of 12d. for each absence on holy days he
could, it would seem, in practice resort to his parish church only on
occasions, say once a month, and yet not get himself written down as a
recusant.[114]

Heads of families were made responsible for the attendance of their
children and servants; innkeepers or victuallers for their
guests.[115]

If it was not permissible to frequent service in another place of
worship, neither was it optional with a parishioner to get married
elsewhere than in his own church.[116] There, too, his marriage banns
had to be published--and it was a presentable offence to marry without
banns;[117] there he had to have his children christened[118] and his
wife churched;[119] there he was compelled to send sons, daughters or
apprentices to be catechized,[120] and there himself learn the
principles of religion (if he were ignorant of them), for without a
knowledge of the Catechism and the Ten Commandments he could not
receive communion.[121]

All persons over fourteen had to receive communion at Easter, and at
least on two other occasions during the year.[122] In fact readiness
to receive according to the Anglican rites became the test of a loyal
subject.[123]

The strict requirement to report all non-communicants to the official
resulted in the keeping of books in which were written the names of
the parish communicants.[124]

Next in importance to church attendance and the observance of the
sacraments came the duty of all parishioners to contribute to the
parish expenses. We have viewed church courts at work, compelling
wardens to levy church rates; we have now to see how the judges forced
recalcitrant ratepayers to pay the sums assessed upon them to the
wardens or other collectors.

Among the earliest vestry minutes of the parish of St.
Christopher-le-Stocks, London, is one which, after ordering that an
assessment be made for the clerk's wages and for pews, decreed that
any rebellious persons should be summoned before themselves, the
vestry, to be reformed. But if the rebel would not appear, or, on
appearance, remain stubborn to reason, then the churchwardens should
sue him before the ordinary at the parish costs "vntill suche tyme as
he be reduced vnto a good order, and hath paid bothe the costys of the
sute and the chargs that he owith vnto the church...."[125] Fifty
years later we find this vestry ordaining the same procedure to be
followed against parish debtors, and referring to its for