Parish life in mediæval England

by Francis Aidan Gasquet

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 18d. a year; say from £1 to £1 4s. of our money. Of this sum, 1s. was for the poor and 6d. for church lights; that is, two-thirds, or, say, 16s. of our money, was for the relief of the distressed. So in the parish of Tuxford the church “obit” lands produced £1 5s. 4d., or more than £16 a year; of this 16s. 4d. was intended for the poor, and 9s. 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.”