THE SACRAMENTS
This account of parochial life in pre-Reformation England requires
some brief description of the Sacramental system, which had its
effect on every soul in the district. From the time of his baptism as
a child of the Church, till his body was laid to rest in its tomb,
each parishioner was the constant recipient of some one of those
mysterious rites, by which, as he was taught by the Church and as he
believed, God’s grace was received into his soul to enable him to
lead the life of a good Christian. In the administration of these
Sacraments, nothing is more clear in the teaching of the Church of the
Middle Ages than that there was to be no question of money. They--the
Sacraments--were spiritual things, and to sell them for fees would be
plain simony, which was prohibited by every law of God and man. If
the administrator was permitted to take an offering, it was only with
the plain understanding that the payment was made in regard to the
service rendered, for which the recipient desired to make some return;
and that the Sacrament should be given without the fee. In the case
of such a Sacrament as Penance, for example, where the acceptance of
a fee or offering might lead to a misunderstanding of the judicial
character of the rite, and so bring it into contempt, the reception
of money was altogether prohibited by the ecclesiastical authorities,
and any such abuse was sternly repressed. Thus, to take an example,
in the acts of the Synod of Ely in 1364, the bishop, Simon Langham,
says, “We have heard, and greatly grieve to have done so, that some
priests exact money from the laity for the administration of penance or
other Sacraments, and that some, for the sake of filthy lucre, impose
penances” which bring in money to them. “These we altogether prohibit.”
The Sacraments, according to the teaching of the Church, which every
one who pretended to be a practical Christian was bound to receive,
were Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, Holy Eucharist, Extreme Unction,
and in the case of those desiring to marry, Matrimony. Something may,
therefore, usefully be said about each of these.
BAPTISM.--“To those coming into the _mare magnum_ of this world,” says
the legate Othobono, “Baptism must be regarded as the first plank of
safety in this sea of many shipwrecks to support us to the port of
salvation.” It is, he continues, the gate through which all have to
enter to enjoy the grace of the other Sacraments, and for this reason
“any error in regard to it is most dangerous,” and the possibility of
any child dying without receiving the saving waters is to be zealously
guarded against. Because of the priceless efficacy of the Sacrament,
every parish priest was warned to teach his people in the vernacular
the form of properly administering it, in case of need when a priest
could not be had. On this matter also the Archdeacon in the time of
his visitation of a parish was to inquire diligently whether these
instructions had been given, and whether the parishioners generally
knew how to baptize in case of need.
The importance which the Church attached to this Sacrament is well
illustrated by a Constitution of St. Edmund of Canterbury, which orders
that when the expectation of childbirth becomes imminent, all parents
should be warned to prepare a vessel and water to be ready at hand, in
case some sudden need should require the administration of baptism.
Ordinarily speaking, there can be no doubt that the old English
practice was that every child should, if possible, be baptized in the
parish church on the day of birth. In the ancient “proofs of age,”
this practice is evident; one example will be sufficient. In 1360 it
was requisite to prove the age of John, son and heir of Adam de Welle,
and the first witness who was called, said that “he knew that he was
born on the eve of St. Bartholomew the Apostle, because he was with his
master who stood god-parent to the child on that day, which was Sunday
21 years ago.” Another witness adds, that it was in the evening that
the baptism took place; and another that it was performed by John de
Scrubby, the chaplain.
There was, however, an exception. There were two days for public
baptism in the church, namely, Holy Saturday and the Saturday before
Pentecost, on which days the font in every parish church was solemnly
blessed. Apparently among English mothers in the thirteenth century,
this day was regarded as unlucky, and was avoided by them as far as
possible for the baptism of their children, a superstition that the
two legates Otho and Othobono endeavoured to eradicate. It became
consequently in England the practice, if children were born within
eight days of either of these two vigils of Easter or Pentecost, that
their baptism should be administered after the blessing of the font,
if there were no danger in the delay. In the case of the baptism being
held over, however, halfway between the day of birth and the day of
baptism, the child was to have all the accompanying rites administered
except only the actual baptism.
