicars
appointed by the bishops, and known as _vicars-general_; and (4) the
_perpetual vicars_ of churches, instituted to the cure of souls by the
bishop, and by his licence installed--these were most properly called
vicars.
It is evident, from what is set out in the _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, that
the vicar proper, if he found it necessary, had to provide help in the
way of a curate. In this there was no distinction between a rector and
a vicar; and it is obvious that, where this was required, provision for
it had been made in the arrangement which had been come to in the first
instance between the impropriators and the bishop; or that arrangement
had subsequently been modified to enable the vicar to meet the expense
of extra help.
_Curates._--Next in importance among the parochial clergy come the
assistant priests, known as _Curates_ (_curati_), or those entrusted
with the cure of souls. They are called in canon law _vice curati_, or
_capellani_, who “administer the sacraments, not in their own name,
but in the name of another”--that is, in the name of the rector or
perpetual vicar. They were also, as previously pointed out, in England
occasionally called vicars, in the sense of taking the place of the
rector, etc.
Every curate by law was to receive from the rector or vicar who
employed him a fixed and sufficient salary, and all manner of bargains
as to payment or contracting out of obligations were prohibited.
Thus in the acts of the Synod of Ely, in 1364, Bishop Simon Langham
says, “We strictly prohibit any rector from making a bargain with his
(assistant) priest of this kind: that besides his fixed stipend he may
take offerings for anniversary Masses, etc., since such a bargain is a
clear indication that the fixed stipend is too small”--and to make it
up, these fees are looked for, and the parish Masses may be neglected.
In fact, by the Constitution of Archbishop Courtney, in 1391, the
curates were to receive none of the oblations, fees, or offerings made
in a parish, for services for which they received a sufficient payment
from those who employed them.
According to the same Constitution, the curate was admitted to his
office by the rector or vicar on any Sunday or Feast-day before the
parishioners at the parochial mass. After the Gospel of the Mass the
curate took an oath to respect the above conditions as to fees, etc.,
in the parish church or any chapel of ease in which he celebrated Mass,
and declared that he would neither stir up nor take part in any quarrel
or misunderstanding between the rector and his people; but that, on the
contrary, he would ever strive to preserve both peace and love between
them.
A curate thus instituted could only hear the confessions of
parishioners in the church or chapel where he said Mass according to
the leave and permission he had received; he was bound to be present
in the choir of the parish church, vested in a surplice, at Matins,
High Mass, Vespers, and other Divine service at the appointed hours on
Sundays and festivals, together with the other ministers of the church,
who were legally bound to assist at and increase the numbers of those
present at these services, and not to remain in the nave or walk about
in the cemetery, etc. On Sundays and Feast-days, when a funeral Mass
had to be said, the curate, unless with leave of his rector, was not
allowed to begin this Mass until after the Gospel of the High Mass.
In their private lives curates were warned always to act as priests,
and not to frequent taverns, plays, or illicit spectacles. In dress
and carriage they were ever to uphold the credit of the ecclesiastical
state, and not to bring scandal upon their rectors or upon themselves.
Sometimes the need of extra assistance in the parish was felt by the
people, and very frequently they contributed the sum necessary for a
curate’s sufficient stipend. At times the people even appealed to the
bishop to force the parson to seek additional help. Thus in the diocese
of London, in the fourteenth century, there is recorded the complaints
of the inhabitants of a parish that their vicar would not allow the
services of a priest for whom they had paid, and that thus “they were
deprived of daily Mass, and other divine service, with the sacraments
and sacramentals.”
At times, indeed, the need of an assistant in a parish was so obvious
that the bishop felt bound to interfere in order to secure the
appointment. Thus Bishop Rigaud de Asserio, of Winchester, in 1323,
appointed a curate to the Vicar of Twyford, “who was suffering from
an incurable disease” and unable to do the work of his parish. In the
same way, in 1313-14, Bishop Stapledon, of Exeter, appointed a curate
coadjutor to the Vicar of St. Neots, who was found to be suffering
from leprosy. The vicar was to have a certain stipend; was to keep the
best room in the parsonage, with the adjoining parts of the house,
except the hall. The door between this room and the vicar’s chamber was
to be built up, and the newly appointed curate was to have the whole
administration of the vicarage.
The _Chantry Priest_.--Next in order of importance among the priests of
a mediæval parish come the clergymen serving any chantry attached to
the church. These chantry chapels were, as is well known, very numerous
in pre-Reformation days, particularly in towns; but it has hitherto not
been sufficiently recognised that the priests serving them in any way
helped in parochial work. This is simply because the purpose, for which
those adjuncts to parish churches existed, has not been understood.
