THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.
The enforcement of celibacy upon the clergy was an important feature in the plan of the Hildebrandine reformers of the eleventh century. The idea which inspired the enthusiasm of the foremost Churchmen of the time was, no doubt, a grand one. It was to bring the national churches into practical co-operation by a world-wide ecclesiastical organization, and to place the spiritual authority of the whole Church in the hand of one man, in order to control the world-power of kings and princes, and check the manifold abuses which at that time especially threatened to corrupt and secularize the Church. The clergy were intended in the Hildebrandine scheme to be the Pope’s local agents in the administration of this ecclesiastical monarchy; and in order to detach them from secular and local ties it was proposed to make the secular clergy a kind of Religious Order—an anticipation, in some respects, of the organization of the subsequent Orders of Friars.
We must do the authors of the scheme the justice to remember that they honestly believed that the celibate state—not the mere accident of being unmarried, but the chosen and vowed state—was a higher condition of life; and it was easy to apply St. Paul’s advice to those who could accept it, to the special condition of the clergy:—“The unmarried (priest) careth for the things of the Lord, that (he) may be holy both in body and spirit, but the married (priest) careth for the things of the world.” It was easy to draw a contrast between the parish priest with a wife and family, bound by a thousand ties to the ordinary interests and anxieties of the world, and the celibate priest, who wants nothing beyond the priest’s chamber and his humble fare, and who gives his whole mind and soul to his daily devotions and his spiritual ministrations among his flock; his rusty cassock a uniform as honourable as the soldier’s war-stained coat, his ascetic life ensuring the reverence which even the worldly-minded pay to those who despise worldly things.
To the fulfilment of this idea the great body of the secular clergy in Germany, Italy, and France, as well as England, offered for centuries a stubborn resistance. They stood on the irrefragable ground that the priests and Levites of the Old Dispensation were married men; that our Lord and His apostles gave no such commandment to the Church; that, as a matter of history, some of the apostles were married men; and that for ten centuries bishops and priests of the Church all over the world had married.It was obvious to reply to the supposed advantages of a priesthood disentangled from worldly anxieties, that, on the contrary, it was desirable for the pastors in immediate habitual intercourse with the people to be men who had property and families, because then they could deal with men on the ground of common interests and sympathies; and that to impose compulsory celibacy on the secular clergy was a measure full of the gravest dangers.
The majority of the clergy probably were influenced by the broad common sense which pronounced the ultramontane idea to be unscriptural, transcendental, novel, and, therefore, questionable; and, lastly, a burden which no one had the right to impose upon the unwilling. Some of them tauntingly desired the pope to see if he could get the spirits from above to leave their stations and come and rule the Churches under his Holiness, since men were not good enough for him.
The attempt to introduce celibacy among the secular clergy had been begun in the latter part of the Saxon period. We have seen that kings made laws and bishops made canons against the married clergy. We cannot have better evidence than that of Ælfric’s famous pastoral address, that the Saxon clergy generally had ignored these laws and canons, and that it had not been found practicable to enforce them. Ælfric declares that—
The Four General Councils forbade all marriages to ministers of the altar, and especially to mass-priests [which is a misstatement], and that the canons command that no bishopnor priest shall have in his house any woman except his mother or other person who is above suspicion. “This, to you priests,” he says, “will seem grievous, because ye have your misdeeds in custom” [you are accustomed to married priests], “so that it seems to yourselves that ye have no sin in living in female intercourse as laymen do, and say that Peter the Apostle had a wife and children. So he and others had before their conversion, but then forsook their wives and all earthly things” [which is, to say the least, a doubtful assumption]. “Beloved,” he goes on, “we cannot now forcibly compel you to chastity, but we admonish you nevertheless that ye observe chastity as Christ’s ministers ought in good reputation to the pleasure of God.”
The Four General Councils forbade all marriages to ministers of the altar, and especially to mass-priests [which is a misstatement], and that the canons command that no bishopnor priest shall have in his house any woman except his mother or other person who is above suspicion. “This, to you priests,” he says, “will seem grievous, because ye have your misdeeds in custom” [you are accustomed to married priests], “so that it seems to yourselves that ye have no sin in living in female intercourse as laymen do, and say that Peter the Apostle had a wife and children. So he and others had before their conversion, but then forsook their wives and all earthly things” [which is, to say the least, a doubtful assumption]. “Beloved,” he goes on, “we cannot now forcibly compel you to chastity, but we admonish you nevertheless that ye observe chastity as Christ’s ministers ought in good reputation to the pleasure of God.”
Gregory VII., in the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1074, took a step in advance of previous legislation on the subject. He peremptorily forbade marriage to the clergy, pronounced sentence of excommunication against those who refused to put away their wives, and forbade the laity to be present at mass when they officiated.
In adopting this legislation in England, Lanfranc considerably modified it. In the Synod of Winchester, in 1076, it was decreed that no canon should be married; the married parochial clergy were not required to put away their wives, but those who were not married were forbidden to take any; and bishops were required not to ordain deacons or priests unless they declare that they have not wives. But this legislation seems to have been largely ignored, and the disobedience winked at.
In 1102, a national synod, held at Westminster,under Anselm of Canterbury and Gerard of York, sought to draw the line more strictly. It enacted that no canon, and no one above the order of sub-deacon, might marry; required those who were married to put away their wives; forbade a married priest to say mass, and the people to hear him. It added another edict, to which we shall have to refer hereafter—that sons of priests were not to succeed to their fathers’ benefices.
It was soon found that it was not possible to enforce these decrees, and the Pope was appealed to on the question. He was so convinced of the difficulty, that he dispensed with the canons, and in a letter (1107) to Anselm gave reasons for so doing, which contain valuable evidence of the condition of things. He founded the dispensation on the particular circumstances of the English Church, where, he observes, the greater and more valuable part of the clergy were the sons of priests, and therefore he gives Anselm a commission to promote such persons in the Church. He likewise empowers him to dispense with the canons in other cases where the untractableness of the English and the interest of religion should make it necessary. Anselm’s canons were repeated by William of Canterbury and Thurstan of York in 1126 and 1127, but were met with a stubborn resistance.[252]
After a short time bishops and great dignitaries ceased to be married men, and sought to enforce the canons on celibacy which they helped to make. Cathedral dignitaries also generally paid outward respect to the canons, but some of them had unacknowledged wives.[253]
In 1128, at a national synod held in London, the synod resigned the dealing with the recalcitrant clergy into the king’s hands. The king (Henry I.) disappointed the archbishops by abstaining from any attempt to enforce celibacy on the clergy, but he ingeniously took advantage of the opportunity to raise a revenue out of them by permitting the clergy to retain their wives on payment of a fee for the licence to do so. The king was said to have raised a great sum of money by this device, which implies that a great number of the clergy were married and retained their wives. King John, on the publication of the Interdict, seized the wives of the clergy, and only released them on payment of heavy ransom.
