The historie of tithes that is, the practice of payment of them, the positiue laws made for them, the opinions touching the right of them : a review of it is also annext, which both confirmes it and directs in the vse of it / by I. Selden.

A REVIEW.

AFter some few Copies, thus halfe printed and halfe writen, were dispersed, and since the various Censure of vnequall Readers, (some of them cauilling at such Passages in it, as the Autor at first thought, and not without cause, had been enough cleered) this short Reuiew is now added; wherein, beside some other Confirming and Declaring Autorities, by the way also, and opportunely enough, occurre some Admonitions briefely offered, that may somewhat direct in the Vse of this Historicall truth. The printed sheets could not be encreased, or altered. neither was it so fit, after many hands had the whole, that Addi∣tions inserted, should make any variance from the writen part. And plainly, that of the Admoniti∣ons, for direction in the Vse, of its own nature ra∣ther required a seuerall place, then was fit to haue been mixt in the bodie of the Historie. In the name therefore of Goodnesse and Learning, I earnestly beseech euery one, that hereafter shall get it either Copied or Printed, to ioine also (if hee may) this Reuiew with it.

Of the I. Chapter.

IN the I. §. touching that of Abrahams Tithes being of the spoiles of Warre only; I know many think otherwise. And beside the generall name of Tithes of all, reasons are drawn for their side out of those words of the Patriarch to the King of Sodom; I will not take of all that is thine so much as a thred &c. I neither professe to

dispute it, nor find I any such consequent out of that Text. And the a 1.1 answer to the obiection is not difficult. But I adde here to those testimonies both of Iewes and ancient Fathers which I haue cited, (for I was willing to make their testimonies my warrant, not to glosse the text with my owne interpretation, or with the fancies of petie names) that S. Ambrose and Eucherius Bishop of Lions call those Tithes also b 1.2 Decimas praedae & victoriae. And in one passage, Eucherius ha∣uing a plaine regard to the words of the Epistle to the Ebrews, which in the vulgar are exprest by Decimas de praecipuis (for the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) sayes de praecipuis praedis Abraham Patriarcha Decimas legitur obtul••sse, directing himselfe still in the conceit of the word All in Genesis, according to that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the holy Epistle, which both in Translations enough, and in the Greek c 1.3 Prouerbe before rememberd, denotes spoiles of Warre. Yet also the same Fa∣ther soon after calls them Decimas omnis substantiae suae generally; but plainly shewing in his former words, that he took omnis substantiae here for nothing but victoriae praedam. Which, it seems, Philo the Iew also vn∣derstands, where in his Anagogicall course of contemplation he saies that Abraham being the tenth degree from Sem; d 1.4 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, consecrated Tenths to the Almightie, as a thanks▪ giuing for his victorie. And Prim••sius, and old A∣frican Bishop, interprets de praecipuis in the Latine text by de melioribus spolijs. But some haue cauilled at my relating, according to S. Hie∣rome, that were it not for the holy autoritie of the Epistle to the Ebrews, it might stand indifferent whether Abraham gaue Tithes of the spoiles to Melchisedek as to a Priest, or Melchisedek the Tenth of his e∣state to Abraham, as a portion to one of his posteritie. If there be a fault in that assertion (I confesse I find none) let them be so bold then as to tax those learned Fathers for it, S. Hierome and e 1.5 Eucherius, be∣side Freculphus f 1.6 Bishop of Lisieux▪ and other ancient Writers, that in the same syllables affirme it with S. Hierome, from whom indeed Eucherius transcribed the best part of his more notable passages. Somewhat may be here fitly remembred concerning two Adiuncts that belong to this Storie of Abrahams Tithing, that is, who Melchise∣dek was; and where the place of his Kingdome, or Salem, was. For the first, such of the Fathers g 1.7 as out of the Ebrew text had the true notes of supputation of time, take him to be Sem, according as the opinion also was generally receiued among the old h 1.8 Samaritan E∣brews, and diuers Iews i 1.9 also especially of later ages: howeuer some Iews haue been long since of another opinion, in their idle and rash fancies supposing him to be a bastard, which they took to be the cause why his discent is not spoken of with his name: others of them, with the Hiera••its, making him k 1.10 more then a man. But also both the Hierosolymitan Targum, and that other calld Ben-Vziels, expressely tell

vs, he was Sem the sonne of Noah; which some of late time also haue in Works purposely writen to that end, laboured to make manifest. And doubtlesse, at the time of the victorie, Sem was the chiefest of the familie there, and either a First-born also, or els had in him the right of a first borne, or Priesthood, by translation from his elder brother; which I adde, because the l 1.11 Rabbins and diuers other of the learned will haue it, that Iaphet was the elder brother. But how stands that so well with Melchisedeks being Sem, if according to that old tradition, both among Rabbins and Christians, the Priesthood were an incident to the first-borne male? Vnlesse the right of Primogeniture were transferd from Iaphet to Sem in Noahs m 1.12 blessing, as it was to Iacob from Esau, and from C••in, it seems, to n 1.13 Abel, which must be thought on also in the taking their side, who suppose Abraham not to be the el∣dest of Terahs sonnes. For regularly the Ancients giue the Priesthood before the Law to the first-borne. And whereas Moses is said to haue o 1.14 sent young men that offerd burnt offerings, the Chalde Paraphrases haue for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eth-nairi, i. yong men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 iath-bocri, i. of the first-borne; these S. Chrysostome p 1.15 elegantly stiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Priests of themselues, or made without other ordina∣tion or Suffrages: to which Office also (thus had either by birth, or blessing, that equalled the birth) a kind of q 1.16 Imperiall and Patri∣archique dignitie was annexed. That precedence of birth giuen to Iaphet, is of no late inuention; but many hundred yeeres ancienter then the Talmud, or any worke extant of any Rabbin. For the Septu∣agint expressely r 1.17 affirme it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, and sonnes were borne to Sem, being father of all the sonnes of Eber, and brother of Iaphet, being the elder. which in the Ebrew is not so plaine on either side▪ for, the words being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 achi Iaphet hagadol, by reason of the want of termination•• of cases, may be alone as well turned elder brother of Iaphet, as brother of Iaphet being the elder, which in the last English translation is brought neerest to the Originall, thus: Vnto Shem &c. the brother of Iaphet the elder, euen to him were children borne. And beside such interpretation of the context, the Chronologicall part of the holy Storie affords much to proue, that Sem was not the first-borne in time. For Noah was s 1.18 D. yeeres old, and got Sem, Ham, and Iaphet. Sem t 1.19 two yeeres after the Floud, be∣ing C. yeeres old, got Arphaxad, that is, (as is most probable, if not plaine) in the DC.II. yeere of u 1.20 Noah, Sems age was only C. yeeres. Then at Sems birth, Noah was D.II. yeere old. Who euer therefore was borne when he was but D. yeers of age, must be C.II. yeers old, when Sem had seene only one C. yeeres. If any of them were borne in Noahs D. yeere (as the Text seemes to teach) it must then be one of the other two, and not Sem. This argument, vsed by the Iews and others, which follow them here, ioind with what is in the

Septuagint for Iaphet, makes so much against Sem's being the first born, that howeuer the great Ioseph Scaliger be x 1.21 most confident, that he was first in birth, as his name is exprest in enumeration, and giues his answers to the Chronologie obiected against it; yet you may with more probabilitie take the more common and ancient opinion, that makes Iaphet the elder. Some will haue Ham. But I leaue that matter; supposing cleerly that Sem being Melchisedek (for, that one man should be denoted by seuerall names, is no noueltie in Scripture) was either the first born or had the right of it transferd into him by speciall bles∣sing, and so was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Philo y 1.22 calls him, that is, the great high-Priest of the greatest God. For the place of his Kingdom, Salem; it is taken by z 1.23 S. Hierom (as he learned from some Iews) and from him by a 1.24 S. Ambrose, Eucherius, Primasius, and others that this Salem is that which seated on this side of Iordan, is some LXXX. miles distant from the plaine of Mamre where Abraham li∣ued, and retains its name in the Storie b 1.25 of Iohns Baptisme. and they say that the reliques of Melchisedeks Palace were there to be then seen. But the more common opinion of Christians in S. Hieroms time, was as now also of greatest Diuines, that Salem here and Ierusalem were the same. Salem nostri omnes, saith he and others of that age that fol∣low him, arbitrantur esse Ierusalem. but himselfe was not of that mind, hauing as hee saith, learned the contrarie. But also, with those old Christians, Iosephus and some later c 1.26 Iews expresly agree. and a good character of the truth of their opinion is in the holy Text. For, there the Kings Dale, whence the King of Sodom came out to meet Abraham in his return is d 1.27 rememberd, as if it were close by where Melchisedek was. Now it is thought certainly that the place of Absalons Pillar, that is, the Kings Dale spoken of in e 1.28 Samuel, is no other then a Valley, which being hard by Ierusalem, is known to our age from Absalons name, where yet, they f 1.29 say, he hath a moniment, and such as passe by, vse to cast stones at it in detestation of his disobedience. and also the very place where Melchisedek gaue Abraham the Bread and Wine, is, they say, yet known on Mount g 1.30 Caluarie. But hitherto brifly of these two adiuncts of Abrahams Tithing. neither supposd I but that many which think of it for argument either way, would desire some satisfaction in them.

Of the II. Chapter.

HEtherto could I neuer see any Christian that hath fully taught what was considerable in the generall payment of Tithes a∣mong the Iews. The Noble and most learned Ios. Scaliger, did not euery way enough accuratly teach it, although in a single Trea∣tise he purposely vndertook it. How sufficiently among vs, others do that slouthfully and ignorantly (without his help) while yet their end

is to write of Tithes, talke of a third Tithe here, and a fourth Tithe, and indeed they know not what Tithe, let him iudge that shall hence know their error. This last spring Martin the Title page of Drusius his Obseruations vpon Iosuah, and some other parts of the old Testament, a new discourse, De Decimis Mosaciis, writen by Sixtinus ab Amama Pro∣fessor of Ebrew in Franeker, was promised; but I could neuer yet see any such thing ioind with that of Drusius or otherwise published. What we haue of them is as the great Doctors of the Iews haue deliuered in the Talmud, and their later Comments; which are testimonies be∣yond exception, for the practice or historicall part. For that in §. 6. of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, out of Epiphanius; I rather think in∣deed that it denotes only a paying of Tithe, not a Tithing of what was alreadie tithed. It is well known that the language of the Greek Fathers, especially of about his time, is frequently mixt with phrases of the Septuagint. now they h 1.31 haue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for nothing but to pay a Tithe, which agrees somwhat with the Ebrew fashion of expression. and as they, so Epiphanius without doubt vnderstood it. howeuer some of great Names are of another mind. But to what is there toucht for the forwardnesse of payment of first Fruits among them, I here adde out of i 1.32 Philo (who liued vnder the time of the second Temple, and spake of his own knowledge) that they were paid in such abundance, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, that euen from the abundance only of first Fruits, heaue Offerings, or Therumahs, which were paid by the owner immediatly to the Priests, there was not a Priest in the XXIV. courses of them (so the Priests or Posteritie of Eleazer & Ithamar were deuided k 1.33 by King Dauid) but might be ac∣counted a very rich or largely furnisht man. and he tells vs further that the Iews were so readie in paying them, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, They preuented the Offi∣cers demanding them, paid them before they were due by Law, and as if they had rather taken a benefit then giuen any, both sexes of their own most for∣ward readinesse in euery first fruit season brought them in with such courte∣sie and thanks-giuing as is beyond all expression. All which is spoken only of first Fruits and Therumahs, not of Tithes, as it is falsly in the La∣tin translation; where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 alone is ignorantly vnderstood for Tithes paid by the Laitie to the Priests; the truth being that the Laitie paid only first Fruits, not Tithes, immediatly to the Priests, but only to the Leuits, that is, those which were, as Philo saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, in the second rank, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or as Wardeins, Huishers, Singers, and other such Ministers. And the Leuits paid the Tithe of their Tithe to their Priests, who so through the Leuits receiud Tithes

out of the possessions of the Laitie, as also the holy Autor to the E∣brews is interpreted, where he saies, That those of the sonnes of Leui that had receiud the Priesthood, had a commandement to take Tithes of the people according to the Law. For the posteritie of Aaron that had the Priest∣hood, receiud none from the people, but immediatly and through the Leuits. In the same holy Epistle their continuance of paiment of Tithes (which as long as their Priesthood de facto, and the politique form of gouernment, instituted by the Almightie, continued, was e∣uen ex conscientia to be performed, as some l 1.34 teach) is also manifested after Philo's time. The Iews are told in it, that here men that die receiue Tithes, but there he of whom it is witnessed that he liueth. That here, being plainly referd to the vse of the Iews (to whom the Epistle was sent) vnder the second Temple. So Primasius an old African Father inter∣prets it. Hic inquit, saith he, hoc est in praesenti seculo, vel in Templo quod adhuc stabat, Morientes homines, filij videlicet Leui qui mortales ac mori∣bundi sunt, Decimas accipiunt. But about this time also it appears in Storie that Tithes were still paid by the Leuits to the Priests, which supposes the peoples paiment to the Leuits. Remember that of Fl. Io∣sephus m 1.35 where he tells, that when Foelix was Lieutenant of Iudea, such a tumult and sedition happend twixt the high Priests (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and the rest of the Priests, and the chiefest of the Laitie▪ that the high Priests to satisfie their malice vpon the rest of the Priests, violently took away the Tithes that were kept in Granges and Barnes for their maintenance, and in so much wronged them that some of the poorest of them euen died for want. This was about the beginning of Nero; and n 1.36 Euschius and o 1.37 Nicephorus relating it from Iosephus, refer it to him. although Ruffinus in his translation of Eusebius rather place it vnder Claudius. but vnder both, Foelix was Lieutenant. By the way you may note that in Nero's time, diuers of the Priests were grown much poo∣rer then they had been lately before; if Philo be to be credited, who liued also but litle before Nero's Empire. It was very hard with some of them (it seemes) that the taking away their Tithes only should starue them. Those high Priests here spoken of, are such as were the chiefest of the XXIV. Orders. for p 1.38 so also were the Priests deuided. There was neuer but one high Priest properly, and that according to the first institution. but others that had a supremacie among those or∣ders, were also called so, as both heere, and in q 1.39 holy Writ. and they were, to the high Priest, as the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 r 1.40 in the Eastern Patriarchats which are as Suffragans to exercise the Patriarchs office in his ab∣sence, or as the Bishop-Cardinals in Rome. and the first and chiefest of these high Priests in the plurall number, was as a designed succes∣sor to him that properly bare that name, and was his Prime Vicar, chief Suffragan, or the second Priest, as s 1.41 Zephaniah was to Seraiah, and as Annas to Caiphas. For so the most learned vnderstand that of them two, being high Priests together in the Gospell. but this by the

way. yet who knows it not, may soon stumble at the Storie; and, if not admonisht, trouble himselfe with as good a disquisition about it, as that Abbot t 1.42 Paschasius long since fell into about what follows out of Saint Matthew, in the 7. §. where the strict payment of Tithes vsed a∣mong the Scribes and Pharisees is spoken of. He being too ignorant of the particulars of the Iewish state, doubted much how the Scribes and Pharisees should so pay their Tithes, Cùm ipsi (as his words are) Sacerdotes erant & Leuitae qui magis accipiebant Decimas à populo quam da∣rent. But I wonder what made him so much as dream so. indeed he answers himselfe also. But plainly the Scribes and Pharisees, as known by that name only, had no more reference to the Tribe of Leui then to any other of the Twelue. Children in the holy Text or the Iewish storie, know it.