One of the demands of the Devon “rebels” in the time of the religious
changes in Edward VI.’s reign had reference to this question of
baptism. “We will,” it ran, “that our curates shall minister the
Sacrament of Baptism at all times, as well as in the week-day as on
the holy-day.” To this Cranmer, in his reply, says, “Every Easter and
Whitsuneven, until this time, the fonts were hallowed in every church
and many collects and other prayers were read for them that were
baptized. But alas! in vain, and as it were a mocking with God; for at
those times, except it were by chance, none were baptized, but all were
baptized before.”
The offering for the administration of baptism was strictly voluntary.
Whenever any difficulty arose between the parson and his people on
this matter, the bishop always took the opportunity of laying down as
the common law of the Church that nothing could be exacted. Bishop
Grandisson, for instance, in 1355, in a case at Moreton Hampstead,
declared “that no priest could deny, or presume to deny, any Sacrament
to his parishioners by demanding money, but that he might afterwards
take what the people chose to offer him.”
[Illustration: SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM]
The reverence with which our forefathers regarded whatever had been
used for any sacred purpose is illustrated in a matter connected with
this Sacrament. Bishop Quevil, in the Synod of Exeter in 1287, states
that when in case of necessity a child had been baptized in its own
home, the vessel that had been used should either be destroyed by fire
or given to the church to be used for ecclesiastical purposes; and that
the water should either be thrown on the fire or taken to the church
and poured down the “sacrarium.” Myrc, in his _Instructions_, gives
this same order--
“Another way thou might to yet
In a vessel to cryston hyt,
And when scho hath do ryght so
Watere and vessel brenne hem bo,
Other brynge hyt to the chyrche anon
And cast hyt to the font ston.”
Bishop Quevil, in the same Synod, also states the law of the Church
as to god-parents. For a boy, two men and one woman were permissible;
and similarly for a girl, two women and one man. All others could only
be regarded as witnesses, and did not incur the bond of spiritual
relationship as true god-parents and their god-children did.
Before passing on, a few words must be said as to the Font. According
to the Constitutions of the English Church, it was to be made of stone,
and to be covered. It was on no account to be used for any other
purpose, even ecclesiastical. For this reason, like the Holy Oils, it
was to be kept under lock and key. It was the privilege of a parochial
church alone to have a font, and the construction of one, even in a
Chapel of Ease, required the leave not only of the bishop, but also of
the rector of the parish. Thus, to take an instance, about the middle
of the fourteenth century Lord Beauchamp desired to have a font in his
chapel at Beauchamp. The bishop gave his consent, but on condition that
the approval of the rector was first obtained.
CHURCHING OF WOMEN.--Immediately connected with the question of baptism
is that old Catholic practice of the churching of women. The rite was
probably suggested by the prescriptions of the law in Leviticus, and it
was used in the Greek as well as in the Latin Church. The priest leads
the woman into the church, saying, “Come into the temple of God. Adore
the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who has given thee fruitfulness
in childbearing.” For churchings, as for marriages and burials, the
general fee was supposed to be 1_d._; but most people who could afford
it made a larger offering. The fee for churching is specially named
by Bishop Grandisson amongst those which a parson should not demand,
but which all who could, ought to give willingly. Amongst the goods of
St. Mary the Great, Cambridge, in the churchwardens’ accounts is one:
“Item. A clothe of tappestry werk for chirching of wifes, lyned with
canvas, _in ecclesia_.” This, no doubt, would be a carpet upon which
the woman knelt before the altar.
CONFIRMATION was, as Myrc says, “in lewde mennes menynge is i-called
the bys(h)opynge,” because it is and can be given only by bishops.