We have been taught to believe that a “chantry” only meant a place
(chapel or other locality) where Masses were offered for the repose of
the soul of the donor, and other specified benefactors. No doubt there
were such chantries existing, but to imagine that they were even the
rule is wholly to mistake the purpose of such foundations. Speaking
broadly, the chantry priest was an assistant priest of the parish, or,
as we should nowadays say, curate of the parish, who was supported by
the foundation fund of the benefactors for that purpose, and indeed
not unfrequently even by the contributions of the inhabitants. For
the most part their _raison d’être_ was to look after the poor of the
parish, to visit the sick, and to assist in the functions of the parish
church. Moreover, connected with these chantries were very commonly
what were called “obits.” These were not, as we have been asked to
believe, mere money payments to the priest for some anniversary
services; but they were for the most part money left quite as much for
annual alms to the poor, as for the celebration of any anniversary
offices. Let us take a few examples. In the city of Nottingham there
were two chantries connected with the parish church of St. Mary’s, that
of Our Lady, and that called Amyas Chantry. The former, we are told,
was founded “to maintain the services and to be an aid to the vicar,
and partly to succour the poor;” the latter for the priest to assist in
“God’s service,” and to pray for William Amyas, the founder. When the
commissioners in the first year of Edward VI. came to inquire into the
possessions of these chantries, they were asked by the people of the
place to note that in this parish there were “1400 houseling people,
and that the vicar there had no other priest to help but the above two
chantry priests.” It is not necessary to say that these foundations
were not spared on this account; for within two years the property,
upon which these two priests were supported, had been sold to two
speculators in suchlike parcels of land--John Howe and John Broxholme.
Then, again, in the parish of St. Nicholas, at Nottingham, we find from
the returns of the Commissioners that the members of the “Guild of the
Virgin” contributed to the support of an extra priest. In the parish
there were “more than 200 houseling people,” and as the parish living
was very poor, there was no other priest to look after them but this
one, John Chester, who was paid by the Guild. The King’s officials,
however, did not hesitate on this account to confiscate the property.
It is useless to multiply instances of this kind, some hundreds of
which might be given in the county of Nottingham alone. It may be
interesting, however, to take one or two examples of “obits” in this
part of England. In the parish of South Wheatley there were parish
lands let out to farm, which produced 18_d._ a year; say from £1 to
£1 4_s._ of our money. Of this sum, 1_s._ was for the poor and 6_d._
for church lights; that is, two-thirds, or, say, 16_s._ of our money,
was for the relief of the distressed. So in the parish of Tuxford the
church “obit” lands produced £1 5_s._ 4_d._, or more than £16 a year;
of this 16_s._ 4_d._ was intended for the poor, and 9_s._ for the
church expenses. It is almost unnecessary to add that the Crown took
the whole sum; that intended for the poor, as well as that used for
the support of the ecclesiastical services. Neither can it be held, I
fear, that the robbery of the poor was accidental and unpremeditated.
It has been frequently asserted, of course, that although grave
injury was undoubtedly done to the poor and needy in this way, it was
altogether inevitable, since the money thus intended for them was so
inextricably bound up with property to which religious obligations
(now declared to be superstitious and illegal) were attached, that the
whole passed together into the royal exchequer. It would be well if it
could be shown that this spoliation of the sick and needy by the Crown
of England was accidental and unpremeditated; but there are the hard
facts which cannot be got over. The documents prove unmistakably that
the attention of the officials was drawn to the claims of the poor,
and that in every such case these claims were disregarded, and a plain
intimation was given that the Crown deliberately intended to take even
the pittance of the poor.
The _Stipendiary_ priest differed in little from the curate, except
that he was engaged and paid for some special service and not for
the general purposes of a parish like a curate. They (_i.e._ the
stipendiaries) live, says Lyndwood, upon the stipend paid them for
their service, and have no fixed title or claim upon the church where
they offer up their Mass, except that they are paid for doing so for
a year or other fixed time. They had no claim whatever to fees or
oblations, and indeed, they were prohibited from receiving them.