That generall rule of their Lawiers in the same §. taken out of Rab∣bi Ben-Maimon, is first in their u 1.43 Talmud, where also the Gemara, that is, the following opinions of their Doctors, hath many speciall cases of this or that fruit or encrease of the earth; but often litle to the pur∣pose. one thing their Misnah or Text addes further to that rule; that is, whatsoeuer fruit or herb is fit to be eaten, both while it is yong or new, as also when it is a full growth, must pay Tithes aswell when it is yong, as at full growth. but if while it be yong it be not fit to be ea∣ten, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, it is not subiect to tithe vntill it be come fit to be eaten. That in §. 8. of them that take the profits of Land among the Samaritans, or in Aram, that is, Syria, must be vnderstood of a Iew dwelling among them, and tilling the Land there. For regularly if the fruits of Lands in Syria were taken by a Iew, residing still in his own Countrie, he was to pay x 1.44 Tithe of them.

Touching their Tithing after the second Temple destroied; al∣though for want of a Temple and a Priesthood at this day, they Tithe not legally, yet among their Aphorismes both diuine and morall, they y 1.45 tell vs, that as the Masoreth is the defence of the Law, so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 maighsheroth seag laighsher, that is, Tithes paid are the de∣fence of riches. Whereupon one notes, that at this day qui religiosiores sunt inter Iudaeos, loco Decimarum, eleemosynam pendunt de omnibus Lucris; decem aureos de centum, centum de mille &c. But howeuer the deuouter of them may giue such almes, it is plain that their Legall Tithing hath now no place among them for want of a sufficient Priesthood and Temple or Tabernacle. yet without doubt, most of them haue long since exspected a z 1.46 third Temple. otherwise why were they so carefull to haue their Laws and speciall cases of first Fruits and Tithing, so co∣piously deliuered in fiue whole Massecheths of their Talmud, or body of their Ciuill and Canon Law, which was, many yeers after the destru∣ction of the second Temple, made for the direction of the dispersed of their Nation?

Now, me thinks, he that argues for Tithes from the Mosaicall

Laws of Tithing had need more specially, then any I haue yet seen hath neer done, examine which of the two kinds are due in the Euan∣gelicall Priesthood. Why not the second aswell as the first? and fur∣ther consider also how the paiment of Tithes from the Laitie to the Priests of the Gospell, succeeds to the paiment from the Leuits to the sonnes of Aaron. But these considerations can only be, where the knowledge of fact precedes, for without exact Distinction of their seuerall Tithes, any argument drawn from them, may soon be found a grosse fallacie, that may both deceiue him which makes it and those whom he teaches. Let the ingenuous Reader thinke of it.

But one thing more here by the way. So much either ignorance or neglect in the disquisition of what belongs to the Tithes of the Iews, hath possest some great names, that, touching the proportion of the Tithes and the Receiuers, they haue rested fairely satisfied in this; that the Leuits being one of the twelue Tribes, had the Tenths as a competent maintenance to themselues, being neer the Tenth, that is, being the twelfth part of the people; as if Arithmetically the People and the Reuenues had been so deuided. But others haue long since ea∣sily shewd the slightnesse and falshood also of this fancie. And cleer∣ly, had such a ne••r proportion of persons and the name of Tenth held; yet examine all that was paid to the Priests and Leuits in first Fruits and the seuerall prediall Tenths only, and it will be neer a fift. and we here omit also the Cities and Suburbs assigned to them, and their other many profits out of Sacrifices, ransoms of First-born, and the like. But for that proportion of number twixt the Tithes, wee haue sufficient testimonie in holy * 1.47 Writ, that it was farre otherwise The able men for armes of the eleuen Tribes were numberd to 603550. and these all of XX. yeers old at least. the Males of the Le∣uits from a month old were seuerally found to be but 22273. for so are the particulars of the Families of Gershon, K••ath, and Merari. Here then the Leuits reckond, with aduantage of all their Male children of aboue a month old, make not a 1/27. of the rest of the Tribes. had the rest been accounted also with all their Males of like age, it is pro∣bable enough that the Male Leuits would not haue equalled a fiftieth or sixtieth part. as in the one sex of them, the coniecture may also be in the other. and afterwards likewise * 1.48 in Dauids numbring, we see the Leuits of 30. yeer old were lesse then 1/32. part of the rest of Israel and Iuda, that were able to bear Armes. Where then is any thing towards proportion twixt the number of the Priests and Leuits, and the deno∣mination of the Tithe? Neither is it to any purpose or consequent to look after any such thing. I rest in this; that it pleased the Al∣mightie so to enrich that Tribe, which was reserued only for the holy Seruice in the Temple. Why he did so, or with what proportion, let them, for me, examine, who dare put their prophane fancies to play with his holy Text, and so most impudently and wickedly offer to square the one by the other.

Of the III. Chapter.

IN it, largely out of originall Autors of Greece and Rome, is shewd the vse of Tithing among the Gentiles. farre more largely then by any that hath yet toucht it. The truth also, wherein too many are either obstinatly or ignorantly blind, touching that of their supposed generall paiment, collected out of a corrupted place in Festus, or ra∣ther in Paulus Diaconus, is declared and brought to its own limits. nei∣ther will any iudicious Reader doubt of the corruption of Festus in that place. whosoeuer knows but the fashion of his writing (which must be obserued in that of his own, after the XI. book, partly yet re∣maining in his very words) cannot at all think that Decima quae{que} vete∣res Dijs suis offerebant, should be deliuerd by him. he is in all other things more curious. he would not haue talkt of Dijs generally or quae{que}. But it was no such wonder that Paulus Diaconus, who ignorantly abridged him vnder Charles the Great, should say so; being, as the learned acknowledge him, no small enemie to posteritie, in so cutting and maiming him. he was (saies * 1.49 the noble Scaliger) Homo meo iudicio confidentissimus ac, vti res ipsa decet, ineptissimus. Had he delt with Fe∣stus, as Festus did before with Verrius Flaccus, it had been tolerable. though by Festus perhaps we haue lost much of Flaccus, yet he appears iudicious enough and carefull in what he deliuers from him. But this Paul (being, I confesse, otherwise a man of great reading and know∣ledge for the time he liud in) hath not only here by coniecture, but in other places most plainly so exprest things of this nature, that is, touching the Theologie or Rites of the Gentiles, that, had we not found some pieces of Festus himselfe, posteritie might haue been perpetually blinded by him. No man will denie it that obserues but his words, Maleuoli, Nixi Dij, Praeclamitatores, Nauia, and diuers other which, compard with what is left of Festus whence he had them, appeare to bee either mistaken or falsly deliuered. But for the Gentiles; it is true, they were very deuout in giuing of their yeerly increase to the honor of their Deities, according as the Attique Law receiud, as is thought, from Triptolemus, and seconded by a 1.50 Dra••o, com∣manded▪ that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, To honor the Gods with their fruits. witnesse enough of the Grecians is found in their Thalysia that was the feast immediatly after Haruest, wherin they spent b 1.51 much of their fruits in honor of Ceres; in their Haloa about the same time which was c 1.52 the like deuotion to her and to Bacchus, and in their seue∣rall Dionysia. all which spent no small part of their yeerly fruits of Wine and Corne; that we may omit their other feasts of lesse note that are to this purpose. And among the Romans, was a like forward∣nesse to consecrat part of their Corne and Wine to the Gods; as we see in their Sacrima d 1.53 that is the first of their Must, spent in the honor

of Bacchus, their Calpar or the first and best of their Wine, as it was when they first began to draw it, sacred to Iupiter Dapalis, their Prae∣messum or Praemetium before Haruest, their Florifestum after Haruest, both bestowed in honor of Ceres, and the like more to her and to Iu∣piter, Ianus, and Bacchus; that we may omit their Robigalia, Solitauri∣lia, and the rest of such kind. But all these plainly were at the libertie of the Owners. and so was it expresly denoted in the rituall words of sacrificing of their new Wines as e 1.54 Macte, or Mactus Iupiter hoc vino inferio esto, as if they had said, Be honord Iupiter with this Wine, which is as much as I can spare thee. for so much is in substance denoted by inferio, that is, Vino quod insertur. and therefore was that word f 1.55 added be∣cause all the rest might be free from Religion after this were so seue∣rally sacrificed. For vntill the Sacrifice, all the Wine remaind so sa∣cred that it might not lawfully be medled with for common vse. But the owner might ••y such arbitrarie giuing his Inferium, discharge it of being any more sacred. and thereupon saies Arnobius, iesting at their Ceremonies, Mactus hoc vino inserio esto quid est aliud quàm dicere, tantum esto mactus quantum volo; tantum amplificatus quantum iubeo; tantum ho∣noris assumito quantum te habere decerno, & verborum circumscriptione de∣finio. O Deorum sublimitas praepotens &c. quae per vnius formidinem verbi ab immodicis vini cupiditatibus arcetur! Among all these feasts not any mention is of a Tenth or any certain part. But the Tenth came somtimes only at the will of him that had good fortune or post rem benè gestam, as g 1.56 Seruius his words are. So Hersennius who had been a Piper all his youth, and doubting the successe of that Trade, fel thence to be a Marchant, and then re benè gestâ Decimam Herculi dicauit. That consecrating vse to Hercules was most vsually made with solemnitie at that Ara Maxima, neer the Forum Boarium or the Ox-market, vpon which, some h 1.57 say, but fabulously enough (as the rest of these particu∣lars are deliuerd) that Hercules himself first spent the Tenth of what he took from Cacus, in a iolly Feast, with Euander and the rest that honord him for it. and vpon that Altar, saies Halycarnasseus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Tithes are there frequent∣ly offered by vow. But the paiment of that vow was commonly in feasts made in honor of him; and those feasts were, it seems, in ancienter time, vntill the Vow was performd, celebrated within euery ten daies by such as were so religious to him. and in that diuision of time, for the more conuenience of entertainment, his Tithe was merrily spent; and the guests alwaies sent home crownd with Baies in honor of him. So I vnderstand that of Varro i 1.58 when he tells vs, Maiores soli∣tos Decimam Herculi vouere, nec decem dies intermittere quin pollucerent ac populum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cum corona laurea dimitterent cubitum. and of this kind of Feasts were those Dinners of Orestes, spoken of in k 1.59 Cicero. Oresti nuper prandia in semitis Decumae nomine magno honori fuerunt. It seems their vow both of Gain and of Spoiles of Warre, was made to

him chiefly as he was their God of Warre or of Defence. For it is cleer not only in the old Roman Diuinitie or Mythologie, that Hercules specially was accounted Mars (as is plain by their Moniments, which shew that the institution of Sacra Saliaria were indifferent to Her∣cules or Mars, and made to one Deitie vnder those two names) but al∣so by the old Astronomie wherein the Planet Mars was likewise called l 1.60 Hercules, and that not only by the Chaldaeans (as Macrobius too rashly affirms) but also by the Aegyptians, from whom the knowledge of the Heauens came into Europe. For howsoeuer it be noted out of an old Glossarie at the end of that most learned work of the noble Scaliger vpon Manilius, that Mars was called among the Aegyptians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 suppose the Northern Aegyptians about Alexandria, where they spake Greek before the Roman Empire and afterward) and although m 1.61 some other old testimonie, say they, stiled him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) yet A∣chilles Statius that was n 1.62 an Aegyptian saies expresly, that Pyróis is the Greek name of Mars, and that in Aegypt he was calld the starre of Hercules. So the Autor of that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, attributed to Aristotle; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Pyróis being calld both Hercules and Mars; which Apulleius, because Hercules was not so common a name for it, thus turns, Quem multi Herculis, plures Martis stellam vocant. and his common titles in old Inscriptions iustifie the same. Inuicto, Victori, Defensori, Pollenti, and such more are frequently his additions, being proper to Mars. and vnder some such Title was he worshipt almost in euery Citie of o 1.63 Italie. and I would Varro had rather here sought the cause of his title of Victor then in that ridiculous reason which he brings, p 1.64 Quòd omne genus animalium deciès vicerit. had he said that therefore also the Tithe was giuen him because of Decies, he had spoken as probably and as wisely. Indeed it is a wonder to see a man of that abstruse learning and great abilities, that Togatorum Doctissimus, to be so childish as he often is, in vnhappily troubling himselfe about deriuations. But of Hercules, enough. Be∣side that of the maritime Pelasgi, in §. 1. the other of them that seated themselues further into the Land in Vmbria, being opprest with a ste∣rile yeer, vowd the Tenth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 q 1.65 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, The Tithe of all that should encrease to them, to Iupiter, Apollo, and the Cabiri. and this they paid also. but they were admonisht by Apollos Oracle, that their vow was not performd vntill they had sacrificed al∣so the Tithe of their children. which was done also. But now see (when you truly know the ancient Tithing among the Gentiles) how well they conclude here that draw arguments from the generall Law of Nature or Nations, as if by that Law any such vse of paiment of Tithes had been established among them, as was continuall or com∣pulsorie.

Of the IV. Chapter.