Strong pressure was brought to bear upon the clergy to see that all
were rightly confirmed, and Archbishop Peckham, in 1280, forbade “any
one to be admitted to the Sacrament of our Lord’s body and blood unless
he had been confirmed, except when in danger of death.”
Bishop Woodlock of Winchester, in 1308, has a special Instruction on
the need of this Sacrament. Because he says, “our adversary the devil,
wishing to have us as companions in his perdition, attacks with all
his powers those who are baptized; our watchful Mother the Church has
added the Sacrament of Confirmation, that by the strength received in
it every Christian may resist with greater force our hostile enemy.”
Parents are consequently to be warned to have their children confirmed
as soon as possible. If they are not confirmed before they are three
years old, unless there has been no opportunity, the parents are to
be made to fast one day on bread and water in punishment of their
negligence. Moreover, since the Sacrament may not be given twice,
parents are to be bound to acquaint their children, when they grow up,
of the fact of their Confirmation. Priests are also to instruct their
people as to the law that through Confirmation there arises a spiritual
relationship, as in Baptism, between the god-parents and the children
and their parents.
The Synod of Oxford laid it down as the law, that any adult, when about
to be confirmed, must first go to receive the Sacrament of Penance from
his own parish priest and fast on the day of his Confirmation till
after its reception. Priests were required, also, to instruct their
people frequently on the need of getting their children confirmed as
soon as possible after they were baptized. This the canonist Lyndwood
considers would mean within six months or so. The Synod likewise warned
parents not to wait for the bishop to come to their own parish, but to
take their children to any neighbouring place, where they might have
heard that the bishop was to be found. And any parish within seven
miles was for this purpose to be considered “a neighbouring place.”
In Bishop Grandisson’s Register there is an example of his giving
confirmation, at St. Buryan’s, in 1336, to “children almost without
number (_quasi innumerabiles_) from the parish and the district round
about.”
[Illustration: SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION]
The honour and respect shown to the Chrism, which was used by the
bishop at Confirmation, is manifested by the “old silk cloth” and “a
clothe of syndale” used to carry the Chrismatory at St. Mary the Great,
Cambridge. The Chrism was also bound to be renewed every year, the
old being burnt and a new stock procured from what was consecrated on
Maundy Thursday, in every cathedral church. Moreover, when presenting
a child for Confirmation, the parents had to bring with them a linen
band, or napkin, to bind round its head after Confirmation, and cover
the place where it had been anointed. This band, called _Fascia_, or
“Chrism cloth,” was, according to various directions, to be left on
the head of the child three, seven, or eight days, when the lately
confirmed child was to be taken to the church by its parents, and there
have its forehead washed by the priest over the font. The _fasciæ
ligaturæ_, or “Chrism cloths,” were then to be either burnt or left
to the use of the church. Myrc, in his _Instructions_, thus gives the
usage--
“Whenne the chyldre confermed ben
Bondes a-bowte here neckes be lafte
That from hem schule not be rafte
Tyl at chyrche the eghthe day
The preste hymself take hem a-way
Thenne schale he wyth hys owne hondes
Brenne that ylke same bondes,
And wassche the chylde over the font
There he was anoynted in the front.”
Finally, the greatest care was taken not only to see that all
Christians should receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, but that there
should be no doubt as to its valid reception. An instance of this is
to be found in Bishop Brantyngham’s Register. In 1382, some unknown
person, calling himself a bishop, went about the diocese of Exeter
giving the tonsure, and confirming children, and in other ways, as the
bishop says, “putting his sickle into other men’s harvest.” Under these
circumstances, the parents of all children presented for confirmation
to this unknown person were to be warned from every parish pulpit to
come and give evidence, in order that it might be determined what
should be done.
