Parish life in mediæval England

by Francis Aidan Gasquet

CHAPTER II

THE PARISH CHURCH

The “parish” is described by Bishop Hobhouse as the community dwelling in an area defined by the Church, organised for Church purposes, and subject to Church authority. “Within this area,” he says, “every resident was a parishioner, and, as such, owed his duty of worship and contribution to one stated church, and his duty of confession and submission to the official guidance of a stated pastor, entitled his Rector, or to the Rectors deputy, entitled Vicar.”

The centre of every mediæval parish, then, was its church. It was, as it were, the mainspring of the machinery of parochial life, which cannot be understood without a full knowledge of its position in regard to the people generally, and of all that it was to the inhabitants of a district in pre-Reformation days.

For our present purposes, we need not, of course, concern ourselves with trying to solve the vexed question as to who it was that first built the parochial churches. About this there is, and probably will remain, much obscurity. In the first instance, in England, very possibly, they were the creation of some nobles or rich landlords, who desired to secure the services of religion for the people dwelling upon their estates, as tenants, servants, or serfs, and who, having obtained from the bishop of the district his leave to set up an oratory or church, obtained the ministration of a priest. Whatever the origin, it is certain that long before the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries the parish church had practically come to be the property of the parishioners generally in a very definite manner, and, with certain exceptions, to which reference will presently be made, upon the inhabitants of a parochial district as a corporation lay the duty of repairing and rebuilding the fabric, of beautifying the edifice, of maintaining the services, and of seeing generally to its well-being. This they did as a matter of well-recognised obligation and duty; but obviously also as a matter which afforded them much satisfaction and pleasure.

The fabric of the church consisted of the nave, with its chapels and aisles, when it had any, and the chancel, which included the choir and presbytery. In England, at least, there was a well-recognised and very general distinction between the chancel and the nave. The former was sometimes called the “parson’s freehold,” and to him belonged the entire care of his “chancel,” and the duty of keeping it in repair. In fact, it was not disputed that one part of the tithe received by the priest from the parish was intended to furnish him with ample means for fulfilling this duty, and in the event of death removing an incumbent, where there were dilapidations in the chancel, which had not been seen to by him, his successor could, and frequently did, claim compensation from the heirs of the deceased.

The synodal directions given with regard to the care and repair of the chancels are definite. “In parish churches,” says one of 1350, taken as an example, “the chancel is to be found and maintained fittingly in all things by the Rector.” Bishop Brantyngham, of Exeter, issued a “declaration” as to the custom in his diocese as laid down by his predecessor, Bishop Quevil. In this he says that—

“the work of constructing and repairing the chancels of all mother churches belongs to the rectors of the parishes; but that of the naves pertains to the parishioners, without regard to any contrary custom. In the case of chapels, which have their distinct parochial district, the entire duty of maintenance belongs to the parishioners of the chapel, as it is for their convenience such chapels are built, and, moreover, they may be obliged to assist, in case of need, the mother church.”

This was the ordinary rule in England, as we see from the gloss on the Constitutions of Cardinal Othoboni, where Lyndwood calls it “the common custom in England that the parishioners repair the nave of the church where they sit,” and that if the rector has the fourth part of the tithe, which was intended for the repairs of the church, he should by law see to all the repairs. “By praiseworthy custom,” in England, however, the author adds, the repair of the chancel only is an obligation of the rector, although he cannot entirely free himself of all responsibility for the rest of the church. Sometimes, however, as the canonist notes, as, for example, in some London churches and elsewhere, the care of the chancel is also a matter for the parishioners, and the parson, although taking “the fourth part of the tithe” intended to meet the general expenses of church repairs, is yet held to be free of the obligation.

Sometimes, as may be seen in the visitations of parochial churches, difficulties arose about the precise obligation of parson and people as to the repair even of the chancel. In the Register of Bishop Stapledon, for instance, at the inquiry held in 1301, at St. Mary Church, the parishioners represented that, up to the time of the then vicar, they had been accustomed to repair the chancel, and because of this the tithe on all store cattle had not been demanded of them. The new vicar had made them pay this, but yet had not done the repairs to the chancel, and wanted them to continue to do so. So, too, during Bishop Grandisson’s episcopate, the question whether the parishioners paid the “decimas instauri” was the determining reason as to whether they should be compelled to repair the chancels or not.