THat which succeeds is only of Christian Practice, Laws, and O∣pinion. Which, any man that sees but the course of our diuision, may easily know; though he were as peruerse as he was that to confute me in assertion here of no proof of paiment of Tithes, till towards the end of the first CCCC. yeers, confidently brought that Text of the holy Autor to the Ebrews, r 1.66 Here men that die, receiue Tithes: and was readie to sing decidit in casses &c. as if that had proued a paiment in the Apostles time. indeed it proues a paiment among the Ebrews or Iews then, and also is seconded by other autoritie before touched. but any reference there had to ā Christian practice of Tithing, I sup∣pose no man will affirm that is of a sound brain, and vses holy Writ with due reuerence. But my application of some passages in S. Cy∣prian in §. 1. here are found fault withall; in that I vnderstand not hi•• mention of the word Decimae to be a note of paiment of Tithes in his age. Indeed I did not think that any man which vnderstood Cy∣prian, with the vse of his time in making vp the Ecclesiastique Tresure, would haue therin taxed me. Neither haue I giuen his words alone & then my own Glosse (as many haue done too often, and that in things of the nature of this subiect, and so haue deceiud their credulous Readers) but I haue carefully and shortly exprest also the occasion of his passages; and so, that an vnderstanding Reader may collect as much out of them as he might do if he had the whole context of Cy∣prian by him. If I haue errd in the interpretation, it is but my single error and theirs that dare giue autoritie here to my iudgement. who∣euer can think otherwise by Cyprians words, if he saw him, may equal∣ly do so by my relation. howeuer then, I impose not on any Reader. But for that second place of his out of his De Vnitate Ecclesiae; obserue his words more fully. Thus they are, Domos tunc & fundos venunda∣bant &, thesauros sibi in coelo reponentes, distribuenda in vsus indigentium pretia Apostolis offerebant. At nunc patrimonio nec Decimas damus; & cum vendere iubeat Dominus emimus potius & augemus. So farre is this from denoting any paiment of Tenths of annuall increase (which is the Tithe we enquire after) that indeed no such Tenth seems here to be vnderstood in the mention of Decimae. he speaks of them which sold their whole estates in the Apostles times. but now, saith he, we giue not the Tenths of our patrimonies. that is, we giue not the Tenth part of what deuout Christians then did, but in stead of selling for deuotion, we buy and increase our estates. What other Tenth is here spoken of then the tenth part of euery mans patrimonie or estate? and what hath that to do with the tenth of Annuall encrease only? and, for a∣ny vse of paiment in this time: I was not so bold to make the nega∣tiue, that no Tithes were paid, but that it could not be proued that any were.

He that can shew me aught omitted that might proue it, shall deserue and haue thanks of me. In the meane time further to iustifie what I affirme, take this of Epiphanius Bishop of Constance in Cyprus, that about the yeer CCC.LXXX. wrote against the Heresies of the primitiue times. when he s 1.67 tels vs of the Tessaresdecatitae, or those which thought the holy Easter must be kept on the fourteenth Moone, according to the Law giuen to the Iews for their Passeouer, and that because they apprehended that the keeping it otherwise was subiect to the curse of the Law; he saies, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, they do all things or agree generally with the Church, sauing that they were too much herein addicted to the Iew••sh custome. and in his argument a∣gainst them, he shewes, that the curse hath not reference only to the Passeouer, but also to Circumcision, to Tithes (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) to Offerings. Wherefore (as he goes on) if they escape one curse, by keeping their Easter according to the Law of the Passeouer, they thrust themselues into many other. For (saith he) they shall find them also cursed that are not Circumcised, and them cursed that pay not Tithes, and them cursed that offer not at Ierusalem. Let any man now consider if this Bishop that was least vnacquainted with the customes of the Christian Church, vnderstood not cleerly that no necessarie or knowne vse of paiment, was among Christians in his time, of Tithes, no more then of Circumcision, or offering at Ierusalem. Doth he not plainly reckon it as a thing not only not in Christian vse, but euen equalls it with what was certainly abrogated? is not his Obiection shortly thus? Why do you not obserue Circumcision and Tithing, and Offerings also at Ierusalem, which are all subiect to the like curse? and because some kind of Offerings indeed were in vse among Christians, therefore in the Obiection he prouidently ties them to Ierusalem. But of Tithing he speakes as generally as of Circumcision. Obserue his owne context, which I here giue, that the able Readers iudgement may be free. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, So that if they auoid one curse, they fall vnder many other. For such shall be also found accursed as are vncircumcised, such accursed as Tithe not. and they a••e also accursed (in the old Law) that offer not at Ierusalem. I confesse, this may perhaps seem not to extend to the African Church (wherein S. Cyprian and S. Augustine liued) that was farre remote from Epiphanius, being of the Greek Eastern Church▪ and so not to sufficiently proue that in those times no paiment was in vse there. The like perhaps may be obuiously thought of in referring it to the Westerne Church of Europe. But it seemes that the African, European, & Eastern Greek Churches of those times, had litle or no diffe∣rence twixt them in the setled policie for their maintenance. And for the African; howeuer out of S. Augustines Sermons it may be collected,

that a paiment soone afterward was there in vse, yet herein both the Greek Eastern, and the African Churches are specially so like each o∣ther, that neither in the Councells or Canons of the one or the o∣ther of them, any Law at all is found for paiment or ordaining any thing touching Tithes; nor as I remember, doth the name of Tithes once occurre in them, or in Photius his Nomocanon, or in Zonaras, or Balsam••••, the chiefe Canonists that writ on the Eastern Canons. I mean here the Canons of the Greek Church of credit; not including those called the Apostles Constitutions equally belonging to all Churches (if vnder that name to any) of which more presently. But it had been litle to the purpose indeed to haue had Tithes of Annuall increase paid, while that most bountifull deuotion of good Christians continued in frequent Offerings, both of lands and goods to such large value, as you see exprest in that of the Gouernor of Rome to S. Laurence (being Archdeacon to Pope Xistus the second) in the ninth persecution vnder Decius. He tells him t 1.68 that the common fame was that the Christians did often

Offerre, fundis venditis, Sestertiorum millia.

And that

Addicta auorum praedia Foedis sub auctionibus, Success••r exhaeres gemit Sanctis egens parentibus.

Et summa pietas creditur, Nudare dulces liberòs.

no doubt can be but that the Gouernor is here made to speake some∣what beyond the truth. But also questionlesse the liberall deuotion of the time was very exceeding in offerings.

But, for Constitutions of this age; lest we should seeme to omit a∣ny thing that beares the name of one, although meerly supposititious, we shall here adde more to that cited in the 4. §. out of the old Cle∣mentines attributed to the Apostles. but all will be of equall credit. and were it not for the inequalitie of Readers, none of it indeed de∣serued a place here. In those Clementines, a further command is, to giue u 1.69 all thy Tithes to the Orphan, to the Widow, to the Poore, and to the Stranger. And afterward some Constitutions attributed to S. Matthew are inserted; wherein first is ordained the formall consecration of Oile and Water, that may haue power to heale sicke men, to cast out Deuills, and the like, with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, I Matthew ordaine. and then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, I further ordain, that all first fruits be brought to to the Bishop, and to the Priests, and to the Deacons for their maintenance. and that all Tithes be offered for the maintenance of the rest of the Clergie, and of Virgins, and of Widowes, and of poore People. but here is no command of Tithes to be giuen to the Priests for their vse; but only for mainte∣nance of the lesse Orders of the Clergie and of the Poor. and there∣in these Constitutions still agree with themselues. But, for the autori∣tie of them; take the iudgement of our Church, and I think you shall haue a generall consent, in this, that they are not of neer the Apostles time, but counterfaits of far later age. and great men in the Church of Rome account them no otherwise, howsoeuer Turrian (that first pub∣lisht them in Greek out of three old copies, as he saies) would needs perswade the World that they are genuine, Apostolique, and collected by Pope Clement the first. But I would then he had also perswaded vs that the Apostles had taught that the Birth of our Sauiour or Christ∣mas day, was to be celebrated on the XXV. day of December, as in this suspisititious x 1.70 Clement is affirmed. The learned know that vntill about CCCC. yeers after Christ, that is till S. Chrysostomes time, that day y 1.71 was not setled but variously obserued in the Easterne Church, which should haue had speciall notice of the Apostolique Canons. and S. Chrysostome then learned the time of the XXV. of December (which yet, most thinke not to be the exact time) from the Western or Latine Church. It is likely that till then, the Apostles Constitutions had slept? Besides, we see, that Dionysius that great Patriarch of Alexandria, al∣though those of his See and himselfe were most curious in the deter∣minations of Ecclesiastique times, could not find whence cleerly to resolue that question to Basilides Bishop of Pentapolis, z 1.72 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, At what houre after the last Saterday of Lent they should leaue of that strictnesse a 1.73 of Fasting. in ioy of the Resurrection or at what houre of Easter day, or the feast of the Resurrection should begin. Basilides tells him, some think at the Cocks-crowing towards the morning, some at the Sater-day euening. and Dionysius acknowledges that difference in vse. But to set a certain houre of it, he answers him, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, both hard and without sufficient ground. and then falls to examine it by the holy Historie of the time of the Resurrection. But had these Consti∣tutions beene then in autoritie, cleerly Dionysius might soon haue re∣solud the question. for in them it b 1.74 is determined, that this strict fa∣sting should be kept, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, vntill the time of Cock-crowing. This learned Patriarch (his Greek Epistle neuer yet publisht in Greek, with Balsamon vpon him, was communicated to me by that most learned and courteous Mr. Patrik Yong, in the rest of Balsamon Ms.) liued about CC. yeers after the supposed time of the

collection of these Constitutions, and surely had vsed them if they had then at all been, and deserued credit. and who would haue made a controuersie about the holding of Easter, that had in those elder times found it so established as it is in those Constitutions. But it is not difficult to coniecture out of what kind of shop they came, if you but note the supremacie of all power c 1.75 so arrogated in them to the Clergie. the Autors of them command that Priests be honord as Kings and haue tribute paid them as Kings, and are so bold as to apply that in d 1.76 Samuel, touching what a King would do in taking from his Sub∣iects, to the power of Bishops, as if they should do so. and they affirm it, as much more reasonable, that Bishops should do so; and ordain also with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, We constitut, the like wholly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, touching Bishops, as there, they say, is ordaind 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, touching Kings. which well agrees also with their recko∣ning vp of the ten Commandements, and making the Tenth to be e 1.77 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Thou shall not appear emptie before the Priest. He that made these words to fill the place of one of the ten Commandements, seems not to talk like one of the Apostles. A thousand things more might be found to disproue the autority that some attribute to these Canons. and the answer to Turrians reasons for maintenance of them, are obuious enough. For my part, I think con∣fidently that most of them, if not all, are hardly M. yeers old; and therefore no sufficient cause is, why they should haue place of credit in any part of our Diuision, as they bear the name of Canons or Constitutions. For if they were in truth made so long after those whose names giue them all their autoritie, they are all one, for Con∣stitutions to be relied on, as if they had been but of yesterday. I only toucht part of them in this first CCCC. yeers, as they were in the Latin; the Greek being neither then by me nor much materiall; al∣though some passages in other translations and to this purpose, if not examind by the Greek, may soon deceiue a Reader of too readie a faith. For one of those other Canons attributed also to the Apostles as Autors, and to this Clement as Collector, is translated, f 1.78 Aliorum Decimae primitiaeue fructuum omnium mittantur Episcopo ac Presbyteris, & non super Altare, the Greek that is turnd and set by the Latin in the same Volume, hauing not a syllable of Tithes, but speaks only thus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Let all other fruit (being first fruits) be sent home to the Bishop and to the Priests, but not brought to the Altar. the meaning being that only first fruits of new grapes before Vintage-time, or of yong herbs fit to be eaten, or such like (comprehended vnder the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the next Canon before) should be brought to the Church and so are the expo∣sitions of Zonaras and Theodore Balsamon, two great Canonists of the Eastern Church.

Of the V. Chapter.

THose Abbots spoken of in the 1. §. were not of the ministring Clergie properly taken; but only principall Gouernors of such as had chosen a separated and single life; such as are in good number found in Pailadius his Lausiaca Historia, Cassimus, and the like more. For that of giuing Tithes to the vse of the Poor; it seems it must be vnderstood that they were most commonly giuen into the hands of those Abbots or some of the Clergie for their vse. and that they dispensed them. which may be collected out of the testimonies of that age wherein the goods and treasure of the Church is accoun∣ted but as the Poors chiefly in propertie. Beside those attributes of Tithes and other things consecrated, as tributa egentium animarum, and patrimonia pauperum, and the like, an obseruable admonition is, to this purpose, found in Isidore Pelusiota (that liud about the beginning of these CCCC. yeers) made to one Maro a Priest (whom he of∣ten reprehends) but specially g 1.79 for not leauing the goods of the Church and of the Poor (that is, what was offerd in Tithes, Rents, and other bounties) to be kept only by the OEconomus or Dispenser, or Steward (who in those times receiud them for the Bishop, and dispen∣sed them by direction of him and his Clergie) but carried them home to his own house. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saies he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Leaue off this wicked course. For the Dispenser hath his name from his Dispensing to the Poor what is theirs; as the goods of the Church are properly. So S. Basile h 1.80 stiles the goods and re∣uenue of the Church, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Greek Lawiers call them generally i 1.81 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or prouision for the Poor. And hence is it that diuers Schoolmen to and fro dispute that question, whether the dominion or propertie of the reuenue of the Church be in the Clergie; and whether what they giue to the Poor be due debilo Iusti∣tiae, or debito Claritatis.