PENANCE.--The Sacrament of Penance, or, in other words, “Confession,”
was obligatory on all at least once a year. The obligation, however,
was obviously not considered the full measure of duty for those who
desired to lead good Christian lives. Bishop Brunton, of Rochester,
in a sermon preached about the year 1388 on the first Sunday of Lent,
whilst laying down the law of Confession at the beginning of Lent,
strongly urges upon his audience the utility of frequently approaching
that Sacrament, but reminds them that a mere formal Confession without
a firm purpose of amendment is worse than useless.
In the Synod of Exeter, in 1287, parish priests are charged “to warn
their parishioners, and frequently to exhort them in their sermons,
to come to Confession to their own priest thrice in the year--at
Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, or at the very least at the beginning
of Lent.” The same synodal instruction warns the parish priests,
moreover, to grant permission generously and freely to any one wishing
to confess to some other priest, and it adds, “that if any one shall
not have confessed himself and communicated once in the year, he
shall be prohibited coming to the church, and when dead be refused
ecclesiastical burial.”
All, rich and poor, noble and simple, on coming to the Sacrament
of Penance, were treated alike. An old fifteenth-century book of
_Instructions_ says--
“Every body that shall be confessed, be he never so hye degree or
estate, ought to shew loweness in herte, lowenes in speche and lowenes
in body for that tyme to hym that shall hear hym; and or he begynne
to shew what lyeth in hys conscience, fyrste at hys beginnyng he
shall say, _Benedicite_: and afturwards hys confessor hath answered
_Dominus_. Sume than, whych be lettered, seyn here _Confiteor_ til
they come to _Mea culpa_: sume seyn no ferthere, but to _Quia peccavi
nimis_; some seyn no _Confiteor_ in latin till at the last end. Of
these maner begynnings it is lytyl charge, for the substance of
Confession is in opyn declaration and schewyng of ye synnes, in whyche
a mannus conscience demyth hym gulty agenst God. In thys declaration
be manye formes of shewyng, for some scheme and divyde here confession
in thought, speche and dede, and in thys forme sume can specyfye here
synnes, and namely in cotydian confession, as when a man is confessed
ofte; oythes as every day or every othur day or onus in sevene nyght.
Also sume schewe and here confession by declaration of ye fyve wyttes,
and all may be well as in such cotydyan confession. Also sume, and
the most parte lettyred and unletteryd, schewe openly her synnes be
confession of ye sevene dedly synnes, and thane they schewe what they
have offendyd God agenste Hys precepts, and then in mysdyspendyng
of here fyve wyttes, and thanne in not fulfyllyng ye seven dedus of
mercy. And so, whanne they have specyfyed what comyth to here mynde,
then yn ye ende, they yelde them cowpable generally to God and putte
hem in Hys mercy, askyng lowly penaunce for her synnnes and absolution
of here confessor in the name of holy church.”
The instructions, given by the Canons of the English Church, as to the
method to be followed by priests in hearing confessions, are simple and
to the point. They are to remember that they are doctors for the cure
of spiritual evils, and to be ever ready “to pour oil and wine” into
the wounds of their penitents. They are to bear in mind the proverb,
that “what may cure the eye need not cure the heel,” and are to apply
the proper remedy fitting to each disease. They are to be patient, and
“to hear what any one may have to say, bearing with them in the spirit
of mildness, and not exasperating them by word or look.” They are
“not to let their eyes wander hither and thither, but keep them cast
downwards, not looking into the face of the penitent,” unless it be to
gauge the sincerity of his sorrow, which is often reflected most of all
in the countenance. Women are to be confessed in the open church, and
outside the (lenten) veil, not so as to be heard by others but to be
seen by them.
The place where confessions might be heard was settled in the
Constitutions of Archbishop Walter Reynold, in 1322.
“Let the priest,” it is said, “choose for himself a common place for
hearing confessions, where he may be seen generally by all in the
church; and do not let him hear any one, and especially any woman,
in a private place, except in great necessity and because of some
infirmity of the penitent.”
