In the early Sixteenth Century the Church was an built-in portion of the European society and the Church’s’ power was virtually absolute. The church stood for justness. purportedly. but many historiographers argue the Church was corrupt and exploited the people’s spiritual religion to increase its ain wealth. Source 1 agrees with this position ‘The bishops… take a 10th portion of everything’ this illustrates that the Church was volitionally taking the wealth of the people into its ain billfolds and the beginning farther explains precisely how they used religion to take money from the people ‘Poor married womans must be accountable for every ten percent egg or be taken as a heretic. ’ This demonstrates that those who didn’t obey the Church’s revenue enhancement were seen as unfaithful ‘heretics’ therefore coercing the faithful into giving away their goods. and with the agricultural nature of Sixteenth Century Britain the key to economic system would be things such as eggs. Furthermore the beginning describes the Church as ‘holy thieves’ demoing that the Church were stealing but concealing it through faith. Furthermore Source 1 provinces ‘What money they pull in by their fees for wills’ insinuating that priest would make wealth through others faith so as they could go forth it to those they could care about.
This is supported by the fact that Source 3 is a will which is go forthing all to the Church ‘For rest my goods. ’ Yet Source 1 must be taken with a grain of salt as it was written by Simon Fish who had to fly the state after coming into struggle with Wolsey who was a high superior member of the Church. which means that Fish would envy the Church restricting the source’s dependability. Furthermore this beginning was besides a booklet significance it would utilize overdone linguistic communication further cut downing the dependability. On the other manus Source 2 strongly contradicts Source 1 ‘The northern abbeys gave great alms to hapless men’ demoing the monastics to be giving and charitable a heavy contrast to the greedy demonic stealers that Fish portrays the Church to be. However it is of import to see that Fish was composing about London churches which were Southern and urban as opposed to the rural and northern scene of Askes abbeys this shows a clear contrast in the rural and urban subdivisions of the Church.
Furthermore Aske was discoursing abbey and monastics whereas Fish was looking at churches and priests and the different capable affair can take to different consequences so it is difficult to compare and contrast the two of them. Additionally Source 2 presents the thought that the church didn’t maltreatment people’s religion in order to add to their wealth but alternatively educated people on how to be a good Christian to assist them take to give to the church ‘spiritual counsel by the illustration set’ this is supported by the fact the Source 3 being a will that is go forthing all wealth to the Church showing a clear rational pick to go forth money to the church demoing small to no development.
However it is of import to observe that the author of Source 2 Robert Aske was a member of the Church therefore cut downing the source’s dependability due to Askes unintentional prejudice. In decision the Church exploited people’s religion to derive wealth to an extent as shown by Source 1 which stated that the Church would penalize and slander those who did non give up their wealth through naming them unfaithful and made people give to the church through volitions which was supported by Source 3. However development was non entire as people’s religion meant they merrily gave to the church as shown by Source 3 and Source 2 shows that the Church besides seemed to give back to the community. Besides it appears there was more corruptness in southern churches as the contrast between Source 1 and 2 illustrates.