Synod after synod continued to legislate against them.[254]
In 1222, a synod held at Oxford, under Archbishop Stephen Langton, enacted that if beneficed men or men in sacred orders should presume to retain their partners publicly in their dwelling-houses (hospitiis), or should elsewhere have public access to them to the public scandal, they should be coerced by the withdrawal of their benefice; and that the clergy might not leave such partners (i.e.wives) anything in their wills. It also attacked the poor wives, enacting that if they did not leave their partners they should be excluded from the church and the sacraments; if that did not suffice, they should be stricken with the sword of excommunication; and, lastly, the secular arm should be invoked against them.[255]Archbishop Richard of Wethershead, in 1229 or 1230 repeated the decree that men of the order of sub-deacon and upwards who had married should put away their wives, though they were unwilling and refused to consent,[256]and if they persisted in having publicly a female partner, should, after a first, second, and third warning, be deprived of every benefice and office.St. Edmund the Canonized Archbishop, in 1234 or 1235, enacted that if any clerics who had been suspended for incontinency should presume to continue to exercise their office they should be deprived of their benefices, and for their double faultperpetuo damnentur. He tries to make the rectors inform against the clerics in their parishes, threatening that if a case comes to his knowledge by common report before the rector has given in his accusation against his brother, the rector shall be taken to have known of it, and shall be punished as a partaker in the sin. Lastly, he decrees that prelates (archdeacons, officials, and rural deans) who presume to support such persons in their iniquity, especially for the offer of money or of any other temporal advantage, shall be subject to the same penalty.In 1237, Cardinal Otho came from Rome at the request of the king (Henry III.), unknown to the nobles, and summoned a national council at St. Paul’s. It was understood that he was going to make strong decrees against the abuses of the clergy, and especially against the pluralists and the illegitimates, and feeling ran so high among the clergy that the legate obtained from the king an attendance of some nobles, and a guard of some armed knights and about two hundred soldiers, who were placed in ambush for his protection. The decree against the pluralists was so vehemently opposed that the cardinal postponed this question till the Pope could be appealed to.The canon against the married clergy declared that unless clerks, especially those in holy orders, who publicly keep concubines in their houses, or in those of others’, dismiss them therefrom within a month, they shall be suspended from every office and benefice, and if they persist, shall be deprived. And “we strictly order that archbishops and bishops shall make diligent inquiries throughout all their deaneries, and that what we have decreed shall be observed.”The canon on sons of priests forbade the prelates from presuming henceforth under any pretext, or by any fraud, to appoint or admit any to benefices which their fathers held by any kind of title, either to the whole or to part, and that they who already hold such benefices shall be deprived.In 1265, Cardinal Othobon presided over a national council at London, which was of great authority, and was regarded subsequently as a rule of discipline for the English Church, in which the preceding legislation was again repeated.The Council of Reading, under Archbishop Peckham, in 1279, refers to the canon of Othoboncontra concubinarios, and orders that archdeacons shall read it at their visitations and see that it is read by the rural deans at their chapters (the laity being excluded), and in case of neglect they shall fast on bread and water on the six week days (unless infirmity hinder them) until they have read or caused it to be read at the next chapter.
In 1222, a synod held at Oxford, under Archbishop Stephen Langton, enacted that if beneficed men or men in sacred orders should presume to retain their partners publicly in their dwelling-houses (hospitiis), or should elsewhere have public access to them to the public scandal, they should be coerced by the withdrawal of their benefice; and that the clergy might not leave such partners (i.e.wives) anything in their wills. It also attacked the poor wives, enacting that if they did not leave their partners they should be excluded from the church and the sacraments; if that did not suffice, they should be stricken with the sword of excommunication; and, lastly, the secular arm should be invoked against them.[255]
Archbishop Richard of Wethershead, in 1229 or 1230 repeated the decree that men of the order of sub-deacon and upwards who had married should put away their wives, though they were unwilling and refused to consent,[256]and if they persisted in having publicly a female partner, should, after a first, second, and third warning, be deprived of every benefice and office.
St. Edmund the Canonized Archbishop, in 1234 or 1235, enacted that if any clerics who had been suspended for incontinency should presume to continue to exercise their office they should be deprived of their benefices, and for their double faultperpetuo damnentur. He tries to make the rectors inform against the clerics in their parishes, threatening that if a case comes to his knowledge by common report before the rector has given in his accusation against his brother, the rector shall be taken to have known of it, and shall be punished as a partaker in the sin. Lastly, he decrees that prelates (archdeacons, officials, and rural deans) who presume to support such persons in their iniquity, especially for the offer of money or of any other temporal advantage, shall be subject to the same penalty.
In 1237, Cardinal Otho came from Rome at the request of the king (Henry III.), unknown to the nobles, and summoned a national council at St. Paul’s. It was understood that he was going to make strong decrees against the abuses of the clergy, and especially against the pluralists and the illegitimates, and feeling ran so high among the clergy that the legate obtained from the king an attendance of some nobles, and a guard of some armed knights and about two hundred soldiers, who were placed in ambush for his protection. The decree against the pluralists was so vehemently opposed that the cardinal postponed this question till the Pope could be appealed to.
The canon against the married clergy declared that unless clerks, especially those in holy orders, who publicly keep concubines in their houses, or in those of others’, dismiss them therefrom within a month, they shall be suspended from every office and benefice, and if they persist, shall be deprived. And “we strictly order that archbishops and bishops shall make diligent inquiries throughout all their deaneries, and that what we have decreed shall be observed.”
The canon on sons of priests forbade the prelates from presuming henceforth under any pretext, or by any fraud, to appoint or admit any to benefices which their fathers held by any kind of title, either to the whole or to part, and that they who already hold such benefices shall be deprived.
In 1265, Cardinal Othobon presided over a national council at London, which was of great authority, and was regarded subsequently as a rule of discipline for the English Church, in which the preceding legislation was again repeated.
The Council of Reading, under Archbishop Peckham, in 1279, refers to the canon of Othoboncontra concubinarios, and orders that archdeacons shall read it at their visitations and see that it is read by the rural deans at their chapters (the laity being excluded), and in case of neglect they shall fast on bread and water on the six week days (unless infirmity hinder them) until they have read or caused it to be read at the next chapter.
Were the laity excluded to screen the infirmities of their pastors, or because the expression of lay dissent would have encouraged the clergy in their contumacy? May we conjecture that, in spite of the urgent commands of the archbishop, the reading of the canon was often omitted, and that the archdeaconsand rural deans excused themselves from the consequent penance under favour of the saving clause?[257]
The legislation is itself a witness to the existence of the practices which it tries to suppress. We need no further proof that in the thirteenth century many of the clergy were married men, that in some cases they lived openly with their wives in their dwelling-houses, or, in other cases, they visited them openly in separate houses provided for them; that they refused to give them up in spite of repeated synodical decrees; that clerics who were not themselves married countenanced their married brethren; that even the dignified officials whose business it was to take proceedings against them, hung back from doing so.