Myrc, in his _Instructions_, says that in Confession the priest is to
“Teche hym to knele downe on hys kne,
Pore other ryche, whether he be,
Then over thyn yen pulle thyn hod,
And here hys schryfte wyth mylde mod.”
The place usually chosen by the priest to hear the confessions of his
people was apparently at the opening of the chancel, or at a bench end
near that part of the nave. In some of the churchwardens’ accounts
there is mention of a special seat or bench, called the “shryving
stool,” “the shriving pew,” “the shriving place;” whilst at St. Mary
the Great, Cambridge, there appears to have been a special erection for
Lent time, as there is an entry of expense for “six irons pertaining
to the shryving stole for lenton,” which suggests that these iron
rods were to support some sort of a screen round about the place of
confession. Perhaps, however, it may have been for an extra confessor,
since, as already related, in one place it is said that the parish paid
for three extra priests “to shreve” in Holy Week.
THE HOLY EUCHARIST.--All adults of every parish were bound to receive
the Holy Communion at least once a year under pain of being considered
outside the benefits and privileges of Holy Church and of being refused
Christian burial, if they were to die without having made their peace.
Besides the Easter precept, all were strongly urged to approach the
Holy Eucharist more frequently, and especially at Christmas and Easter,
and, as has been already pointed out, there is some evidence to show
that, in point of fact, lay people did communicate more frequently, and
especially on the Sundays of Lent.
At Easter and other times of general Communion the laity, after their
reception of the Sacrament, were given a drink of wine and water from a
chalice. The clergy were, however, directed to explain carefully to the
people that this was not part of the Sacrament. They were to impress
upon them the fact that they really received the Body and Blood of our
Lord under the one form of bread, and that this cup of wine and water
was given merely to enable them to swallow the host more securely and
easily after their fast.
EXTREME UNCTION.--
“This Sacrament,” says the Synod of Exeter, “is to be considered as
health giving to both body and soul ... wherefore it is not the least
of the Sacraments, and parish priests, when required, should show
themselves ever ready to visit the sick, and to administer it to such
as ask, without asking or expecting any payment or reward.
“We further order that, avoiding all negligence, parish priests shall
be watchful and careful in the care committed to them, and that
without reasonable cause they never sleep out of their parishes.
And further that in case they do ever so, they procure some fitting
substitute, who knows how to do everything which the cure of souls
requires.”
If by the fault, negligence, or absence of his priest any one, old
or young, shall die without Baptism, Confession, Holy Communion, or
Extreme Unction, the priest convicted of this is to be forthwith
suspended from the exercise of his ecclesiastical functions, and this
suspension is not to be relaxed until he has done fitting penance “for
so grave a crime.”
[Illustration: SACRAMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION]
VISITATION OF THE SICK.--The subject of _Extreme Unction_, “the
Sacrament of the sick,” to be given in danger of death through
sickness, raises the question of the visitation of the sick in a
mediæval parish. The order that all parish priests should visit the
sick of their district every Sunday has already been noticed. It was,
moreover, a positive law of the Church, that every priest should go at
once on being called to a sick person, no matter what time of the day
or night the summons might come. Priests were ordered also to impress
upon all doctors the need of urging sick people and their friends to
send immediately for the priest in all cases of serious illnesses.
Priests, however, were not to wait to be called, but directly they
heard that any of their people were unwell they were warned to go at
once to them.
A chance story, used to enliven a fifteenth-century sermon, illustrates
the readiness of priests to go to the sick whenever they were summoned.
“I read,” says the preacher, “in Devonshire, besides Axbridge dwelt
a holy vicar, and had in his parish a sick woman that lay all at the
death, half a myle from him in a town. The which woman at midnight
sent after this vicar to come and give her her rites. Then this vicar
with all haste that he might he rose and rode to the church and took
God’s body in a box of ivory,” etc.