I supposed enough had been said in §. 3. to conuince the common error of them, which deriue Feudall Tithes from the Clergie of the time of Charles Martell, or affirm any common paiment of them then in practice. But it is a hard taske to teach obstinat ignorance. Let that of Eucherius his vision be as it will (which yet cannot stand with the time of his death, calculated according to the storie that remains of him; howeuer indeed k 1.82 very ancient Autors help to iustifie it) it still rests certain that the Constitutions of his time, which haue refe∣rence to the many sacrileges committed by him and others, vpon Mo∣nasteries, Bishopriques, and the rest of the Demesnes of the Clergie, neuer spake word of Tithes▪ and with that which is there noted in the margin, obserue the seuerall transcripts of that Law of Restitution,

made in the Synod or Diet at Ratisbon, held vnder Caroloman in DCC.XLII. as it is in l 1.83 Melchior Goldastus. in his first Volume he giues it thus, Decimas, bonae Ecclesiastica occupata à prophanis restitu••mus. as in∣deed both m 1.84 Auentin and the n 1.85 Centuries haue it also literally before him; both out of corrupted Copies. But afterward the diligent Gol∣dastus, finding a better Copie, entirely again publishes the Laws of that Synod neerer the originall; and this one o 1.86 thus: Fraudatas pe∣cunias Ecclesiarum Ecclesijs restituimus. Some other Copies hauing fun∣datas. but none, of any autoritie, Decimas. pecunia being only their wealth or estate in Lands; as in more ancient time pecunia denoted chiefly estate in cattell, and then mony, as now it doth. I know also it had a signification that included offerings p 1.87 of fruits and corn, and so might be drawn to denote Tithes offered. but that signification was of rare vse, and only among the Gentiles. Neither (as I thinke with some confidence) can any man shew me such vse of the word in any Christian Autor of the ancients. And the very decree of Thierry King of France, and that Charles Martell the Maire du Maison, of the yeere q 1.88 DCC.XXX. touching the taking from the Clergie their posses∣sions, Vt subueniatur necessitatibus publicis & solatijs militum pro Dei Ec∣clesia, & bono statu Reipub. & vniuscuius{que} propria pace pugnantium, as the words of it are, and that of Caroloman r 1.89 in DCC.XLIII. speake not a word of Tithes, but only of terrae & Casatae (which were the Ec∣clesialis pecunia) and the small Rents to be reserud to the Church vpon leases made of them, which is, it seems, vnderstood in the more com∣mon giuing of them into Lay hands so much spoken of by Flodoard. that is, Lay men had the benefit of them by hauing Leases of them at small Rents without Fines. Neither is any other thing spoken of in the s 1.90 Capitularie exhibited by the Bishops of the Prouinces of Rhemes and Rhosne, to the Emperor Lewes the second. When I see a∣ny testimonie neer Martells time that so may iustifie the receiud tale of his prophaning of Tithes as I may change my mind. But seeing so much of his sacrileges left in the storie of neer his age, and that not a syllable touching such Tithes as we here enquire after, nor any thing els that hath reference to the common paiment of them, is found in the Laws made vnder him, I still remain confident in what I haue ad∣monished; and I think so will euery man els that hath an impartiall eie of iudgment. But, for that which I haue here noted touching Casata; perhaps Casata should rather haue been interpreted a Mesuage, or dwelling house. For it appears in that Capitularie exhibited to the Emperor Lewes, and in some other testimonie of that t 1.91 time, that the reseruations ad restaurationem terrarum (which may be satisfaction gi∣uen by the Lessees of the Clergie, in Rents of land) were Nonae & Decimae (where Decimae haue not to do with paiment of Tithes out of meer lay Fees, but only were receiud by reseruation) and out of eue∣ry Casata xij^d. So it may be that Casata is no quantitie of Land there,

as I haue coniecturd, but a house only. if it be, you see whence I was deceiud. pardon me. perhaps it was an error. I willingly acknow∣ledge so much vpon this Reuiew. I acknowledge it, if that Capitula∣rie of the Bishops and the other testimonie be therein authentique. I somwhat doubt them, because the most known and certain Laws of Martells time speak only of xij^d. to be serud out of euery Casata, and the Nonae and Decimae grow not elswhere into vse till after the begin∣ning of the French Empire. and if nothing but Casatae were spoken of, there were reason enough why they should be taken for Land. But the Nonae and Decimae in those autorities are referd to Land, and the xij^d. only to Casatae.

That in the 4. §. of the Tithe of time in Lent out of S. Gregorie, is not easily perhaps apprehended by euery Reader without a litle more explication. The Sundaies as they were exempt out of the number of daies, so were they from the fasting of Lent, thence comes his conceit of the Tithe of Time in XXXVI. daies, which is 1/10. of CCC.LXV. so Fractions be omitted. and to make vp for∣tie which is exprest in Quadragesima, the known name for Lent; the four daies preceding Quadragesima Sunday, are to be added. this was the intent of that fancie. But how sleight and nothing to the purpose, that obseruation of the Tenth of Time is (howeuer the Canonists, as sworn to their Text, make of it) is easily seen, not only in the abusd libertie of calculation of it, but also by the customs and Laws of both Churches the West and East in their various limits of this time of fa∣sting. Popes Telesphorus. they x 1.92 say, made it VII. Weeks. and other diuersities hath it had in the Western Church. and the Eastern church exempted y 1.93 both Saterdaies and Sundaies from fasting through all Lent, except only the Saterday that next preceded Easter Sunday. as also they fasted not on the day of the Annunciation. What regard had they then, think you, to the Tithe of Time?

Of the VI. Chapter.

THe practice of paiment in the third CCCC. yeers; was Pa∣rochially obserued in some * 1.94 places, but especially by Clergie men, to Clergie men, who (with such as were reputed among them) subiected themselues more to their Canons then the Laitie could be brought to do. But it seems somewhat plain by the many ex∣amples of Arbitrarie Consecrations to Monasteries and other Chur∣ches, related in §. 2. (whereto ioine also the English practice in the XI. Chapter, and the a 1.95 Charter of Henrie the eighth, Duke of Ba∣uiere, of the Tithes of Rannesh••fen, giuen to the Church of S. Pancrace) that the paiment of them Parochially performd by Lay men, was yet frequently omitted or continued to their own wills. Whence other∣wise could the Founders and Benefactors of Monasteries haue made

Tithes part of their endowments? it was not, in these elder times, so much by giuing them Churches (as the most that speak of this, igno∣rantly think, telling vs that all Tithes came into Monasteries by ap∣propriating of Parish Churches) as by conueying to hem diuers Tithes alone and newly created. and after those gifts, Consecrations, or new creations, n•• other Tithes were paid vpon any other right, out of that Land which was so charged with them. But most of those Consecrations were at one time or another at length confirmd by Popes and Bishops, and so cleerly after enioyd; which plainly also supposed a former strength in them. For regularly, Confirmatio ex pro∣prio significatu denotat firmitatem actus confirmati, as b 1.96 Panormitan and other Canonists say, and nihil c 1.97 iuris noui tribuit, sed tantum vetus con∣firmat. But it is plain, that after Parochiall right established, that is since about M.CC. when the Canons grew more powerfull and o∣bedience to them became more readie, such confirmations by bishops and Popes, and such consecrations, creations, or new grants by Lay men, of Tithes, haue bin taken and declared cleerly void, as you may see in a decree d 1.98 of Pope Innocent the III▪ touching Tithes, so granted by a Knight of Berry in France, and confirmd by the Archbishop, and e 1.99 in another of his about Tithes so giuen or created to a Church by the King and Queen of Hungarie, and after confirmd by a Pope or two. and who can doubt now but that all such grants (in regard of preuention of the Parsons right) be not only void by the practiced Canon Law of this day, but also by the Secular or common Laws of most States (if not of all where Tithes are paid) in Christendom. For admit at this day, that Titius grant Decimas suas of such an Acre to the Parson, Abbot, or Bishop of such a Church, and this be confir∣med by whom you will; The Tithe due from him Parochially is not toucht by it. why? because they are setled iure communi (as the Law is practiced) in the Parish Rector but in those elder times, such an arbitrarie grant vested the Tithe in the Church to which it was giuen, and no other afterward was paid. Why? because then notwithstan∣ding the Canons, no ius commune, no Parochiall right of Tithes was setled or admitted in the practice of the Laitie. And for those ancien∣ter grants; be not deceiud by such as tell you they were alwaies of Tithes formerly infeodated from the Church. that hath no ground to iustifie it▪ neither can any man at al proue any common course of such Infeodation of Tithes from the Church into Lay hands, to haue been in any State till the later times of Reformation of Religion in some places, and dissolution of Monasteries. and those two examples which are in Pope Innocents decrees are expresly of new creations, at least not of infeodated Tithes, as euery Canonist will acknowledge. But cleerly they both were in themselus according to the many other, but they had not the fortune to be confirmd in such time as the Pope or Clergie vsually gaue way to the former practice of arbitrarie Conse∣cration.

And doubtlesse also, after such time as the Clergie saw that the Canons, made for Parochiall right of Tithes, had gotten force, and that the former creations or grants of Tithes by Lay men (which were indeed practiced agianst many Canons both Papall and Syno∣dall) were, by that name of Lay-mens grants, creations or consecra∣tions, declared vtterly void by the Pope and his Canon Law, although confirmed by whomsoeuer; such of them as had originally no other true titles to Tithes so commonly consecrated by Lay men, subtilly e∣nough in the next foure hundred yeers, left off the pretence of their Lay grantors bountie (especially if the Grantor had been a common person) and betook themselues only to prescription f 1.100 of XL. yeers, and to what other times might be allowd to setle a right to them vpon a possession of Tithes. and, by what way, retaind safely what other∣wise, if they had held themselues to the deeds of their Lay grantors and to Confirmations, had been in danger enough of being recoue∣red from them by Parish Rectors. So that, when the prescription was good in regard of time and possession; although the originall Title it selfe were naught; yet because any other iust Title might be pre∣tended to ground the prescription on (which also was g 1.101 not of neces∣sitie to be proued incorporeall things) it was not difficult to haue a faire course to maintaine their possessions and right of such consecra∣ted Tithes, as had been possest so fortie yeers before they were que∣stioned by Parsons which claimed them iure communi. For against them, such a prescription by any other Church, Abbey, or Bishoprique or such like is a good Title. Remember also their erecting of Paro∣chiall Chappells within the larger Territories, out of which they had portions. plainly, the erecting of such Chappells for Parish Churches (the Cure being there serued by some Monke or Vicar, instituted vp∣on the presentation of them which had the granted portions) made those portions at length also in many places be reputed for Parochiall Tithes, due in regard of those Parochiall Chappells. But what course soeuer they took; it seems certain, that the Titles deriud from Lay consecrations were after this third CCCC. yeers carefully con∣ceald by the Possessors in such publike records of their reuenues, as were of more common and open vse in their legall proceedings at the Canon Law, howeuer they remaind still in their ancienter and more secret Chartularies. and with vs I haue very rarely, scarce at all, seen an Instrument of them in their Lieger books or otherwise, writen in a hand that is later then King Iohns time. the most are before him. But I haue seen Catalogues of the time of Henrie the third and Ed∣ward the first, of many large portions of Tithes, that doubtlesse came first from arbitrarie Consecrations, and that through most of the Dioceses of England, wherein not the least mention is of any Grantor. only possession is rememberd. and that, by prescription. was to be iu∣stified. Some Titles also I haue seen made to Tithes in Libells of the

time of Henrie the third, especially in the Lieger books of Reading, Osney, and Pipewell. but in none of them euer any deriud from Con∣secrations. Neither indeed, in that ancientest Formularie of the Ca∣non Law (I mean Durand, that liued about CCC.L. yeers since) is any other Libell for Tithes, then such as make the Title Canonicall. None that touches Lay consecrations; which diuers yeers before his time became as much concealed in legall proceedings of the Canon Law, as they had been in the more ancient times desired and hunted after by such as were enricht by them. This of arbitarie Consecra∣tions, I presume, is like strange Doctrine to most men. it may well be. for the truth of it, I think, was neuer before so much as pointed at by any that hath writen of any part of our subiect. But I doubt not but euery vnderstanding Reader will think these things here now shortly noted on them to deserue his consideration, which I desire him also to referre to the XI. Chapter. and also let him apply to them the Ad∣monitions toucht presently in Appropriations.

For Appropriations which are in the 3. §. they consisted (as you see there & in the XII. Chapter) for the purpose, either in conueying Pa∣rish Churches appropriated with Tithes setled in them somtimes by a con∣tinuance of paiment, sometimes by Consecrations, or by both; or of Churches that were then appropriated when (according to the vse of the time) none or few Tithes were paid to them, yet afterward in the hands of the Monks or such like, when the Canons for paiment of Tithes came into force, got Parochiall paiment to be made to them; or thirdly in passing of Tithes formerly created and in esse. So that as by Consecrations, Tithes newly created, were setled in Monasteries and the like, so, by Appropriations, Churches with Tithes in esse, or with the pretended right to them, and Tithes alone (but formerly in esse) were conueid to them. The whole Appropriation of Tithes with Churches or Churches alone (we shew) in that ancienter time was made by the Patron. The Churches with Tithes (by the name of Ecclesia cum De∣cimis, when Tithes were paid to it) was in point of interest giuen by him. And many more Churches haue been so appropriated, then by the later and more known course. Neither, I think, haue many new Appropriations been since made. not many in regard of the number of the other. But deserues not this then another kind of considera∣tion then is commonly dreamt on, among them which make Tithes due by the Diuine Morall Law to the Euangelicall Priesthood? if they be so; what had the Patron as Patron (were he either Temporall or Spirituall) to doe with them in conueying them to Monks, Friers, Nunnes, poor people in Hospitals? none of these, by that name, are of the Priesthood. and that way, they were so equally due to the mi∣nistring Priesthood before the Patrons title to the Church, that what euer he could do after he were Patron (although also his act were con∣firmd by whom you will) could not at all, it seems, touch them, or con∣uey

them from him that should afterward exercise the spirituall fun∣ction of the Church. Consider Tithes so due; and how could any Monasterie deriue to it selfe any Title to that selfe same Tithe that was so due to the Priesthood? And if it had not the selfe same Tithe, but by prescription or other ciuill Title, hauing the glebe of a Church had also a profit by the name of Tithe as annext to the Church, no o∣therwise then other Lay endowments (for no man can doubt but that any kind of persons may inioy a profit vnder the name of Tithe or Tenth, aswell as a Rent of the Ninth part or of the Eleuenth) who then is it that now detains the Tithe due by the Diuine Morall Law, in cases of Appropriations? doth the Monasterie, or those which haue such appropriated Tithes by conueyance from it? or rather doth not the Parishioner, that is bound to whatsoeuer is by that Law due, al∣though he pay neuer so many other Tenths due only by some ciuill Title? or by that Opinion, is not he that receiues the appropriated Tithe bound to pay a Tenth of it to the Minister, and the Parishioner a Tenth of his Nine parts. I affirme nothing here. it is no place for me to do it. But let these things be first considerable to euery one that talks of Appropriations, and concludes Tithes due iure diuino morali. And, for Lay mens right to the appropriated Tithes (that is, such as did either vest in the Monasteries by Appropriations, or at least haue been enioied by reason of them) let him examine it rather thus: may that which either Grant or Prescription, or other ciuill Title once setled and so euen consecrated to God and holy vses, although abusd, be afterward prophaned to Lay hands? But it is a grosse error to make it cleer as many do, that if Tithes be not due to the Priesthood iure diuino morali, then Appropriated Tithes may be still possessed with good conscience by Lay men; and that if otherwise, then they may not. For though they be not due so; yet is the consecration of them in the Appropriation, nothing? for if they be not due so, then it will be cleer, I think, to all, that they might passe in the Appropriation, as other things, subiect to the Titles of humane and positiue Law. The many execrations annext to the deeds of conueyance of them, and pourd forth against such as should d••uert them to prophan vses, should be also thought on. and let them remember also, who saies, that h 1.102 it is a Destruction for a man to deuoure what is consecrated.