After the middle of the fourteenth century this subject disappears from the acts of the synods; not because the clergy had come universally to obey the former canons, but because the question had found a solution, which we proceed to describe. Celibacy was confessedly not a Divine ordinance, but an ecclesiastical regulation, and so long as the two evils were avoided (1) of the parochial benefices being overburdened by the demands of an avowed family;and (2) of the hereditary descent of benefices by the absence of lawful heirs; the ecclesiastical authorities might be satisfied with the obedience of a large proportion of the clergy, and willing to connive at the solution of the question to which the rest resorted.
The solution was as follows: The secular cleric was not bound by any Divine ordinance to celibacy, and did not, like the monks, take any vow of celibacy on admission to Orders. It was only an ecclesiastical regulation; and he took leave to evade the canon. If he married, the marriage was not void in itself, it was only voidable if brought before the Ecclesiastical Court during the lifetime of the parties; but he had taken his precautions in view of that contingency; the marriage was irregularly performed in some particular, or performed in such circumstances that it was incapable of legal proof. It was something like the morganatic marriages of German princes, illegal, derogatory, not conferring on wife and children the status and rights of legal wife and children, but still not in fact, or in the estimation of society, immoral and disreputable.
It is notorious that in the fifteenth century there were many ecclesiastics, from the popes downwards, who had wives, but not living in their houses, and not presented to the world as wives,[258]and theyhad children who were presented to the world as nephews and nieces. Warham, the last Archbishop of Canterbury before the Reformation, is said (by Erasmus[259]) to have had a wife who was not secluded from the knowledge and society of his friends; Cranmer certainly married his second wife, the niece of Osiander, before he was archbishop, and did not sever his ties with her after he became archbishop. And it is clear that these relations were not regarded as immoral and disgraceful; in fact, the common sense of mankind gives easy absolution for the breach of inequitable laws.[260]
But there is no doubt that the ambiguity of such relations, at the best, laid open those who entered into them to just censure, and must have lowered their own moral tone and that of those thus connected with them. Neither is it to be denied that enforced celibacy, and the loose notions encouraged by such connections as those here described, led to a certain amount of profligacy which admits of no excuse or palliation.
So the ultramontane policy at length won a victory—of a sort. It succeeded in preventing the clergy from having wives by conniving at their concubines; it left no legitimate sons of rectors to claim the heritage of their fathers’ benefices, and gave dispensationsto their illegitimate sons; it established a celibate priesthood, with all the scandals and suspicions associated with it; it withdrew its clergy from the ordinary affairs of life, and at the same time from the leadership of the current practical life of the people. In a biting phrase of the time of Matthew Paris, “The pope deprived the clergy of sons, and the devil sent them nephews.”
We have given a—perhaps disproportionately—long chapter to a not very agreeable subject; but it seemed desirable to take the pains necessary to put the matter in its proper light, and not to allow the Englishmen of the great period, from the twelfth to the sixteenth century, to lie under the suspicion of being so ungodly that the clergy generally lived in open immorality, and the laity thought little the worse of them for it.
An entry in a MS. Book of Ecclesiastical Causes reveals the possible complications which might arise out of these marriages. Marriages of the clergy were not null and void, they were only voidable by proceedings which must be taken in the lifetime of the parties. So that it was always possible that the children of such a marriage might after their father’s death claim as heirs to his estate, and might have the means of proving their parents’ marriage; in which case they would inherit to the exclusion of those who had thought themselves the heirs. For example, Sir John de Sudley, knight, and Elizabeth, wife of Sir Baldwyn de Frevyle, knight, relatives and heirsof Peter, the uncle of the said Sir John, a sub-deacon, alleged that marriage had been contracted by the said sub-deacon, to their exclusion from the heirship, and prayed that the marriage might be pronounced null, lest the children of the said sub-deacon should claim his heirship. Sir Peter de Montford seems to be the name of the sub-deacon aforesaid, and Margaret Furnivale that of his wife.[261]
Chaucer, in “The Miller’s Tale,” seems incidentally to show what was the popular view of the children of a cleric. The Miller, a Yeoman, a man of comparative wealth and consideration in his village, had married a parson’s daughter:—
A wife he hadde commen of noble kin,The parson of the town her father was.
Her “noble kin” points perhaps to the fact that the parson of the town was of the family of the lord of the manor. She had received the education of a lady—
She was yfostered in a nonnerie.
As to her personal character—
She was proud and pert as is a pie.
Next the poet puts upon his stage the daughter of this worthy pair—
A daughter hadden they betwixt them two;
and it is what he says about this young lady which proves most clearly that neither mother nor daughter suffered in the estimation of society from the condition of their birth:
The parson of the town, for she was faire,In purpose was to maken her his heireBoth of his catel and of his messuage,And strange he made it of her marriage;His purpose was for to bestow her hieInto some worthie blood of ancestrie.
Geoffrey of Childewick, a knight, married Clarissa, the daughter of a country priest, but she was the sister of the famous John Mansell, the minister of Henry III.
A man was called priest’s son, not as a nickname, but as a surname recognized in formal legal documents, as in the “Pleas of the Crown,” c. 1220, Hugo Clark appealsPaganus filius Sacerdotisand others of having beaten him and broken his teeth, etc.[262]
The subject is rather fully illustrated in the MS.Omne Bonum(Royal 6 E. VI.) of the fourteenth century in the British Museum. At f. 295, under the titleClericorum et mulierum cohabitatio, is a quaint picture of a bishop parting a group of clergy from a group of women. At f. 296verso, under the titleDe clericis conjugatio, is represented a group of clergy on the left, a group of women on the right, and a cradle containing a baby between the two groups;the text is on the penalties against clerical marriages, but it calls the womenuxores—wives. Again, in the second volume of the work (Royal 6 E. VII.), at f. 138, under the titleFilii Presbyterum, the picture shows three priests on the left, and women on the right, with three children kneeling between them; the text is on the disabilities of sons of priests.
Another branch of the same subject is the determination of the rulers of the Church that the sons of clerics should not be allowed to succeed to their fathers’ benefices. The hereditary succession of the semi-secular Saxon monasteries afforded a venerable precedent for doing so. The tendency of the feudal system was to make all offices hereditary, and the practice was growing up of making church benefices hereditary, and treating them like lay fiefs;e.g.dividing them between two or more sons, as if they were an ordinary estate; demanding a fine from a new rector as the lord of the manor did from a new tenant; making the condition that the presentee should give up this or that ancient possession of the benefice, or should pay an annual pension to the patron. The end of this would have been that the benefices of the church would have become hereditary, impaired, and secularized.