Archbishop Peckham legislated for the mode of carrying the Blessed
Sacrament to the sick, or rather he codified and made obligatory the
usual practice. The parish priest was to be vested in surplice and
stole, and accompanied by another priest, or at least by a clerk. He
was to carry the Blessed Sacrament in both hands before his breast,
covered by a veil, and was to be preceded by a server carrying a light
in a lantern, and ringing a hand bell, to give notice to the people
that “the King of Glory under the veil of bread” was being borne
through their midst, in order that they might kneel or otherwise adore
Him.
If the case was so urgent, that there was no time for the priest to
secure a clerk to carry the light and bell, Lyndwood notes that the
practice was for the priest to hang the lamp and bell upon one of his
arms. This he would also do in large parishes, where sick people had to
be visited at a distance and on horseback. In this case the lamp and
bell would be hung round the horse’s neck.
On the return to the church, should the Blessed Sacrament have been
consumed, the light was to be extinguished and the bell silenced, so
that the people might understand, and not, in this case, kneel as the
priest passed along. Lyndwood adds that the people should be told to
follow the Sacrament with “bowed head, devotion of heart, and uplifted
hands.” They were to be taught also to use a set form of prayer as the
priest passed along, such as the following: “Hail! Light of the world,
Word of the Father, true Victim, Living Flesh, true God and true Man.
Hail flesh of Christ, which has suffered for me! Oh, flesh of Christ,
let Thy blood wash my soul!” The great canonist says that he himself
on these occasions was accustomed to make use of the well-known “_Ave
verum Corpus, natum ex Maria Virgine_,” etc.
[Illustration: HEARSE AND PALL, FIFTEENTH CENTURY. CANTORS AT LECTERN]
The bell and light, or lights, for the visitation of the sick, were to
be found by the parish, and the churchwardens’ accounts consistently
record expenses to procure and maintain these lights. In some places,
apparently, the people found two such lanterns instead of the one which
the law obliged them to furnish. In the Archdeacon’s visitations,
also, there were set inquiries to see that the parish did its duty
in this matter. In one such examination there are references to the
necessary “cyphus pro infirmis,” which is stated to be good, bad, or
wanting altogether. What this may have been is not quite clear; but
probably it was the dish in which the priest purified his fingers,
after having communicated the sick person. Myrc gives a rhyming summary
of what a priest should know about visiting the sick. He is to go fast
when called; he is to take a clean surplice and a stole, “and pul thy
hod over thy syght;” in case of death being imminent, he is not to make
the sick man confess all his sins, but merely charge him to ask God’s
mercy with humble heart. If the sick man cannot speak, but shows by
signs that he wishes for the Sacraments--“Nertheless thou schalt hym
Soyle, and give hym hosul and holy oyle.”
The bishops watched carefully to see that no laxity should creep into
the mode of giving the Viaticum to the sick. Bishop Grandisson, in
1335, issued a special mandate to the priests of his diocese on the
matter, as he had heard that some carelessness had been noticed. He
reminds them that the Provincial Constitutions were clear in their
prescriptions that all were to wear a surplice and stole, unless the
weather were bad, and then these might be carried and put on before the
room of the sick man was entered. They must always have the light borne
before them, however, and the bell was to be rung to call the attention
of the people generally to the passing of the Sacrament, and thus
enable them to make their adoration.
According to most books of instruction on the duties of priests, before
the sick man was anointed or received the holy Viaticum, the parson
was to put to him what were known as “the seven interrogations.” He
was to be asked: (1) if he believed the articles of the faith and the
Holy Scriptures; (2) whether he recognized that he had offended God
Almighty; (3) whether he was sorry for his sins; (4) whether he desired
to amend, and if God gave him more time, by His grace he would do so;
(5) whether he forgave all his enemies; (6) whether he would make all
satisfaction; (7) “Belevest thowe fully that Criste dyed for the, and
that thow may never be saved but by the merite of Cristes passione, and
thonne thonkest therof God with thyne harte as moche as thowe mayest?
He answerethe, Yee.”