To what we haue here of Episcopall right pretended to Tithes espe∣cially in Germanie, & of Tithes appropriated by Bishops, you may adde the examples of Thietmar Bishop of Werden in Saxonie, that i 1.103 about M.C.XL. Contulit Ecclesiae suae vndecem Decimas, & Contulit fratrib{us} Decimam in Esse. As also his successor Herman, Contulit Ecclesiae suae mediam Deci∣mam de Haselwerder, & integram in Rakestede, & Tunderling. and Luder Bishop there about M.CC.XXX. Contulit Ecclesiae Decimam in Emelendorp cum aduocatia, and ordinauit Scolaribus Decimam in Mendorp. It seems this their giuing of Tithes to their Church was an

assignment of them to the encrease of their Prebends, or such like. for it cannot, I think, be vnderstood of Tithes giuen to the Bisho∣prique by themselues, who as Bishops possest or pretended right to Tithes generally in their Diocese. But also, with that noted here touching Gerold Bishop of Oldenburg (or Lubek) his vrging them of the Deserts of Wagria to pay; obserue the words of his perswasiue Let∣ter sent to them to get their Tithes. Deo, saith he, k 1.104 gratias ago, quod multarum in vosiis parent vil tutum insignia, quod videlicet hospitalitati & vlijs misericordiae operibus propter Deum insistitis, quòd in verbo Dei promptis∣simi & in construendis Ecclesijs solliciti estis; in legitimis quo{que} vt Deo pla∣citum est, castam ducitis vitam; quae omnia tamen obseruata nil proderunt, si caetera mandata negligitis, quia sicut scriptum est, qui in vno offendit omnium reus est. Dei enim praeceptum est, Decimas ex omnibus dabis mihi, vt benè sit tibi & longo viuas tempore, cui obedierunt Patriarchae, Abraham scilicet Isaac & Iacob, & omnes qui secundum fidem facti sunt filij Abra∣ha, per quod laudem etiam & praemia aterna consecuti sunt. Apostoliquo{que} & Apostolici viri hoc ipsum ex ore Dei mandauerunt, & sub anathematis vin∣culo posteris seruandum tradiderunt. Cum ergo Dei omnipotentis proculdubio hoc constet esse praeceptum, & sanctorum Patrum fit autoritate firmatum, no∣bis id incumbit negotij vt quod vestrae saluti deest, nostro in vobis opere per Dei gratiam suppleatur. Monemus ergo & obsecramus omnes vos in Domi∣no, vt mihi, cui paterná in vos cura commissa est, animo volenti, quasi filij obedientiae, acquiescatis, & Decimas prout Deus instituit & Apostolica Ban∣no firmauit Autoritas, ad ampliandum Dei cultum & ad gerendum paupe∣rum curam Ecclesiae detis, ne si Deo quae ipsi debentur subtraxeritis & sub∣stantiam simul & animam in interitum mittatis aeternum. Valete. It seems he was in some confidence, that because he was a Bishop, he might make them beleeue any thing of the Patriarchs and the Apostles. and you may see he loued the profit of the Tithes so well, that he would not stand vpon any vnlucky venturing his credit in Diuinitie, or vpon offering a plain falshood, in writing for them. For though they were due generally as he would haue them, yet how would he haue proued that all the Patriarchs and all that were by faith as the sonnes of A∣braham, paid them? or that thereby they all had gaind praemia aeterna? and whence could he haue iustified it, that the Apostles ordaind that they should be paid? it may be therein he meant the Constitutions of the Apostles, of which enough before. if he did, how could he haue strengthened their autoritie? But they to whom he sent remaind still as farre from obedience as the historicall part of his Letter was from truth. And the truth was, he could by no means get any Tithes of them. But for that (in this §.) of Episcopall right, or the right of the Euangelicall Priesthood, so much pretended against Tithes enioied by Monks, that were indeed Lay men, howeuer reputed as a kind of part of the Clergie; it seems that in those daies the Bishops and Priests often stood so much on it, and so much and so often labourd

against Consecrated & Appropriated Tithes, possessed by the Monks (for they knew it was to no purpose to vrge the Lay owners, who af∣ter they had giuen Tithe by consecration would giue no more to any of them) that the most common place which in their Synods and Sermons they dealt on, was the right of Tithes, as due to the Priest∣hood. and in so much also and so vntimely was that common place v∣sed, that there talking of it was become a Prouerb to denote their frequent going from the matter. as if most vsually they fell into that, when they should haue talkt of something else. This is iustified by a passage of the Monk Aimonius in the life of Abbo Abbot of Floriacum, where he speaks of a Synod held vnder Robert King of France, about the yeer M. (when Aimonius liud) in the Abbey of S. Denis. Very ma∣ny Bishops, saith he, were present at it, l 1.105 Qui cum de fidei puritate & de corrigendis tam suis quàm subditorum prauis moribus sermocinari debuis∣sent, iuxta vulgare prouerbium, Cunctum suum sermonem ad Decimas verterunt Ecclesiarum, quas Laicis ac Deo seruientibus Monachis auferre moliti, resistente eis in hac re hoc V. Dei Cultore Abbone, promiscuam in se vulgi concitauere manum. and such danger did the Bishops, in vrging it, draw on themselues, that they were driuen all to dissolue the Synod by running away. you see here Sermonem ad Decimas vertere, was as a prouerb to go from the matter. and for those words, Laicis ac Deo ser∣uientibus Monachis; I think, they are not to be interpreted Lay men, and Monks, but Monks that were lay, and spent their time in the seruice of God▪ For there is no doubt but the Bishops and Priests obiected the name of Laici to the Monks here; and so was it fit, in the relation, to name them. and it was no wonder that the common people (whose bountie, in bestowing of Tithes on Monks, should thus haue turnd to nothing) so fiercely opposed them. If you vnderstand Laicis by it selfe here, then it may denote the arbitrarie detaining or disposing of Tithes by meer Lay men, which, I must confesse, Abbo and his Monks and all other Monks whatsoeuer had some reason to withstand. for they gaind much by it. But, I doubt, it cannot haue reference to Lay Infeodations. For as yet I could neuer see the least testimonie of an Infeodation of Tithes vntill many yeers after Abbo's time. it might perhaps denote them also. but I dare not cleerly affirm or denie here.

The 4. §. is of ancient Infeodations of Tithes. What is in old testi∣monie of them, is there deliuerd. but for time; wee neither fetch them from Charles Martell, nor from the holy Warre of between M.XCV. and M.C. as others do. plainly both those Opinions are false. And it is as certain that they are false, as it is difficult to find the true beginning of Infeodations. Neither, I think, did any man euer referre them to Charles Martell, before Martinus Polonus Archbishop of Cosenza and Penitentiarie to the Pope, who wrote about M.CC.LXXX. Ecclesias (saith he of him) spoliat, Decimas militibus confe∣rendo; and this being through many hands receiud, hath to this houre

abusd many mens credulitie. But thereof, enough alreadie. They are as farre out, that deriue them all from gifts made by Churches, or impositions by Princes. yet that most common opinion, that they all came first out of Churches is elder then the other, and as ancient at least as Frederique Barbarossa. For in the controuersie twixt him and Pope Vrban the third about Inuestitures, Scimus (are the m 1.106 word) Decimas & oblationes à Deo Sacerdotibus & Leuitis Primitias deputatas. sed cum tempore Christianitatis ab Aduersarijs infestarentur Ecclesiae, easdem De∣cimas Praepotentes & Nobiles Viri ab Ecclesijs in beneficio stabili acceperunt, vt ipsi defensores Ecclesiarum fierent quae per se obtinere non valerent. There is no question butt his opinion had soon Autors enough among the Clergie. For, the pretence of it was like enough a great perswasion to some Lay men to giue in their infeodated Tithes to the Church. and this the Canonists, for the most part, and generally the Lawiers of most States, take for a cleer truth. which I much wonder at, seeing that while they take it so, yet they interpret that n 1.107 Canon Prohibemus (which is the principall prouision against Feudall Tithes, and was made by a Councell, that best knew the practice of the neer former times, against such as were created by Lay men to Lay men) to haue been the stay only of further Infeodations into Lay hands, that is, euery lay Infeodation that hath force they suppose to be of before the time of that Canon. as if the Infeodations from Lay to Lay, there for∣bidden, were those from which such (for the most part) as continue had their originall. and therein doubtlesse they are right. and the later Canonists that would apply it to all Infeodations then in esse are grosly deceiud, or wittingly striue to deceiue. for in that respect, the Canon is in no State in force. Neither was it anciently so interpreted by the Canonists. but in the other, that is, touching new creations of Feudall Tithes (in preiudice of the Church) by Lay men to Lay men, it hath been euer admitted, and is in practice both in France and Spain. and what better interpretation of it can be then the continuall pra∣ctice vpon it since the making of it? and so how can it then be supposd but that Lay men before were chiefly the originall Autors of them? But some o 1.108 Lawiers here to iustifie their receiud opinion, bring this argument. Had they not come from the Church, they say, then had the Tithes themselues, which are now possessed by Lay men through Infeodations, paid Tithes also to the Church by reason of the many Canons made for paiment out of all yeerly increase. But this reason cleerly moues nothing. for the selfe same might haue been obiected against the known beginning of Tithes created and consecrated to Monasteries by Lay men. plainly by the Canons, notwithstanding such consecration, the Parochiall right to the Euangelicall Priesthood could not be diminished. and by them also, aswell a Tithe out of the Tithe consecrated, as out of the Nine parts of the Parishioner, might, for aught can be proued against it, be demanded by the Parish Rector.

But wee see cleerly both the originall of those consecrations to haue been from Lay men; and also that no Tithe was or is paid either out of them or out of the rest of the profits of the Nine parts. How then can the other argument touching Infeodations better cōclude here? beside it insists vpon Canons. and would conclude practice from Law. which course of proofe, vsd by most men that write of these things, is grosse and ridiculous. For who euer but indifferently ob∣serues the storie of the elder time together with the Laws, shall soon find that in the Canon Law especially, an argument from debere fieri to factum esse, is scarce so sound as that so hist at among children, à posse ad esse. The truth seemes to be, that both in Consecrations, and Infeodations, and Appropriations of Tithes, there was not any other thing thought on then the name of Tithe, and the right of Tithes generally due to the Church; as if euery thing being the Tenth, and by that name as it were specificated, were presently the Clergies. so that whatsoeuer was by that name giuen away to meer Lay men or to Monasteries by new creation in either Consecrations or Infeoda∣tions, was, it seemes, taken alwaies to be the selfe same indiuiduall Tithe which was supposd due to the Clergie. which also doubtlesse was a cause why many Infeodations hauing originall only from Lay men, were falsly supposed to haue first come from the Church. for how easie was it that that which out of its own name only of Decima was presently taken as to be due to the Church, should be titled an Ecclesiastique right, and then in the passages of them which would haue had it so, be reckond among such things as the Church had a title to by a former possession? and cleerly many of the Laitie also could not but be very inclinable to that opinion. for so long as that held it is likely they resolud they needed not to pay any more to the Church. for when the Church would not keepe the feudall Tithes when it had them (they thought it once had them al) they conceiued doubtlesse there was no reason why they should pay it any more or other Tithes. Thus perhaps vpon diuers grounds and causes, both the Laitie & Clergie deceiud themselues in thinking of the originall of these Infeodations. But herein that which we haue toucht before to be considered in Consecrations and Appropriations is also consi∣derable. for what could such Infeodations by Lay men to Lay men, hurt the right of tithes which was in the Priesthood? especially if due either iure diuino morali, or by any positiue Law ancienter then the Infeodation. But we haue not affirmd, that no Infeodations came o∣riginally from the Church. Questionlesse some did. and beside the ex∣amples alreadie noted, you may see that of Racherius p 1.109 who Ecclesiae de Hauchis (in France, about the yeer M.C.XX.) Decimam laicali v∣surpatione tenebat, as Iuo's words are, and he gaue the Church to an Abbey of S. Martins, and minutas in praesentiarum Monachis demittendo concessit Decimas, & Decimam de Culturis Monachorum eis concessit ha••en∣dam

post sui decessum. here it seems he had inheritance in the Tithes. For that other coniecture; that they came first frō Impositions made by Princes; I doubt it hath no kind of probabilitie. Indeed it ap∣pears that anciently in Turingia, the people were driuen before theiri•• Christianity q 1.110 to pay Tithes to the Kings of Hungarie, both of thein annuall increase, and of their children also; and in the gouernment of the King that was declared by r 1.111 Samuel: it is said, He will take the tenth of your Vineyards and giue it to his chiefe Seruants, and to his Officers. But where shall you find the least mention of Infeodations made of such kind of Tenths? or any touch of them in the complaints of the Clergie against Infeodations? and withall, nothing hath beene of lesse practice then giuing away in perpetuall right any such reuenue due to any Crowne or State, only by speciall right of Supreme Ma∣iestie. But admit, these had their originall this way or any other as you will; vnlesse they can be proud to haue been made of the verie selfe same Tithe which is due to the ministring Priesthood (which can neuer been downe; sauing only where the infeodated Tithe was at first receiud and possessest by the Church by force of the Law of Tithing, not by arbitrary Consecration; in which case also it is consi∣derable whether a Lay man could be at all capable of the fructus only of them, if due by an immediat expresse Law of God.) I see not how they shuld more preuent Parochial paiment to the ministring Priest, then the paiment of rents in s 1.112 Terragies, or quantities in Corn, vnder the name of tiths to land••ards shuld diminish the right of the spiritu∣all Tithe. which way had either such a fift as was Pharohs, or the tenth spoken of by Samuel, to be taken by the King, touched the Tithe due by a superior or former law, to the Leuitical Priesthood? both might wel haue stood together. might not so, nay, should not so Tithes remain paiable frō the possessors of the nine parts to the Euangelical Priest∣hood, notwithstanding infeodations or any reseruations whatsoeuer, if they be due by a superior or former Laws, especially if due by the Morall Law? and that Law should bee vrged rather against the Te∣nants of the Land then against the Pernors of the feudall Tithes. And that common distinction of the Canonists, of ius percipiendi, & fructus Decimarum here, is a mere shift, and nothing satisfies, vnlesse they could also teach vs how the fructus were the verie selfe same al∣waies in Infeodations, and that they were deriued from a ius percipi∣endi in some Clergie man. Perhaps too much of these things; which are litle or nothing applicable to England, where we haue scarce any example of a Tithe, that was in its nature feodall, other then in such as were taken from Monasteries by the Statuts of Dissolution, and may still be calld, as originally, by the name of Consecrated or Appropriated Tithes, although now Infeodated. But thereof see the XIII. Chapter.

To the 5. §. that speaks of Exemptions, for matter of story may be

added that of the Hospitalars. After their exemptions giuen them with the two other Orders; about the yeer MCLX. in the Eastern parts they tam Domino t 1.113 Patriarchae quam caeteris Ecclesiarum Praelatis multas tam super Parochiali iure quam super iure Decimationum caeperunt in∣ferre molestas, &c. and receiud such as were excommunicat for non-paiment of them De praedijs autem suis & vniuersis redditibus quocunque iure ad eos deuolutis omninò Decimas negabant. Where by the way note that in this Eastern Church (which, after Hierusalem was recouered and made a Kingdome subiect to Western Princes, should haue been fashiond according to the Canons of the Western Church) Tithes were now appointed paiable, although no authentike Law of that old Eastern Church, once mentions them. But both in this and other things, the people of that Church were stil (notwithstanding the new Kingdome of Hierusalem possessed by Europians, and the Popes au∣thority extended to them) most u 1.114 obstinate & refractarie against the policie and Institutions offerd them either in command or example from the Western.