How far the mischief had already gone is illustrated by two or three examples which we are able to quote.[263]In York, immediately after the Conquest, there wassomething very like a succession to the archbishopric. The provostship of Hexham descended from father to son, all of them being priests. The Deans of Whalley and Kettelwell, ecclesiastics of great jurisdiction and influence, were married, and their offices descended from father to son for generations. In the episcopal registers we find from time to time sons succeeding their fathers well on in the thirteenth century, notwithstanding the canons and synods which prohibited it.
The great act of defence against this danger which threatened was the canon which forbade the son of a parson to succeed to his father’s benefice. The canon was re-enacted from time to time, but not without occasional instances of strenuous resistance. Thus, in 1235, Alexander, Bishop of Coventry, complained to Pope Gregory IX., that certain rectors, sons of priests, presumed to occupy their fathers’ benefices by force of arms; and in some cases where fit incumbents had been placed, the priest’s sons had threatened them with injury to members and life, so that they feared to dwell there; and he asks the pope’s protection.[264]The pope tells him to deprive them of all their benefices.[265]
Some of the results of the state of things above described appear very frequently in the bishops’ registers. Illegitimacy, we have seen, was one of the defects which stood in the way of a man’s ordination,and the son of a priest was regarded by the canons as illegitimate; but the bishop could, if he pleased, give a dispensation which removed the barrier, and there are many records of such dispensations.[266]Sometimes the dispensation only admits the grantee to take minor orders, sometimes “to take all the sacred orders, and to hold ecclesiastical benefices even with cure of souls.” In the Register of Bishop Quivil, of Exeter, 1282, is a record of aDispensatio super defectu nataliumgranted to J. de Axemuthe, the defect being that he wasde presbytero genitus et soluta. So, in the Exeter Register of Bishop Stapledon, J. de Hurbestone, clerk, in 1308, had a dispensation, beingde presbytero genitus et soluta.Solutameans single woman, but in the eye of the canon law and of the bishop, the wife of a priest would besoluta, so that these may be cases not of immorality, but of married priests. In the Register of Montacute, Bishop of Ely, is a record of a dispensation (1338) to the son of Ada Bray, of Canterbury,qui patre de presbytero genitus, to be promoted to all minor orders.[267]In a great number of cases the nature of the illegitimacy issoluto genitus et soluta—born of a single man and single woman; it is very possible that a number of sons of the clergy may be included in this formal legal description also.
Sometimes a man, refused perhaps by his own bishop, went to Rome for a dispensation, andobtained it.[268]Sometimes the Papal Court gave a priest’s son license to be promoted to any dignityshort of a bishopric.[269]
If a man, being thus disqualified, neglected to obtain a proper dispensation, he might find the neglect a serious difficulty in after-life, or if he failed to have at hand the proof of his dispensation; thus, in 1234, it was objected to Thomas de Melsonby, prior of Durham, that he was the son of a rector of Melsonby, and born while his father was in holy orders.[270]Similarly on Feb. 20, 1308-9, Stapledon, bishop of Exeter, in the chapter-house of Launceston Priory, admonished the prior on pain of deprivation to exhibit, within two years, to himself or his successors, his “Privilegium” by virtue of which he retained the dignity, being illegitimate. He appeared within the term and satisfied the bishop, and was discharged.[271]
It appears that those who were thrust out on this ground were treated with some consideration. In 1126, Wm. de Ruley was deprived of the Church of Ruley, on the ground that he was the son of the last minister; but the archbishop assigned to him the tithes of a chapelry in the parish for his supportduring his life.[272]The mandate for the removal of Peter of Wivertorp from the Church of Wivertorp, for the same reason, concludes with the note,salva pensione, from which we infer that all incumbents removed for this cause were entitled to, or at least were usually granted, a pension. But Peter of Wivertorp did not rest content with his deprivation. He made friends at the Court of Rome, representing that his father was married when in minor orders, and that he himself had held the benefice for ten years; and obtained a letter from Pope Honorius interceding for him, that he should be allowed to retain Wivertorp till the archbishop gave him some other competent living.[273]
The curt, formal entries in these musty records sometimes seem to give us a glimpse into men’s hearts and lives: John Curteys, Vicar of Hobeche, in his will, made in 1418, leaves all his lands in Holbeach and Quappelode, to William Curteys for life, on condition that he shall become a priest as soon as possible after obtaining his legitimation, to celebrate for the souls of his parents; the remainder for pious uses.[274]We venture to conjecture that John Curteys, the vicar, in view of his approaching end, was uneasy in his conscience about the uncanonical marriage of which William was the offspring; therefore he thus appeals to his son to obtain as rapidly as may be a dispensation, and ordination tothe priesthood; and then to use continually during his future life his priestly office in praying for the souls of his erring parents.
The author of “Piers Plowman’s Vision” includes these dispensations to priests’ sons, and sons of serfs, among the abuses of his time, in lines which are worth quoting—
For should no clerk be crowned,[275]But if he come wereOf franklins and freemen, And of folk wedded.Bondmen[276]and bastards, And beggars’ children,[276]These belong to labour, And lord’s children should serveBoth God and good men As their degree askith.Some to sing masses, Others to sit and write,Reade and receive, What Reason ought to spend.And since bondmen’s bairns Have been made bishops,And bastard bairns Have been archdeacons,And cobblers and their sons For silver have been knights,And monks and monials, That mendicants should feed,[277]Have made their kin knights, And knights’ fees purchased,Popes and Patrons Poor gentle blood refuse,And take Simond’s son, Sanctuary to keep.Life holiness and love Have been long hence,And will, till it be weared out Or otherwise ychanged.
VISITATION ARTICLES AND RETURNS.
The visitation of the parishes by the Ordinary—the ecclesiastical person who exercised spiritual jurisdiction over them[278]—was an important feature of ecclesiastical administration.[279]We have seen that a canon of the famous Council of Clovesho, in 747, directed bishops to make an annual visitation of their dioceses. As time went on the duty, burdensome alike to the bishops and clergy, fell into disuse, and seems to have been resumed again in the twelfth century.
The Lateran Council of 1179 made a canon to check the costs of visitations: it decreed that an archbishop visiting churches should be content with forty or fifty horses; a bishop with twenty or thirty; an archdeacon with five or seven; and a deanwas not to exceed two.[280]The Pontificals contain the “Order of Visiting Parishes:”[281]the bishop is to be met by the clergy in procession outside the gates; Mass is to be said; the bishop is to tell the people the purpose of his coming, viz. (1) to absolve the souls of the departed; (2) to see how the Church is governed, the condition of its vestments, the lives of the clergy, etc.; (3) to inquire into the sins of the laity; (4) to take cognizance of matters which belong to the bishop; (5) to confirm children; also he is to preach a sermon on the sacraments, etc.[282]
From these visitations we obtain full and reliable information as to the personal character and conduct of the parish clergy and their fulfilment of their duties. Five or six of the parishioners, calledtestes synodales,[283]or questmen, were sworn to give, besides a return of the condition of the church and its furniture, a true answer to certain questions about their clergy, viz. the rector or vicar, the chaplains, and the clerk.
