Parish life in mediæval England

by Francis Aidan Gasquet

CHAPTER IX

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.”

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 1d.; 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.

SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION

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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

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.

“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 1d., 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.