After the Opinions of the age in the 6. §. the Laws both Im∣periall, Prouinciall, and Pontificiall follow in the 7. vpon which let it bee considerd, whether a consecration of Tithes were so made by the power and law of the Church and Common wealth or both (in se∣uerall Territories, according to the Laws extended) that no propha∣nation or detaining them or any part of them, might afterwards be lawfull. and the like should be carefully thought on in the 1. §. of the VII. Chapter, and in the VIII. Chapter which hath the Lawes of England, for the same purpose. The force of the words of all those Laws; the Autoritie that made them; and the Territories to which they were extended, are especially to be obserud by euerie one that here looks after humane positiue Law. For manie talke and write of that, and tell vs here of ius Ecclesiasticum (at least if they faile in their Arguments from Ius diuinum) but whence that Ius Ecclesiasticum is, and where or when made, they little enough know. For what hath a Pro∣uinciall Councell of one Nation to doe with another? What hath the Imperialls of the old French Empire to doe with England? Nay, what hath the Popes Decrees to do here? But because there was a time when their autority was more largely acknowledged; their Decrees that bred much of what now iustly continues in some States (which also iustly now denie their autoritie) remaine most obseruable. and wee haue giuen them in their places.

Of the VII. Chapter.

IN the last CCCC. yeers, beside the establishment of Parochiall right in Tithes, and the various Opinions touching the immediat Law whereby they are due; the Practice of most Christian Nations, as it might be had out of their Laws and Lawiers, is faithfully related.

And to what is there brought, adde that of the Law of France, wher∣by the right of the Tithe of all the Minesis claimd by x 1.115 the King, as a droit de Souerainte, according as it is declard by two Edicts published of Charles the IX. and verified also by the Parlament of Paris. accor∣ding also, the old Imperiall Law was. But through all here, you may see that the Customes Statutes and Common Laws, especially of France, Italie and Spaine, and of most other, if not all States, permit not, so fauourably for the Clergie, an exaction of them, or suite to be so ge∣nerally brought for them, as the Laws of England did before the Sta∣tutes of Dissolution of Monasteries, and still do, if you exempt those cases which are founded only vpon those Statutes. What Statute or practice is in this Kingdome, that equals, the Carolines of Spaine, or the Philippine of France, which are generall Laws for Customes (qua∣tenus Customes) de non Decimando? And whereas England vntill the Dissolution, had scarce a continuing Infeodation into lay hands (of which see the XIII. Chapter) nor could a lay man by the common Law before the Dissolution, make any title to Tithes as to lay inheritances; in other Nations Tithes infeodated haue been from aboue D. almost DC. yeers frequent in vse, and still continue legally in lay hands, and are subiect wholly to Secular Iurisdiction, as also other Tithes paid to the Church are, whersoeuer any such suite is commenced for them in their Spirituall Courts, as stand not with their libertie challenged from their Secular or Common Law. For eue∣rie Christian State hath its owne Common Laws, as this Kingdome hath. And the Canon Law euerie where, in such things as are not meerly spirituall, is alwaies gouerned and limited (as with vs) by those Common Laws. For by that name are they to be calld as they are distinguisht from the Canon Law, which hath properly Persons and Things sacred only and spirituall for its obiect in practice, as the Ca∣non Laws deale with Things and Persons, as they haue reference to a Common, not Sacred, vse or societie established in a Common wealth. Who knowes any thing in Holy-Writ knowes the vse of the word Cō∣mon to be so distinguisht from Sacred. Indeed it hath other notions there also, and it is otherwise vnderstood in ius commune, frequently among Canonists and Ciuilians. But these nothing at all hurt the conuenience of this denomination. For by them, Ius commune is v∣sed as it is opposd to Municipale or Consuetudinarium. But here, and in the nomination of the English Laws, as it is distin∣guisht from Sacred or Spirituall. and so in this sense the allowance of Customes, and Parlamentarie Statutes (as they ought) fall vnder the name of Common Law with vs. Here I doubt not but it will be an obuious obiection, that I should rather call the su∣preme and gouerning Law of euerie other Christian State (sauing England and Ireland) the Ciuill Law; that is the old Roman Imperiall Law of Iustinian. For such a raigning, but most grosse Ignorance,

is euery where almost to be met withal in England, that you shal haue it affirmd for cleer that al other States are gouernd only by the Ciuil Law. Indeed, if they which say so, vnderstood Ciuill for that which is the Ius Ciuile of euery singular State, it were but the same to talk of Ciuill and Common Law. For the Common Law of England also is the Ius Ciuile Anglorum. But it is euen with one mouth pretended vsually, that the Body of the Imperialls, read and profest in the Vniuersities, is the Ci∣uill Law, that gouernes (as they say) all other States. But this, how∣soeuer receiued through lazie Ignorance, is so farre from Truth, that indeed no Nation in the world is gouerned by them. For whersoeuer they are supposed to gouerne (let the briefe cleering of so common an error, get pardon for the digression) it must be taken, that they ei∣ther gourne by their owne originall autoritie, as they are Imperialls, or from their being receiued for Laws into other States, which are not in that first way subiect to them. According to that first way; only the Empire and perhaps a good part of Italie, should be ruled by them. But it is plaine, that for the most part, the disposition of Inheritances, punishing of Crimes, course of Proceedings, Dowers, Testaments, and such other, which are of greatest moment vnder the Legall rule, are euen in those States, where, by reason of their first Institution, they retaine a kind of autoritie, ordered by most various Customes and new Statutes of seuerall Prouinces and Cities, so differing from those old Imperialls; that the whole face and course of them is ex∣ceedingly changed in practice. This is plaine to euery one, that ob∣serues but the diuers Customes and Ordinances of the States subiect to the Empire; the Ius Camerale collected by Petrus Denaisius; the Nemesis Karulina, as it is set forth by Georgius Romus; and the many published Decisions or Reports both of the Imperiall Cham∣ber, and the Rota's of Rome, Naples, Piemont, Mantua, Genoa, Bo∣logna, and other parts of the Territorie of Italie. You shall find those Decisions, in matters of greatest moment, most commonly grounded on Customarie Law, or later Constitutions. So, that to affirme, that in these places the old Imperialls, or that Ciuill Law (as they call it) gouernes, is as if (for example) an equall ig∣norance shuld tel vs, that Spain were gouerned only by Alfonso's Par∣fidas, and Scotland only by Malcolms Laws or the Quoniam Attachia∣menta; or that in the time of the old Emperors the Roman State had been alwaies gouerned only by the XII. Tables, or that England were legally ruled only by the Grand Charter, or by the two volumes of old Statutes. Like accession and alteration as any of these haue had, is found in the Empire and in Italie, where the Imperialls haue, through the power of the Emperors and y 1.116 Popes, any now continuing auto∣ritie. Now, for other Christian States, which acknowledge no superi∣or, or any subiection to the Empire (except Portugall, where the Ro∣man Ciuill Law is autorized, by an z 1.117 Ordinance of State, in cases

which are not literally comprehended in the Customes or Constitu∣tions of the Kingdome) as France, Spaine, Scotland, Denmarke, Poland, the Citie of Venice, and what also in Germanie hath made it selfe fro•• from the Empire; what colour is there, that the Imperiall Ciuill Law should gouerne in them. Indeed in all of them, I thinke, the reason of it brought into method, is vsed and applied commonly to ar••••∣ment, when any of their Customes or Statutes (which are especially in France and Spaine very voluminous) come in question, because the Practicers studied it in the Vniuersities, & had thence their Degrees giuen them; which yet they had not, till about some CCCC. yeers since, neither before about that time was a Doctor or Professor of them known on this side the Alpe••. But as it is Law, it neither binds nor rules with them, no more then the old stories of Heredotus, Thu∣cydides, Diodore, Polybius, Iosephus, Liute, Tacitus, and the like, or Cicero and Demosthenes, or Plato's Lawes, and other of that kind; which are equally somtimes vsed for reason or example, specially by the Practi∣cers of France. And so the old Imperiall Ciuill Law valet pro ratione (as Bertrand d' Argentre, President of the Parlament of Rennes a 1.118 sayes) non pro inducto iure; & pro ratione only quantum Reges, Dynastae, & Res∣publicae intra potestatis suae fines valere patiuntur And in France and Spain, Laws b 1.119 were some CCC. yeers since expressely made, that the Im∣perials should haue no force in thē. And in Scotland it is ordaind, that no Laws haue force there, but the Kings Laws c 1.120 and Statutes of the Realme, and that it should be gouerned by the common d 1.121 Lawes of the Realme, and by none other Lawes. Doubtlesse, Custome hath made some parts of the Imperialls to be receiued for Law in all places where they haue been studied; as euen in England also, in Marine causes, and matter of personall Legacies. But is England therefore gouerned by them? It were as good a consequent to conclude so, as to affirme, that any of the other States were, because som petie things are orde∣red according to some Imperiall Text receiued and establisht by Cu∣stome. But this may seeme no fit place to speak more (perhaps not so much) to cleere this grosse error of such as yet pretend to know more then vulgarly, but can make no difference twixt the vse of Laws in studie or argument (which might equally happen to the Laws of Vto∣pia) and the gouerning autoritie of them. If any desire to search fur∣ther here, beside the Autorities cited in the e 1.122 Margine, let him espe∣cially see I. Baptista à Villalubos 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Antinomia Iuris regni Hispaniarum ac Ciuilis, & note especially la Conference du droit Francois auec le droict Ro∣maine, composed by Bernard Automne, and obserue both the Volumes of Statutes and Ordinances of Spaine, France, Scotland, Poland, and of other Countries, together with the various Prouincial Customes, es∣pecially in France, with the Arrests, Decisions and Playd••••es of that Kingdome, and he shall soon be confirmed in that which a great Ci∣uilian of Italie is ingenuous enough to tell vs; Hispania, Anglia, Sco∣tia,

Balia, Hibernia, Alemania, Datia, Suetia, Vngaria, Boemia, Polonia, Bulgaria f 1.123 non vtuntur legibus seu iure ciuili, sed specialibus consuetudinibus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 statutis, that is, they are all gouerned by their owne common Laws. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that most learned Frier g 1.124 Bacon, of his time; Omne regnum habes sua 〈◊〉〈◊〉 aquibus laici reguntur vt iura Angliae & Franciae, & ita fit Iustitia in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 per Constitutiones quas habent sicut in Italia per suas. This was then, and is now true. And the Interpretation of those common Laws in most places, saue England and Ireland, hath of late time been much directed by the reason of the Imperialls, and only by the reason of them (not by their autoritie) and that also in case when they are not opposite at all to the common Laws, but seeme to agree with the Law of Nations or common reason. And this vse of them, at the furthest, be∣gan in its yongest infancie, not C.D.LX. yeeres since. For before that, euen from Iustinians time, they lay wholly out of vse: sauing on∣ly, that some pieces of them, with the Interpolations of Alaricus and his Chancelor Anian, together with Lumbardine Additions and Inter∣pretations, had their power in some parts of Italie and the Empire. But for about D.C. yeeres together, that is, from Iustinian till Frede∣rique Barbarossa, no Profession was of them in any Vniuersitie, no Do∣ctorship, no other Degree taken in them. But after that time, they grew into a common Profession in this Western world (although by their own autoritie they are confined to Rome, Constantinople, and Bery∣tus) and euen here in England were, about Henry the thirds time, often applied to the common Law in discourse and argument, as you may see in Bract••n his frequent quotations of them. And heretofore some texts of them haue been in our Courts cited; not only as at this day some∣times is done (when the words only of some of the regulae iuris is brought into an argument) but the Title and Law, after the Ciuilians fashion, hath been rememberd at the Barre, and so afterward exprest in the Report, as I haue seen in an example or two in the Mss. yeers of Edward the h 1.125 second. Yet, notwithstanding that, it is cleere, that England was neuer gouerned ••y the Ciuill (or Imperiall) Law, as it was also affirmd by the vpper House of Parlament in 11 Rich. 2. where the King and Lords protested also, that their meaning was, it neuer should be gouerned by it.

Of the VIII. Chapter.

OVt of this fullnesse of Laws that were made for Tithes in Eng∣land, let it be considered (by such as enquire here de iure) what interest was of right setled in the Clergie by them (howsoeuer they were litle obeyed) And by what Autorttie made (we haue care∣fully added still what might help to a iudgement in that also) and how extensiue, in regard of Persons and Territorie, they were, and some such other; and how farre the Tithes might be, after such Laws, detained or

made subiect to Customes, or possessed as things of common vse, The Laws of before, as well as of after the Norman Conquest (as it is vulgarly cal∣led) are here gathered, and are perhaps equally obseruable, as the rest, in the consequent of a generall consecration of Tithes to the Church in England. For neither were the Laws formerly made, abolish by that Conquest, although, by Law of i 1.126 Warre, regularly all Rights and Laws of the place conquered, be wholly subiect to the Conquerors will. For in this of the Norman, not only the Conquerors will was not declared, that the former Laws should be abrogated (and vntill such declaration, Laws remaine in force, by the opinion of k 1.127 some, in all Conquests of Christians against Christians) but also the ancient and former Laws of the Kingdome were confirmed by him. For in his fourth yeere, by the aduise of his Baronage, he summoned to London, Omnes Nobiles sapientes & l••ge suâ erud••tos, vt eorum leges & consuetudi∣nes audiret, as the words are of the Book of Lichfield, and afterward confirme them, as is further also related in l 1.128 Roger of Houeden. Those Lege suâ eruditi were common Lawiers of that time, as Godric and Alswin were then also, who are spoken of in the Book of m 1.129 Abing∣don, to be Legibus patriae optime instituti, quibus tanta secularium facundia & praeteritorum memoria euentorum inerat, vt caeteri circumqua{que} facilè eorum sententiam, ratam fuisse, quam ed cerent, approbarent. And these two, and diuers other Common Lawiers then liued in the Abbey of Abingdon, Quorum collationi nemo sapiens (sayes the Autor) refragabatur, quibus rem Ecclesiae publicam tuentibus eius oblocutores elingues fiebant. You must know, that in those daies, euery Monk here in England, that would, might remaine so secular, that he might get money for him∣selfe, purchase, or receiue by discent to his owne vse. And therefore it was fit enough for practicing Lawiers to liue in Monasteries. But what had those praeteritorum memoria euentorum (that is, Reports and adiudged Cases of the Saxon times) auailed in their skill, if the for∣mer Laws had not continued? More obuious Testimonies to this pupose are had out of n 1.130 Geruase of Tilburne, Ingulphus, and o∣thers, and we here omit them. But also, indeed, it was not to be reputed a Conquest, or an Acquisition by right of Warre (which might haue destroyed the former Laws) so much as a violent recouering of the Kingdome out of the hands of Rebels, which withstood the Dukes pretence of a lawfull Title, claimed by the Confessors a∣doption, or designation of him for his Successor; his neerenesse of bloud on the mothers side not a litle also aiding such a pretence to a Crowne. For the Confessors mother Emme, was sister to Ri∣chard the second, Duke of Normandie, to whom, William was Grand-child and Heire. But these were only specious Titles▪ and perhaps examined curiously, neither of them were at that time enough. And howsoeuer his conscience so moued him at his death, that he profest he had got * 1.131 England only by Bloud and the Sword, yet