Hugh of Wells, Bishop of Lincoln (c. 1232), issueda paper of twenty-nine questions to his clergy, which is perhaps the earliest of Visitation Articles (“Lincoln,” p. 134, S.P.C.K.). Grostete issued Articles of Inquiry about 1250; and similar articles were issued by Roger Weseham, Bishop of Lichfield, in 1252. In the year 1253 these following inquiries were made “in each and every diocese of the whole kingdom of England” concerning the life and conversation of both clerks and laymen:—[284]
1, 2, 3, 4 are about sensual sins on the part of the laity. 5. Whether any laymen are drunkards, or habitually frequent taverns, or practise usury of any kind. 6. Receive the free land of any church to farm. 7. Or receive in their fee the tithes of any church. 8. Whether rents assigned to lights or other specified uses of the church are converted to the use of the rector or vicar. 9. Whether any layman is compelled to communicate and offer after mass on Easter Day.[285]10. Whether any layman or other of whatever condition or reputation (famæ)perierit conscio rectore vel vicario loci. 11. Whether any layman is notably proud, or envious, or avaricious, or slothful, or malicious, or gluttonous, or luxurious [the seven deadly sins]. 12. Whether any layman causes markets, or plays or pleas (placita peculiaria) to be held in sacred places, and whether these things have been prohibited on the part of the bishop. 13. Whether any laymen have played at “Rams”(elevaverint arietes[286]), or caused scotales to be held, or have contended for precedence with their banners in their visitation of the mother church. 14. Whether any layman or woman entertain as a guest the concubine of any man of whatever condition, and keep a bad house. 15. Whether any sick person has lacked any sacrament from negligence of the priest lawfully called. 16. Whether any layman or other of whatever condition have died intestate, or without partaking of the sacraments, by the negligence of the priest or rector. 17. Whether any churches remain to be dedicated, or any have been destroyed without licence from the bishop, since the Council of London. 18. Whether Jews dwell anywhere where they have not been used to dwell. 19. Whether any laymen have clandestinely contracted marriage in cases forbidden by law or without banns. 20. Whether the laity insist upon (sunt pertinaces ut stent) standing in the chancel with the clergy. 21. Whether any layman causes Divine service to be celebrated in any chapel without licence from the bishop. 22. In what way lay servants and representatives of parsons, abbots, priors, prioresses, and other parsons and religious persons, behave in their granges, mansions, and possessions. 23. Let diligent inquiry be made concerning the taxation of every church, and how much the rector of every church has given to the subsidy of the Lord Pope. 24. Whether any rectors or vicars or priests are very illiterate (enormiter illiterati). 25. Whether the sacrament of the Eucharist is everywhere carried to the sick with due reverence, and is kept in a proper manner. 26. Whether any of the aforesaid or others in sacred orders are incontinent, and in what kind of incontinence. 27. Whether the incontinent have been corrected by the archdeacon of the place, and how often and in what manner. 28. Whether any convicted or confessing incontinence have bound themselves toresignation of their benefices or other canonical punishment if they relapse, and whether any after so binding themselves have relapsed. 29. Whether any men beneficed or in sacred orders are married (uxorati). 30. Whether any clerics frequent the churches of nuns without reasonable cause. 31. Whether any of the clerks in holy orders keep (tenent) any woman related to him, or any concerning whom evil suspicions may arise. 32. Whether any are drunken, frequenters of taverns, or traders, or usurers, or fighters or wrestlers, or notorious for any vice. 33. Whether any are farmers, giving and receiving churches or vicarages to farm without the licence of the bishop. 34. Whether any are viscounts (high sheriffs) or secular judges, or hold bailywĩcks (stewardships) for laymen, for which office they are obliged to give account (unde obligentur eisdem ad ratiocinia). 35. Whether any rectors make a bargain with their annual priests (cum sacerdotibus annuis) that, besides the stipend received from the rector, they may receive annualia and tricennalia from others. 36. Whether any is guilty of simony, either in regard to ordination or preferment. 37. Whether any parish priest has not sufficient maintenance from the rector. 38. Whether any rector or vicar has built on a lay fee or cemetery out of the revenues of the Church, or has placed tithes in a lay fee. 39. Whether any carry weapons, or have not the tonsure, and fitting habit. 40. Whether any one has more than one cure of souls without dispensation. 41. Whether any rector or vicar is the son of the last incumbent. 42. Whether any priest extorts money for penance or other sacraments, or enjoins lucrative penances. 43. Whether deacons hear confessions or minister other sacraments committed to priests only. 44. Whether any rector or vicar does not reside on his benefice. 45. Whether any church has not clerks or one honest clerk according to the means of the church. 46. Whether the cemeteries are everywhere enclosed,and the churches becomingly built and adorned, and the ornamenta and sacred vessels properly kept. 47. Whether any priest celebrates in sour wine (aceto). 48. Whether any beneficed men learn or teach secular laws.[287]49. Whether cartings are done (fiant cariagia) on the Lord’s days or festivals, and by whom. 50. Whether the canon of the mass is everywhere duly corrected. 51. Whether any layman or cleric keeps as a guest the concubine of a cleric, and where are there harbours of concubines. 52. Whether any priest celebrates twice a day except in the conceded cases, and except in his own church. 53. Whether any religious have appropriated to themselves any tithes, or churches, or such like, or any additional pension or portion has been given to religious, without the consent of the bishop of the place. 54. Whether any vicars make themselves rectors, or the converse. 55. Whether any illegitimates who have not a dispensation hold ecclesiastical benefices, or are in sacred orders. 56. Whether any act as rectors or vicars who have not been instituted by the bishop. 57. Whether the super altars are proper (honesta), and not used for grinding colours upon them. 58. Whether adulteries and public and notorious crimes of laymen are duly corrected by the archdeacon, and whether any one has celebrated marriage in a disallowed case. 59. Whether in every deanery there have been appointed penitentiaries[288]of rectors, vicars, and priests, and who they are. 60. What priests were ordained in Ireland or elsewhere outside this diocese, and whence did they come, and in what places have they ministered hitherto, and by whom are they licensed to celebrate. 61. Whether in every archdeaconry there are sufficient penitentiaries of the bishop (for cases reserved to the bishop?). 62. Concerning the life and proper conduct of archdeacons, deans,and clerics who minister in churches, and concerning the agents and servants of parsons and others. 63. Whether any anchorite has been made without the assent of the bishop. 64. Whether any monks or religious dwell in their granges or possessions, and how the monks behave there in spiritual things, and what is their reputation. 65. Whether the dean and others have entered into a confederacy during the vacancy of the see to the prejudice of the incoming bishop. 66. Whether any archdeacons have received more for procuration than they ought to receive according to the new constitution. 67. Enquiry is to be made concerning executors of wills, whether they have acted well and faithfully in the performance of their executorship, and if concerning the said executorship they have paid the computum to the bishop. 68. Whether markets are held by any one on the Lord’s day.