Like all other priests dwelling within the bounds of a parish,
Stipendiaries were bound to attend in the choir of the parochial
church in surplice at Matins, High Mass, Vespers, and at all other
public Divine service. They were to be ready to read the lessons, sing
in the psalms and other chants, or take any other part, according to
the disposition of the rector or vicar. Some entries in the Chantry
certificates show that this duty was understood and fulfilled to the
end. At Costessy, in Norfolk, to take but one example, a stipendiary
priest was paid £6 by King’s College, Cambridge, to offer Mass in a
Free chapel, for the convenience of the people at a distance, and the
certificate adds, “and the said priest hath always used to help the
curate sing divine service upon holy day in the parish church.”
_Chaplain_ was a name given apparently to two sets of priests. The
priest employed, by a nobleman or other person of distinction, to
say Mass in a private chapel, and the priest who served a chapel of
ease, established for the convenience of the people in a much extended
parish, were both designated chaplains. Of the first, it is only
necessary to say, that so far at the parish was concerned, it could
claim the presence and help of even all private chaplains at the
ordinary services of the church.
The public chaplains, or those who served in chapels of ease, were
of greater importance in parochial work. The necessity for these
chapelries appears clearly in the “Chantry certificates,” under colour
of the act for suppressing which most of the chapels were destroyed.
Thus to take a few examples: The “Free chapel” of Tylne, in the parish
of Hayton, in Cumberland, had been founded by a priest named Robert
Poore. It had “always been accustomed to have all manner of Sacraments
ministered by the chaplain there to the inhabitants of North and
South Tylne. By reason that many times in the year such influence
of waters and snow doth abound so much within the said hamlets, the
inhabitants thereof can by no means resort unto their parish church
of Hayton, being two miles distant from the said chapel, neither for
christening, burying, or other rites.” And again at South Leverton, in
Nottinghamshire, there was a “chapel of Cottam, a mile distant from
the parish church,” at which eighty people received the Sacraments.
And, adds the “certificate,” “many times the waters being up the people
cannot come to their parish church.”
Such chapels were built at the cost of the people of the parish, and
under careful restrictions and conditions laid down by the bishop
of the diocese. An excellent instance of this is to be found in the
register of Bishop Brantyngham, of Exeter, where it is recorded that
in 1372 he dedicated a chapel of ease at Dartmouth. Up to this time
Dartmouth was in the parish of Townstall, which was a vicarage, the
benefice being appropriated to the Premonstratensian Abbey of Torre.
The people living at Dartmouth, failing to obtain permission to have a
chapel, proceeded to build one without leave of the abbey or of their
vicar. After considerable difficulty, and upon the intervention of
the bishop, it was allowed that the people on the seashore, many of
them old and infirm and women, frequently were unable to get to their
parish church, especially in stormy winter weather. For this reason
the erection of the chapel with a baptistery and cemetery was finally
allowed, and they were permitted to find a chaplain to serve it, who
was to be licensed from year to year, and admitted by the Vicar of
Townstall. In the same way Bishop Stafford allowed the establishment
of a chapel at Kingsbridge, in Devon, in 1414. The people who used the
chapel had to maintain it, and even the chancel, as well as all the
necessary books and ornaments. They were not charged, however, with the
payment of their own chaplain, or with the provision of bread and wine
for the Blessed Eucharist, which fell upon the rector of the parish of
Churston. Burials of the dead had up to this time taken place at the
mother church; but this, in view of circumstances adduced, the bishop
thought unreasonable. On the Feast of the Dedication of the parish
church, however, every adult was bound to attend there at the service
and to make an offering. Certain other dues also were ordered to be
paid in acknowledgment of the ties of the chapel to the mother church.
At one place, a chaplain was employed by the rector to say Mass for the
convenience of the people in a chapel attached to a house some distance
from the parish church. In another chapel of ease, a parishioner left
money for a foundation of three Masses weekly for the people; and at
Tatton, near Bristol, the churchwardens, in 1506, were paying “Sir
Richard York, chapel priest,” 27_s._ 4_d._ a quarter for his services.
Besides the above-named priests, all more or less connected with
the working of a mediæval parish, it was ordered that, wherever the
means of the place would allow it, there should be always a deacon
and subdeacon to assist in the due celebration of the Divine service.
Chance references in accounts and other documents seem to show that
they were often so employed. In one set of churchwardens’ accounts
there is a curious entry of receipt from a deacon, who pays for damage
done to certain vestments at the time of his ordination. In another,
a collection was made from the parishioners for the support of the
deacon; and in a book of directions for clerics, it is laid down as
part of the deacon’s office to bring the pyx containing the Blessed
Sacrament from behind the altar, where it had been hanging, and to
place it on the table of the altar for the priest to communicate the
faithful.