also by expresse declaration in some of his Patents, he before preten∣ded his right from the Confessors gift. p 1.132 In ore gladij, saith he, Regnum adeptus sum Anglorum, deuicto Haraldo Rege, cum suis complicibus, qui mihi regnum cum prouidentia Dei destinatum & beneficio concessionis Domini & cognati mei gloriosi Regu Edwardi concessum conati sunt auferre &c. And the stories commonly tell vs that the Confessor successionem Angliae ei dedit. And although Harold also pretended a Deuise of the Kingdom to himselfe made by the Confessor in extremis, and vrged also that the custom of England had been from the time of Augustines comming hether, q 1.133 Donationem quam in vltimo fine quis fecerit, eam ratam haberi; and that the former gift to the Norman and his own Oth for establish∣ment of it were not of force, because they were made r 1.134 abs{que} generali Senatus & Populi conuentu & edicto; yet for his own part he was driuen to put all vpon the fortune of the field, and so lost it. and the Norman with his sword & pretence of the sufficiencie & precedence of the gift made to himself, got the Crown as if he had bin a lawfull Successor to the Confessor, and not a vniuersall Conqueror. All this is plain out of the stories, and iustified infallibly by that of the Titles of many cōmon persons made to their possessions in England after his Kingdom setled, vpon the possession of themselues or their Ancestors in time of the Saxon Kings, especially of the Confessor. but this was alwaies in case where they by whose possession the title was made, had not in∣currd forfeiture by Rebellion. many such Titles are cleerly allowd in the book of Domesday, writen in the Conquerors time. one specially is noted by the most learned Camden in his Norfolk. that, as I remem∣ber, is toucht in Domesday also, but enough others are dispersed there which agree with it. How could such Titles haue held if he had made an absolute conquest of England, wherein a vniuersall acquisition of all had been to the Conqueror, and no title could haue been deriud but only from or vnder him? More might be brought to cleer this; but we adde here only the iudicious assertion of a great s 1.135 Lawier of Edward the thirds time. Le Conquerour (saith he) ne vient pas pur ouster eux que anoient droiturell possession mes de ouster eux que de lour tort auoient occupie ascun terre en desheritance del Roy & son Corone. It was spoken vp∣on an Obiection made in a Quo warranto, against the Abbot of Peeter∣borough, touching a Charter of King Edgar, which the Kings Counsell would haue had void, because, by the Cōquest, all Frāchises, they said, were deuolud to the Crown. But, by the way, for that of his neernesse of bloud, which could not but aide his other pretended Title; let it not seem meerly vain, in regard of his being a Bastard. There was good pretence for the helpe of that Defect also. For, although the Laws of this Kingdom, and, I think, of all other ciuill States at this day, exclude Bastards (without a subsequent legitimation) from en∣heritance; yet by the old Laws vsd by his Ancestors & Countrie men, that is, by those of Norway, a Princes sonne gotten t 1.136 on a Concubine

bond or free, was equally inheritable as any other born in Wedlock; which was, I beleeue, no small reason why he stood at first so much for the Laws of Norway to haue been generally receiud in this King∣dom. and some Stories also which make mention of Duke Robert his getting William on that Arlet or Arir•• (as shee is sometimes writen) say that shee was to him a good while vice vxoris So Henrie of u 1.137 Knigh∣ton Abbot of Leicester: Transiens, saith he, Robertus aliquando per Phale∣riam vrbem Normanniae vidit puellam Arlec nomine Pell••parij filam inter cateras in chorea tripudiantem: nocte sequente illam sibi coniunxit, quam vice vxoris aliquamdiù tenens Willielmum ex ea generauit. And he tells vs also the common tale of tearing her smock. If shee were so his Concu∣bine or Viceconiux (between whom and a wife euen the old x 1.138 Impe∣rialls make no other difference but honor and dignitie; and by them also some kind of inheritance is allowd to y 1.139 such Bastards as are Na∣turales liberi, that is gotten on Concubines;) it was much more rea∣sonable that her sonne should be reputed as legitimate, then that the sonne of euery single woman bond or free, whether Concubine or no, should be so, as those Laws of Norway allow. and when he had in∣herited his Dukedome, he made, doubtlesse, no question but that his bloud was as good in regard of all other inheritances that might by any colour be deriud through it. and therefore William of Malmesbu∣rie well stiles him proximè consanguineus also to the Confessor, as he was indeed on the Mothers side. and those z 1.140 of the posteritie of Ed∣ward sonne to Ironside, were then so excluded or neglected that their neernesse on the Fathers side could not preuent him. you may see the common stories of them. But whereas that excellent a 1.141 Lawier Litleton saies, that William the Conqueror was called a Bastard because he was born before mariage had between his Father and Mother, and that after he was born they were maried (which indeed by the b 1.142 Imperialls and by the generall Law of c 1.143 France would haue made him wholly legitimat) I doubt he had but litle or no ground to iustifie it. Had he been so legitimat, it is not likely he should haue been stiled so com∣monly and anciently Bastardus, which name euen in his d 1.144 own Char∣ters he sometimes vsed with cognomento, as also the Bastards of the old Philip Duke of Burgundie were wont to do; although of later time it bee reputed as a name of dishonor; and the actio iniuriarum, or an action vpon the case lies where euer it be falsly obiected, as some will e 1.145 haue it. But these things proue enough that this William seised the Crown of England, not as conquerd, but by pretence of gift or adoption, aided and confirmd by neernesse of bloud; and so the Saxon Laws formerly in force could not but continue. and such of them as are now abrogated, were not at all abrogated by his Conquest but either by the Parlaments or Ordinances of his time and of his successors, or else by non-vsage or contrarie custom.

The Laws that are here gatherd are for the most part Latin, Saxon,

or French. The Saxon is interpreted by the old Latin. But the Latin and French are left only in their own words. I presume, scarce any man that with the least care studies the subiect, wil confesse he vnderstands not the context of such Latin. And the French I translated not, spe∣cially because it is but the same which is in our old yeer Bookes and Statutes, and may indeed euen as soon be vnderstood by any fit Rea∣der of the rest, as I could haue translated it. and I thinke the iudicious Searcher desires rather the originall tongue whateuer it be, then a translation. Therefore I suppose (if he haue not studied the Laws, or otherwise know it) he will rather take some minuts pains then blame me for not turning it. and howsoeuer to diuers peeuish Ignorants, out of their daintie stomachs, and a pretence of nothing but the more polished literature, it may here seem barbarous and distastfull; the truth is, it was the plain and genuine French of elder time spoken in the English Court, and now lothed only by such a know not at all how to iudge of it, nor vnderstand the originall whence it came to be and remain so with vs. I remember that old f 1.146 Father Gregorie of Neocae∣sarea (whom they call Thaumaturgus) speaking of the old Imperialls of Rome, as they were in their Latin (which both then was, and now is a most accurat and polite phrase) commends them for that they were indeed in an admirable and stately language, and in such a one as fit∣ted an Imperiall greatnesse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith hee, Yet to me it is crabbed and troublesome. and so hee saies he was euer driuen to thinke of it. yet in his youth he was put to studie them at Berytus, and was taught Latin to that purpose. If to so great a man that curious language could seeme no pleasanter when he studied it, it is the lesse wonder that the Law French (which doth as truly and fully deliuer the matter in our Lawes, as the Latin in the Imperialls; though indeed farre from polite expression) should bee so contemptible among the many petie Ignorants which vsually despise what euer their lazie course of studies hath not furnisht them withall, and most indiscreet∣ly censure things only as they see them present, without regard to the cause or originall of them, which made them that they were first ine∣uitable and afterward remained, not without exceeding difficultie (if at all) alterable. But this by the way.

Of the IX.X.XI.XII.XIII. and XIV. Chapters.

VPon the discouerie of the Originall of our Parishes, of the an∣cient and late Practice of Tithing here, of Arbitrarie Consecrations of Tithes made by the Laitie, of the first setling of Parochiall right to Tithes in England, of Appropriations, of Exemptions, of Infeo∣dations, and the ancient Iurisdiction of Tithes (all which take vp these VI. Chapters) no fit Reader can be so blind as not to see necessarie

and new assertions and consequents to be made out of them in euery inquirie that tends to a full knowledge of the true and originall na∣ture of Tithes, as they are possest or detaind by either Lay or Cler∣gie man, in respect only of any humane positiue Law or ciuill Title. But we should here briefly admonish somewhat of our appropriated or consecrated Tithes, and conclude all with a touch of the Canon Lawes ancient autoritie, which in practice made such alteration in England, as is shewed, about the yeer M.CC.

To the matter of Consecrations and Appropriations here, apply what is admonisht touching them in the Reuiew of the VI. Chapter. and let euery man first carefully looke that he know the course of old Ap∣propriations. and the way how the Monasteries and Colledges came by them, before hee conclude rashly of the Tithes that are possessed through them. Tithes consecrated and appropriated were purposely de∣dicate to the Almightie and his Seruice, although not without mix∣ture of superstition, that we are sure of. But although a Tithe gene∣rally were due to the Euangelicall Priest iure diuino (without any ci∣uill Title) yet we are nothing sure that all or the most appropriated or consecrated▪ Tithes are the selfe same Tithes so due. which yet is sup∣posd as cleer, and neuer further thought on by such as haue troubled themselues and their Readers whi••h arguments for the Church, in the point of Appropriations. Let him that shall now write of them, see here the way how to consider them. And let him that detaines them (and beleeus them not due iure diuino) think of the ancient Dedications of them made to holy vses. and howeuer they were abusd to supersti∣tion, as the other large Indowments of the Church, before the Refor∣mation; yet followes it not, without further consideration, that there∣fore, although so dedicated, they might be prophand to common vses and Lay hands. Consult herein with Diuines. But I doubt not but that euery good man wishes that at our dissolution of Monasteries both the Lands and Impropriated Tithes and Churches possessed by them (that is, things sacred to the Seruice of God, although abusd by such as had them) had been bestowed rather for the aduancement of the Church to a better maintenance of the labouring and deseruing Ministerie, to the fostering of good Arts, reliefe of the Poore, and o∣ther such good vses as might retaine in them, for the benefit of the Church or Common-wealth, a Character of the wishes of those who first with deuotion dedicated them (as in some other Countries g 1.147 vp∣on the Reformation was religiously done) then conferd with such a prodigall dispensation, as it happend, on those who stood readie to deuoure what was sanctified, and haue (in no small number) since found such enheritances thence deriued to them, but as Seius his Horse or the Gold of Tholense. But I abstain from censure, and adde here by the way, a complaint made to the Parlament not long after the Disso∣lution, touching the abuse that followed in the Church through Lay

mens possessing of Appropriated Churches and Tithes. It deserues to be seriously thought on by euery Lay man that now enioy any of them, especially where Diuine seruice is not carefully prouided for. Ye that the Lords and Burgesses of Parlament house (so are the * 1.148 words of it) I require of you in the Name of my poor Brethren that are Inglish men and members of Christes bodie, that yee consider well (as yee will answer be∣fore the face of Almightie God in the day of iudgement) this abuse and see it amended. Whanas Antichrist of Rome durst openly without any viser walk vp and down thorow out England, he had so great fauor ther, and his children had such craftie wits (f••r the children of this worlde are wiser in their genera∣tion than the children of light) that they had not only almost gotten all the best lands of England into their hands, but also the moost part of all the best Be∣nefices both of Personages and Vicarages, which were for the most part all impropred to them (the Impropriations held by them were much more then one third of all the Parish Churches in England deuided into three parts) And whan they had the gifts of any not impropred, they gaue them vnto their friends, of the which alwaies some were learnd, for the Monks found of their friends children at scole. And though they were not learnd, yet they kept hospitalitie, and helped their poor friendes. And if the Parsonage were impropred the Monks were bound to deale Almesse to the pore, and to keepe hospitalitie, as the writings of the gifts of such Parsonages and Lands do plainly declare in these Words, in puram eleemosynam. And as touching the Almesse that they delt, and the Hospitalitie that they kept, euery man knoweth that many thousands were well receiued of them, and might haue been better, if they had not had so many grete mens Horse to fede, and had not bene ouercharged with such idle Gentlemen, as were neuer out of the Abbaies. And if they had any Vi∣carage in their hands, they set in sometime some sufficient Vicar (though it were but seldome) to Preach and to Teach. But now that all the Ab∣baies with their lands, goods, and impropried Parsonages, be in Tempo∣rall mens hands; I do not here tell that one halpenie worth of Almes or any other profit cometh vnto the people of those Parishes. Your pretence of putting down Abbeys, was to amend that was amisse in them. It was farre amisse, that a great part of the lands of the Abbeys (which were giuen to bring vp learned men that might be Preachers, to keepe Hospitalitie, and to giue Almesse to the poore) should be spent vpon a few superstitious Monks, which gaue not XL. pound in Almesse, when they should haue giuen CC. It was amisse, that the Monks should haue Parsonages in their hands, and deale but the XX. part thereof to the Poore, and preached but ones in a yeer to them that paid the Tithes of the Parsonages. It was amisse, that they scarcely among XX. set not one sufficient Vicar to preach, for the Tithes that they receiued. But see now how it that was amisse is amended, for all the godly pretense. It is amended euen as the Deuill amended his Dames legge (as it is in the Prouerbe) when he should haue set it right, he brake it quite in pieces. The Monks gaue to little Almesse, and set vnable persons many

time in their Benifices. But now, where XX. pound was geuen yerely to the Poore, in more than in C. places in Ingland is not one meales meat giuen. This is a * 1.149 feare amendement: Where they had alwaies one or o∣ther Vicar, that either preached, or hyred some to preach, now is there no Vicar at all; but the Fermer is Vicar and Parson altogether; and onely an old cast-away Monke or Frere, which can scarcely say his Mattins, is hyred for XX. or XXX. shillings, meat and drinke, yea in some places for meat and drinke alone, without any wages. I know, and not I alone, but XX.M. mo••, know more than D. Vicarages and Parsonages thus well and Gospelly serued, after the new Gospell of Ingland. And so the Autor goes on with sharp Admonitions to the Lay men, that fed themselues fat with the Tithes of such Churches, while the soules of the Parishioners sufferd great famine for want of a fit Pastor; that is, for want of fit mainte∣nance for him. for without that, he is scarce to be hoped for.