1, 2, 3, 4 are about sensual sins on the part of the laity. 5. Whether any laymen are drunkards, or habitually frequent taverns, or practise usury of any kind. 6. Receive the free land of any church to farm. 7. Or receive in their fee the tithes of any church. 8. Whether rents assigned to lights or other specified uses of the church are converted to the use of the rector or vicar. 9. Whether any layman is compelled to communicate and offer after mass on Easter Day.[285]10. Whether any layman or other of whatever condition or reputation (famæ)perierit conscio rectore vel vicario loci. 11. Whether any layman is notably proud, or envious, or avaricious, or slothful, or malicious, or gluttonous, or luxurious [the seven deadly sins]. 12. Whether any layman causes markets, or plays or pleas (placita peculiaria) to be held in sacred places, and whether these things have been prohibited on the part of the bishop. 13. Whether any laymen have played at “Rams”(elevaverint arietes[286]), or caused scotales to be held, or have contended for precedence with their banners in their visitation of the mother church. 14. Whether any layman or woman entertain as a guest the concubine of any man of whatever condition, and keep a bad house. 15. Whether any sick person has lacked any sacrament from negligence of the priest lawfully called. 16. Whether any layman or other of whatever condition have died intestate, or without partaking of the sacraments, by the negligence of the priest or rector. 17. Whether any churches remain to be dedicated, or any have been destroyed without licence from the bishop, since the Council of London. 18. Whether Jews dwell anywhere where they have not been used to dwell. 19. Whether any laymen have clandestinely contracted marriage in cases forbidden by law or without banns. 20. Whether the laity insist upon (sunt pertinaces ut stent) standing in the chancel with the clergy. 21. Whether any layman causes Divine service to be celebrated in any chapel without licence from the bishop. 22. In what way lay servants and representatives of parsons, abbots, priors, prioresses, and other parsons and religious persons, behave in their granges, mansions, and possessions. 23. Let diligent inquiry be made concerning the taxation of every church, and how much the rector of every church has given to the subsidy of the Lord Pope. 24. Whether any rectors or vicars or priests are very illiterate (enormiter illiterati). 25. Whether the sacrament of the Eucharist is everywhere carried to the sick with due reverence, and is kept in a proper manner. 26. Whether any of the aforesaid or others in sacred orders are incontinent, and in what kind of incontinence. 27. Whether the incontinent have been corrected by the archdeacon of the place, and how often and in what manner. 28. Whether any convicted or confessing incontinence have bound themselves toresignation of their benefices or other canonical punishment if they relapse, and whether any after so binding themselves have relapsed. 29. Whether any men beneficed or in sacred orders are married (uxorati). 30. Whether any clerics frequent the churches of nuns without reasonable cause. 31. Whether any of the clerks in holy orders keep (tenent) any woman related to him, or any concerning whom evil suspicions may arise. 32. Whether any are drunken, frequenters of taverns, or traders, or usurers, or fighters or wrestlers, or notorious for any vice. 33. Whether any are farmers, giving and receiving churches or vicarages to farm without the licence of the bishop. 34. Whether any are viscounts (high sheriffs) or secular judges, or hold bailywĩcks (stewardships) for laymen, for which office they are obliged to give account (unde obligentur eisdem ad ratiocinia). 35. Whether any rectors make a bargain with their annual priests (cum sacerdotibus annuis) that, besides the stipend received from the rector, they may receive annualia and tricennalia from others. 36. Whether any is guilty of simony, either in regard to ordination or preferment. 37. Whether any parish priest has not sufficient maintenance from the rector. 38. Whether any rector or vicar has built on a lay fee or cemetery out of the revenues of the Church, or has placed tithes in a lay fee. 39. Whether any carry weapons, or have not the tonsure, and fitting habit. 40. Whether any one has more than one cure of souls without dispensation. 41. Whether any rector or vicar is the son of the last incumbent. 42. Whether any priest extorts money for penance or other sacraments, or enjoins lucrative penances. 43. Whether deacons hear confessions or minister other sacraments committed to priests only. 44. Whether any rector or vicar does not reside on his benefice. 45. Whether any church has not clerks or one honest clerk according to the means of the church. 46. Whether the cemeteries are everywhere enclosed,and the churches becomingly built and adorned, and the ornamenta and sacred vessels properly kept. 47. Whether any priest celebrates in sour wine (aceto). 48. Whether any beneficed men learn or teach secular laws.[287]49. Whether cartings are done (fiant cariagia) on the Lord’s days or festivals, and by whom. 50. Whether the canon of the mass is everywhere duly corrected. 51. Whether any layman or cleric keeps as a guest the concubine of a cleric, and where are there harbours of concubines. 52. Whether any priest celebrates twice a day except in the conceded cases, and except in his own church. 53. Whether any religious have appropriated to themselves any tithes, or churches, or such like, or any additional pension or portion has been given to religious, without the consent of the bishop of the place. 54. Whether any vicars make themselves rectors, or the converse. 55. Whether any illegitimates who have not a dispensation hold ecclesiastical benefices, or are in sacred orders. 56. Whether any act as rectors or vicars who have not been instituted by the bishop. 57. Whether the super altars are proper (honesta), and not used for grinding colours upon them. 58. Whether adulteries and public and notorious crimes of laymen are duly corrected by the archdeacon, and whether any one has celebrated marriage in a disallowed case. 59. Whether in every deanery there have been appointed penitentiaries[288]of rectors, vicars, and priests, and who they are. 60. What priests were ordained in Ireland or elsewhere outside this diocese, and whence did they come, and in what places have they ministered hitherto, and by whom are they licensed to celebrate. 61. Whether in every archdeaconry there are sufficient penitentiaries of the bishop (for cases reserved to the bishop?). 62. Concerning the life and proper conduct of archdeacons, deans,and clerics who minister in churches, and concerning the agents and servants of parsons and others. 63. Whether any anchorite has been made without the assent of the bishop. 64. Whether any monks or religious dwell in their granges or possessions, and how the monks behave there in spiritual things, and what is their reputation. 65. Whether the dean and others have entered into a confederacy during the vacancy of the see to the prejudice of the incoming bishop. 66. Whether any archdeacons have received more for procuration than they ought to receive according to the new constitution. 67. Enquiry is to be made concerning executors of wills, whether they have acted well and faithfully in the performance of their executorship, and if concerning the said executorship they have paid the computum to the bishop. 68. Whether markets are held by any one on the Lord’s day.