“Thanne let the curat desire the sick persone to saye _In manus tuas
&cetera_ with a good stedfast mynde and yf that he canne. And yef he
cannot, let the curate saye it for hym. And who so ever may verely of
very good conscience and trowthe without any faynyng, answere ‘yee,’
to all the articles and poyntes afore rehersed, he shalle live ever
in hevyne with Alle myghtie God and with his holy cumpany, wherunto
Ihesus brynge bothe youe and me. Amen.”
MARRIAGE.--So far in this chapter the Sacraments which every
parishioner had to receive at one time or other have been briefly
treated. It remains to speak of the Sacrament of Matrimony, which,
though not absolutely general, yet commonly affected most people
in every parish. “Marriage,” says Bishop Quevil, in the Synod of
Exeter--“marriage should be celebrated with great discretion and
reverence, in proper places and at proper times, with all modesty and
mature consideration; it should be celebrated not in taverns nor during
feastings and drinkings, nor in secret and suspect places.” That a
matter of this importance should be rightly done, the Synod lays down
the law of the Catholic Church on the point; no espousal or marriage
was to be held valid unless the contract was made in the presence of
the parish priest and three witnesses. For, although the contract of
the parties was the essential factor in marriage, still, “without the
authority of the Church, by the judgment of which the contract had to
be approved, marriages are not to be contracted.”
The first matter to be attended to in arranging for a marriage in
any parochial church was, as now, the publication of the banns in
the church on three successive Sundays or feast days. This was to
secure the proof of the freedom of the parties to marry. In a book of
instructions for parish priests, written about 1426, some interesting
information is given as to marriage.
[Illustration: SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY]
“The seventh Sacrament is wedlock,” it says, “before the which
Sacrament the banes in holy church shal be thryes asked on thre
solempne dayes--a werk day or two between, at the lest: eche day on
this maner: _N._ of V. has spoken with _N._ of P. to have hir to his
wife, and to ryght lyve in forme of holy chyrche. If any mon knowe any
lettyng qwy they may not come togedyr say now or never on payne of
cursyng.”
On the day appointed for the marriage, at the door of the church, the
priest shall interrogate the parties as follows:--
“_N._ Hast thu wille to have this wommon to thi wedded wif. _R._ Ye
syr. My thu wel fynde at thi best to love hur and hold ye to hur and
to no other to thi lives end. _R._ Ye syr. Then take her by yor hande
and say after me: I _N._ take the _N._ in forme of holy chyrche to
my wedded wyfe, forsakyng alle other, holdyng me hollych to the, in
sekenes and in hele, in ryches and in poverte, in well and in wo, tyl
deth us departe, and there to I plyght ye my trowthe.”
Then the woman repeated the form as above.
It was this “Marriage at the church door” which had to be established,
according to Bracton, in any question as to the legality or
non-legality of the contract. After this “taking to wife at the church
door,” the parties entered the church and completed the rite in the
church itself. As in the case of baptisms, churchings, and funerals,
the fee for marriages was fixed at 1_d._, but apparently all who could
afford it, gave more.
“Three ornaments,” says the author of _Dives and Pauper_--“three
ornaments (at marriage) belonged principally to the wyfe: a rynge on
her finger, a broche on hyr breste, and a garlande on hir head. The
rynge betokeneth true love; the broche betokeneth clenness of herte
and chastity that she ought to have; and the garland betokeneth the
gladness and the dignity of the sacrament of wedlock.”
Some of the ornaments for the bride at marriage the parish provided.
The nuptial veil was one of the things which the churchwardens were
supposed to find, and frequent inquiries were made concerning it in
the parochial visitations. In one parish the wardens possessed “one
standing mazer to serve for brides at their wedding;” and in another, a
set of jewels was left in trust for the use of brides on their wedding
day. If lent outside the parish, they were to be paid for, and the
receipt was to go to the common purposes of the church to which they
belonged.