The answers show that thetestes synodalesdid not scruple to find fault when they had cause, and perhaps sometimes when they had not much cause. We gather a few of the returns from the diocese of Exeter at Bishop Stapledon’s Visitation in 1301,[289]as examples—
Sidbury.—Walter the Vicar,optime se habet in omnibus, bene predicans, et officium sácrum sacerdotale laudabiliter exercens. Similiter et Clerici honestè se gerunt.
Branscombe.—Thomas the Vicar conducts himself well in all things, and preaches willingly (libenter), and diligently does all things which belong to the office of a priest.
The returns from many parishes are equally satisfactory. We take more interest, perhaps, in those in which the failings of the clergy are pointed out. Here are some of them—
Culmstock.—William the Vicar is a man of good life and honest conversation, and his clerk likewise, and well instructs his parishioners. In the visitation of the sick and baptizing the children, and in all things which belong to his office, they know nothing to be found fault with in him, with the exception that he makes too little pause between the matins and mass on festival days.[290]
Colyton.—Sir Robert the Vicar is a good man (probus homo), and preaches to them so far as he knows (quatenus novit), but notsufficienter, as it seems to them. They say also that his predecessors were accustomed to call the friars to instruct them about their souls’ salvation, but he does not care for them; and if by chance they come he does not receive them, nor give them entertainment (viatica); whereof they pray that he may be admonished. Item, all the chaplains and clerks of the church livehonestè et continentes.[291]
At a later visitation, in 1330, the synodsmen of Colyton complain that their vicar had been struck with leprosy, but continued to come to communion with the parishioners at the risk of contaminating the whole flock, which was a scandal. They reportthat they used to have one sufficient vicar, one fit parochial chaplain, one deacon, and two clerks serving in the said church of the alms of the parishioners, and that the vicar used to find that number, out of whom they have now only one chaplain and one clerk, and that the said vicar refuses to supply more. They complain that the vicar chooses his parish clerk at his own pleasure, and will notmanucipere pro eodem. They say that the clerks of the church used by custom to ring the curfew, and at the elevation of thecorpus domini.
They complain that John Prouz (lord of the manor of Gatcombe, in the parish) is not willing to contribute with the other parishioners to the church, nor to do other things which belong to him. They say that Sir Hugo Prouz, father of the said John, knight, deceased, left 10 marks sterling to the fabric of the church of Colyton, which the heirs refuse to pay.[292]
Colebrook.—Hugh de Coppelestone and other trustworthy men of the parish, lawfully requisitioned and examined, say that Sir William the Vicar preaches after his own fashion (suo modo); also he expounds to them the Gospels on the Lord’s Days so far as he knows (quatenus novit); but concerning the Articles of the Faith, the Commandments of the Decalogue, and the mortal sins, he does not teach them much. And he does not say his matins withnote on the more solemn days, and only celebrates on the week days every other day. He is defamed of incontinency with Lucia de la Stubbe, a married woman (conjugata). All his houses, except the hall and chamber, which were in a good state at his coming, are now falling to pieces and threatening to come down, and could not be made good for a hundred shillings. Also his gate is so far from the hall, which he has lately lengthened, that one calling without is not heard in the hall, which is dangerous for the sick parishioners.[293]
St. Mary Church.—The parishioners have some complaints to make about business matters between themselves and the vicar, but finally testify that he preaches well and exercises his office laudably in all things when he is present; but that he is often absent, and stays at Moreton sometimes for fifteen days, sometimes for eight, so that they have not a chaplain, unless when Sir Walter, the chaplain of the archdeacon, is present, or some one can by chance be obtained from some other place.
Dawlash.—In Bishop Stapledon’s Visitation, in 1301, thesynodalessay that the vicar, who has the reputation of being a good man, does not reside in person, but has in his place Sir Adam, a chaplain, who conducts himselfbene et honeste, and teaches them excellently in spiritual matters. But Randulphus the chaplain has had his concubine for ten years or more, and, often corrected for it (sæpiusinde correptus), remains incorrigible. The clerk of the church iscontinens et honestus.
An important testimony to the estimation in which the clergy were generally held by their parishioners, is afforded by the fact that it was very usual for the people to seek their assistance in making their wills, and also to appoint them as executors, to see to the due carrying out of their testamentary arrangements.
PROVISION FOR OLD AGE.
We have followed our parish priest through various phases of his life and work; there remains one more—before that last one through which all priests and people must pass—on which the records throw a considerable amount of light. Parish priests grow old—sometimes old and infirm and incapable of fulfilling the duties of their position. What to do with them, in fairness to them and in fairness to the parishioners, is a problem which perplexes us at this moment. Then, as now, if the income of the benefice, or the private income of the incumbent, enabled him to obtain the help of a competent chaplain, that was accepted as on the whole the best solution. It permitted the old pastor to end his days among his people, and still to be the friend and counsellor of those who cared to seek him. The difficulty then, as now, is in the case of a benefice which is too poor both to give a competent maintenance to the old incumbent and to engagethe services of a competentlocum tenens. We find from not infrequent records of such cases in the bishops’ registers that, to begin with, the bishop sequestrated the benefice, usually appointing a neighbouring clergyman as sequestrator. Then, in the arrangement of matters, it seems to have been thought right always to leave the old incumbent to end his days among his own people and in his own house, with a sufficient maintenance out of the income of the benefice. On the other hand, in justice to the parish, a chaplain was appointed who took independent charge of the parish. It would seem that this coadjutor usually lived in the parsonage house, or part of it, not as the guest of the old incumbent, but rather as his host, except where the premises were formally divided into two tenements for the independent accommodation of both. It will be borne in mind that the celibate condition of the clergy would make the arrangement of such cases much more easy in those times than in these.
The unwillingness of an infirm vicar to be disturbed was met in the way illustrated by this individual case: In 1322 the patron of the parish of Letton, Herefordshire, complained to the bishop that the rector, Milo by name, had, from old age and ill health, been absent from his church during many years without licence of non-residence, though often admonished to reside. The bishop issued a commission, consisting of neighbouring incumbents, to inquire. They replied that Milo had not resided for ten years, that the services had been very badlydone by numerous chaplains, and the parishioners grossly neglected, and that the rectory house and buildings were falling into decay. A coadjutor was appointed by the bishop to assist him in the cure of his parish.[294]
Here are some illustrative cases of a more satisfactory kind. Philip de Harwodelme, Rector of Bigby—it is recorded in the Register of Bishop Quivil, of Exeter,[295]in 1286—being so cast down by disease and broken by old age as to feel himself entirely unequal to the care of the souls of the parishioners, had a retiring pension assigned to him of twenty marks, out of the great tithes of the parish. This is a very simple solution of the difficulty, since the pension, equal to £13, was an ample one, and, it is to be assumed, the benefice large enough to spare it.[296]
In 1309, William de Tres ... Vicar of Perran Zabulo, being very old and infirm, Bishop Stapledon grants a sequestration of the living to Sir Wm. de Mileborne, Rector of Lanhorne; and an arrangement is made by which Michael de Newroneck is appointed coadjutor to the old vicar, and is to pay him two shillings a-week for his sustenance; and out of the rest of the benefice is to live himself and maintain hospitality, and pay all charges on the living.
In 1316, the bishop appointed Thomas de Dylington, Rector of Cumbfflorie, as coadjutor to the Rector of Lidiard St. Lawrence, who is blind, old, andbroken in health; the appointment is made subject to revocation at the bishop’s pleasure.
In appointing a coadjutor to Sir Wm., Vicar of St. Colan, on account of his great infirmity, it is stated in Bishop Stapledon’s Register that the coadjutor is to take charge of the goods, etc., of the vicarage. And so in the case of Sir Henry, Vicar of Constantine, a coadjutor is appointed by the same bishop, who is to take an inventory of the vicar’s goods, and to have the vicar and his goods in his care, and to provide honourably for the vicar and his family.
In the Registers of Lichfield Diocese, we find the incumbents of Stoke-on-Terne, Uttoxeter, St. Peter’s, Derby, etc., resigning on a pension secured by the oath of their successors; and chaplains assigned to the Vicar of Lapley, who is old and blind, and the Rector of Maxstoke, because he is infirm; and so in other dioceses.
The arrangement between the vicar and his successor does not always work quite smoothly. This seems to be the explanation of the action of Bishop Stapledon, of Exeter, who, in 1326, admonishes Barthol de More, Vicar of Kynstock by the resignation of John Mon, who is decrepit, to continual residence, and to take oath to maintain the said John as long as he lives. But soon after a more definite arrangement is made that “lest, in process of time, to the scandal of the clergy, the said John should be compelled miserably to beg, he shall receive a payment of six marks of silver, viz. 40s.at St. Michael, and 40s.at Easter.”
Cases difficult to deal with sometimes occurred. Considering the prevalence of leprosy from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries, it is not wonderful to find the vicar of a parish among the victims of the dreadful disease. We have met with one case in the preceding chapter of a Vicar of Colyton, in Exeter diocese, in 1330. We are not told what steps the bishop took in that case; but in a similar case at St. Neot’s, in the same diocese, the vicar being struck with leprosy, Bishop Stapledon appointed Ralph de Roydene, chaplain, to be his coadjutor, and gave the vicar and the living into the custody of the coadjutor. The bishop orders that since the vicar cannot, without danger, have intercourse with the whole people as he has been accustomed, the vicar shall have the better chamber (meliorem cameram) with the houses adjoining it, except the hall, to live, and eat, and drink in; and that the entrance should be closed between the said chamber and the hall, and a new entrance made to the said chamber externally in a suitable place, by which the vicar, when need is, can have ingress and egress; and acloaca, likewise, to the said chamber, in a fitting place. The said Sir Ralph shall pay to the said vicar every week for his maintenance in food, drink, and firing, and other small necessaries, 2s.sterling, and yearly on the feast of St. Michael, or thereabout, 20s.for his robe; also he shall keep in repair the houses of the said vicarage, both those which the vicar inhabits, and all the other buildings of the vicarage, and shall undertake and see after all other burdens belonging to the said vicarage.[297]
There is a case in the Chichester Register in which the master and brethren of the college of the Holy Trinity, Arundel, petition the bishop to give a pension to Wm. Rateford, resigning the Vicarage of Kurdford, lest he come to beggary, to the scandal of the clergy.
In another Chichester case, Thomas Bolle, Rector of Aldrington, Sussex, having resigned his living in 1402, applied to the bishop, Robert Rede, for leave to build a cell against the wall of the church, in which he might be shut up—as a recluse—for the rest of his life. The license was granted, and the Reclusorium remains to this day in the shape of a room 29 ft. by 25 ft., with ingress to the chapel of the Blessed Virgin on the north side of the church.[298]
In 1422, Spofford, Bishop of Hereford, instituted a vicar to the parish of Dilwyn, in the place of Walter Robins, to whom, as having discharged his duties in a laudable manner, a pension of 40s.is assigned, to prevent his falling into beggary, and so becoming a scandal to the Church. His pension is to begin fifteen days after his resignation, and to be paid quarterly. He is to have a chamber in the vicarage house on the ground floor (bassam cameram), with a fireplace in it, and near the entrance door (hostium actuale), with free ingress and egress, and power of redress in case of failure in punctuality of payment.[299]
In the adjoining parish of Webley, a vicar retiringin 1440 is to receive eight marks, a room on the ground floor, the use of the vicarage kitchen, well, and garden; and the incoming incumbent is to assure these benefits by oath.
Beneficed clergymen had a freehold in their benefices, and therefore a legal claim for provision in old age, not so with unbeneficed men; but we meet with a few examples of kindly care for them. For example: In 1237 the Bishop of Durham obtained the papal licence to place certain clerks of his diocese who have become old, weak, and blind in a house together, and assign the tithe of his wills for their support;[300]Thomas Ricard, in 1433, leaves, “to John Wright, chaplain, because he is blind and poor, a mark per annum for life.”[301]
William Malham, of Elslack, absentee rector—being a master in Chancery—of the parish of Marton, Yorks, in the beginning of the reign of Henry VIII., writes to his brother: “I will Sir W. Martindale be Parish Priest at Marton, and to have like wages as Sir W. Hodgson had, and Sir W. Hodgson to have six marks yearly, during his life, to tarry at Marton, and praye for me and my mother’s and father’s sawles. They both to begin their service at midsomer next coming.” This seems to be a kindly way of pensioning off an old parish chaplain.[302]
If the reader wishes to follow our parish priestto the grave, and join in his obsequies, he may turn to pp. 452 and 457, where he will find sufficient suggestions to enable him to reproduce the funeral and the funeral service, and the month’s-mind and obit. The wills of priests sometimes give directions for their monuments; for example, in 1384, Michael Northburgh, Canon of Chichester, and Rector of Hampstap, willed to be buried in Chichester Cathedral, in a spot which he minutely describes: “A marble stone to be placed over my grave with a half statue like that of Mgr. William Blythe, with this inscription:Hic jacet Michael Northborough, quondam Canonicus Ecclie Cicestren. et Rector Ecclie de Hampstap, cuius Aīē P’picietur Deus. Amen.And the statue to hold a scroll in its hands with the words,Miseremini mei, Miseremini mei, saltem bos Amici, quia Manus Domini tetigit me.”[303]
William of Duffield, Chaplain of St. Martin’s, in Coney Street, York (A.D.1361), left 20s.to buy a gravestone for himself, and 3s.4d.for workmanship and sculpturing a chalice thereon.[304]