But we conclude with that of the Canon Laws getting such force, and making such alteration in matter of Tithes about the yeer M.CC. when through it, Parochiall payment became first to be performd here, or else∣where, generally, and as of common right (where other titles preuen∣ted it not) and through it only; not through the ancienter secular Lawes made here for Tithes. For the suits for them in the Spirituall Courts either were all grounded vpon the Canons; or the common right of Tithes was now supposed in the Libell as a knowne dutie to the Clergie, without secular Law. It may soon be apprehended, that it was much lesse difficult about that time, then any other, for the Popes and their Canon Laws to gaine more obedience among sub∣iects, and execute more autoritie ouer Lay possessions, when also they so easily vsurpt power ouer supreme Princes, which yeelded to them. For no time euer was, wherein any of them more insolently bare themselues in the Empire, neuer neere so insolently in England, as in the continuing times next before and neere about this change. And to all States the Church of Rome now grew most formidable. Re∣member but the Excommunication and Correcton sufferd by Frede∣rique Barbarossa, Henry the sixt, and other Princes of the Empire, and by our Henry the second, and King Iohn. the stories of them are obui∣ous. And our Richard the first, betweene those two, to gratifie the Clergie here for their exceeding liberalitie, in contribution to his Ransome from Captiuitie, with great fauour gaue them an indulgent Charter h 1.150 of their Liberties; which being ioind with those other prone and yeelding Admissions of the Ecclesiastique Gouernment ouer the Crowne (••o were the times) doubtlesse gaue no small autori∣tie to the Exercise of the Canon Law in those things, which before a∣bout that time were diuersly otherwise. Neither was that part of the Canon Law, which would haue a Generall and Parochiall payment of Tithes, not only second to any, in regard of the Clergie's profit; but also none other, doubtlesse, was so great as it, in gaining the Clergie a

Direct and certain Reuenue. Therefore it was not without reason on their side▪ at such time as they saw the Power of Rome, that is, the au∣toritie of Decretals and of the Canons grew most dreadfull to Prince and subiect, that they should vrge this on to a continuing practice, and that with execution of the raigning Censures of the Church. Hence haue the Canons, in this point, hitherto here continued, and haue been and are binding Ecclesiastique Lawes, sauing wherein the later expresse Laws of the Kingdome crosse them. And thus out of the qualitie of the time, with regard to the practiced insolencie of the Pope and his Clergie, in putting their Canons and Decretals in executi∣on, that receiud generall practice of Parochiall payment (neere al∣most according to the Canons) and other such alterations, that sud∣denly varied from former vse, and from the libertie of the Lay sub∣iect, must haue its originall; not from any want of the Canons of the Church of Rome, as if they had not been here at all had or read, before about that time. For doubtlesse, the Canon Laws were here vsed and practiced as farre forth as the Clergie could make the Laitie subiect to them. For, about D. yeers before this alteration, good testimonie is of the publique and solemne receiuing of the Codex Canonum vetus Ecclesiae Romanae (mentioned by old Popes i 1.151 for the eldest and most authentique Bodie of the Canon Law of the Western Church) and that in a Nationall Synod held in D.C.LXX. vnder Theodore and Wilfrid Archbishops; where, with one voice, the Clergie answered Theodore, Optime k 1.152 omnibus placet quaecunque definierunt Sanctorum Canones patrum nos quoque omnes alacri animo libentissimè seruare. quibus statim (sayes Theodore) p••otuli eundem librum Canonum &c. But at that time there was no Law for Tithes, or mention of them in the known Canon Law of the Church of Rome, or in any other Prouinciall Ca∣nons, sauing in that of the second Synod of Mascon. Afterward also we find that Leges Episcopales l 1.153, which were serued by William the first from the Hundred, and confined to the Bishops Consistorie; that wee may omit the Nationall or Prouinciall Constitutions of this King∣dome, made in those elder times, according to the old Canons of the Church of Rome. And X. yeers before Gratians Decree writen, it is certaine, that the Canons of the Church, generally by the name of Canones and Canonum Decreta (for diuers collections were of them, an some also confirmd by Papall autoritie, beside the Codex Vetus, before that of Gratian) were familiarly talkt of and vrged in that great m 1.154 Controuersie in the Synod of Winchester, in the fourth yeere of King Stephen, touching the Castles of Newarke, Salisbu∣rie, and the Vies; where the King denied vtterly, Censuram Cano∣num pati; that is, to haue it determined by them, whether, or no, the two Bishops, Roger of Salisburie, and Alexander of Lin∣colne, might lawfull keepe their Castles that they had fortifi∣ed. But while the rest of the Bishops stood so much vpon their

Canons, and euen in the face of Maiestie profest a rebellion, the King and the Lay subiects, it seems, grew so exasperated against them, that by publique command, for preseruation of the libertie of the Crown and Laitie, they were forbidden to be of any more vse in the King∣dom. For so perhaps is that to be vnderstood (as we haue elswhere n 1.155 noted) in Iohn of Chartres, o 1.156 where he sayes, that Tempore Regis Ste∣phani à regno iussae sunt Leges Romanae quas in Britanniam domus Venerabilis Patris Theobaldi Britanniarum Primatis asciuerat. Ne quis etiam libros re∣tineret, edicto Regio prohibitum est. What he calls Leges Romanae, the most learnd Frier Bacon mentioning the same storie, stiles Leges Italiae, and takes them for the Roman Imperialls, and not for the Canan Law. I con∣fesse, I see not enough cleerly here to iudge (vpon the words of Iohn of Chartres) whether it were the Canons or the Imperialls. on the one side, If we say he meant that Theobald or his Clergie, brought the Ro∣man Canon Law; it might so seem as if it had not been here before in the hands of the Clergie, nor partly practiced by them. Which doubt∣lesse is otherwise. If on the other side we vnderstand the Imperialls (Copies of which indeed might well be at that very time brought as a noueltie hither; for they were then newly found; and plainly in Henrie the seconds time, they were here in the hands of the more cu∣rious Scholers, as you may see by Iohn of Chartres his citing of them) how then is that true which he presenly after saies of the encreasing power and force of those Leges Romanae? Sed, saith he, Deo faciente eò magis virtus legis inualuit quo eam amplius nitebatur impietas infirmare. What force or power at all had the Imperiall here afterward? where is any signe of it? But the obiection against that which might proue them not to haue been the Canon Laws, may not difficultly perhaps be answered. It is true that the Canons of Rome were here before, and read, and partly practiced in the Church. But diuers Collections were of them about this age of King Stephen, and perhaps some later and larger Collection might be brought hither by Archbishop Theobald, or some of his Clergie, which are vnderstood, I think, in that Domus Ve∣nerabilis Patris Theobaldi. He himselfe perhaps might bring Iuo's De∣cree (when he came from Rome in 3. of King Stephen) and endeuour the strict practice of it here; which the King and the Lay subiect had reason enough to dislike) or some of his Clergie might perhaps after∣ward bring in Gratians Decree, that was both compild by Gratian and confirmd by Pope Eugenius the third, about ten yeers before Theobalds death, that is, about 16. of King Stephen. And this way those words of Legis virtus inualuit, may haue their truth. For howeuer that opposi∣tion against the Canon Law were, it is most certain that this first part of the body of it (the Decree) was presently vpon the first publica∣tion of it in vse in England, and familiarly cited by such Diuines as talk•• of what had reference to it, witnesse especially p 1.157 Giraldus Cam∣brensis in his Epistles. and the practice of the Canon Law here for the

time of Henrie the second, is seen in the Epistles of that Iohn of Char∣tres; which yet remain and are, I think, the ancientest examples of proceedings in our spirituall Courts. But notwithstanding that first part of the body of the Canon Law, which expresly commanded Tithes to be generally paid, were here soon receiud among the Clergie, yet about L. yeers after that, the former course of Arbitrarie Consecrations of them continued. and both that and the rest of those courses in disposition of Church-reuenues which so differ from the Canons, and from the practice of this day, was not fully alterd till some Decre∣talls came hither with more powerfull and dreadfull autoritie (as the times were) of some of the following Popes, especially of Alexander the third, and Innocent the third, which two alone, I think, sent as ma∣ny commanding Decretalls into euery Prouince as all their Predeces∣sors had before done; and especially into England, as is alreadie shewd, they sent diuers (only for the matter of Tithes) which were all first of Papall autoritie for the particular ends for which they were sent, and so were obeid as Canon Law, although none of them became parts of the generall Canon Law vntill Gregorie the ninth put some of them into his Decretalls autorised by him in the yeer M.CC.XXX. about which time perhaps and diuers yeers before, the Canon Law of Rome was not only read here priuatly among the Clergie, but profes∣sed also in Schooles appropried to it. so I ghesse is that close Writ of 19. Hen. 3. to be vnderstood, which prohibited the holding of Scholae Legum in London. it was directed to the Maior & Shrifes commanding them, q 1.158 Quod per totam Ciùitatem London Clamari faciant. & firmiter prohiberi ne aliquis Scolas regens de Legibus in eadem Ciuitate de caetero ibi∣dem Leges doceat. Et si aliquis ibidem fuerit huiusmodi Scolas regens ipsum fine dilatione cessare faciat T. Rege apud Basing. XI. die Decembris. This was fiue yeers after the Decretalls published. and it seems most pro∣bable, that these Leges were Canon Laws, perhaps mixt (as vsually they were) in the profession also with the Imperials (for both of them were, it r 1.159 seems, studied here vnder Henrie the third by the Clergie, more then any other part of learning) and therefore were forbidden as being both, in regard of their own autoritie, against the supreme Maiestie and independencie of the Crown of England.

The end of the Reuiew.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Vide Fran. Iuni∣••m in Analys. Ge∣n••s cap. 14.
• b 1.2

  Consulas Eu∣cherium Lugd. in Genes. lib. ••. cap. 17. & 18 & D. Am∣bros in Epist. ad Ebraos, cap. 7.
• c 1.3

  Ad cuius inter∣pretationem eti∣am consule, si pla∣cet, Eustathium ad Odyss. T.
• d 1.4

  In lib. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 1.5

  Lib. 2. in Genes. cap. 25. & 27.
• f 1.6

  Tom. 1. hist. lib. 1. cap. 42.
• g 1.7

  Hieronym. tom. 4. in Epist. ad E∣nagr. & Eucher. loco citato &c.
• h 1.8

  Epiphantus in hares. 55.
• i 1.9

  Autor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Midras hagadah apud R••b. Iarchi in Genes. 14. & alij ibid. item Mi∣dras in Psalm. 76. apud Galatin. de Arc••••is lib. 3. c. 9. quem & vide lib. 10. cap. 6.
• k 1.10

  D. Ambr lib. 3. de fide cap 5. Hie∣ronym. & Epiphan. vbi supr. & haeres. 67.
• l 1.11

  Eam esse Rab∣binorum sententi∣am notat D. Kim∣ch•• in rad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ita & Iarchi ad Genes 10.21.
• m 1.12

  Genes. cap. 9. comm. 26. & 27.
• n 1.13

  Vide Philonem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• o 1.14

  Exod. cap. 24. comm. 5. & vide Numer. cap. 3. comm. 12.
• p 1.15

  In Gen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. videsis Eucherium in Genes lib. 2. c. 25. & 27.
• q 1.16

  Jsid. Pelusio••a lib. 2. epist. 47.
• r 1.17

  Genes. 10.21.
• s 1.18

  Genes. 5.32.
• t 1.19

  Ibid. 11.10.
• u 1.20

  Vide ibid. c. 7.6.
• x 1.21

  In Elench. Orat. Chronolog. Dan. Para•• pag. 35.
• y 1.22

  In lib. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• z 1.23

  Epist. ad ••uagr. tom. 4.
• a 1.24

  In Epist. ad Ebr. cap. 7.2.
• b 1.25

  Iohan. cap. 3.23.
• c 1.26

  Vide Midras Tehillim, apud Gae∣latin. de Arcanis lib. 3. cap. 9.
• d 1.27

  Genes. 14.17.
• e 1.28

  2. Sam. 18.18.
• f 1.29

  Bredenbach. in Peregr. 14. Iulij.
• g 1.30

  Villamont des Voyagez liu 2. Chap. 13. & 19.
• h 1.31

  Genes. 28. vlt. Deut. 26.12.
• i 1.32

  Lib. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• k 1.33

  1. Paralip. 24.4.
• l 1.34

  Videsis Suarez de L••gibus lib. 9. cap. 19. § 16.
• m 1.35

  Archaelog. lib. 20. cap. 6.
• n 1.36

  Eccles. Hist. lib. 2 cap. 20.
• o 1.37

  Lib. 2. Eccles. cap. 26.
• p 1.38

  1. Paralip. 24 4.5
• q 1.39

  Vide D. Matth. 20.57. & 59.
• r 1.40

  Videsis Scalig. in Prologom. ad Chronic. Eusebij.
• s 1.41

  2. Reg. c. 25.18.
• t 1.42

  Paschas. Ratb••rt. Abbas C••rbie••s. in Matth. lib. 10. pag. 591.
• u 1.43

  Seder Zeraim Massee. Maighsh•• Perek. 1. §. 1.
• x 1.44

  Talmud. d••ct. Seder. Mass. De∣mas Perec. 6. & Mass••••. Maighsh. Perek. 5. § 5.
• y 1.45

  Pirki. Aboth. cap. 3. & notae adiectae.
• z 1.46

  Videsis Gala∣tin. de Arcanis▪ lib. 5. cap 9.
• * 1.47

  Numer. cap. 1 & 3.
• * 1.48

  Vide 1. Sam. 24.9••. Paralipom. 23.3. & 27.
• * 1.49

  In Epist. nuncu∣pat. ad I. Monlu∣cium.
• a 1.50

  Hermippus a∣pud Porphyrium 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. lib. 4.
• b 1.51

  T••e••••ritus Idy ••. 5. & ibid. Scho∣l••astes.
• c 1.52

  Eustath. ad Iliad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d 1.53

  Festus in his•••• voc. ad quem vide Ios. Scalig. & in Coniect. ad Varro∣•••• de L.L. lib. 5.
• e 1.54

  Cato de re Rusti∣ca cap. 132.
• f 1.55

  Tr••batius a••ud Arn••hium a••uer∣sus Gentes lib. 7.
• g 1.56

  Ad Aene••d. 8. commate 30.
• h 1.57

  Halicarnass. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ••.
• i 1.58

  Apud Macro∣bium Saturnal. lib. 3. cap. 11.
• k 1.59

  De O••ficiis lib. 2.
• l 1.60

  Plin. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 8.
• m 1.61

  Vettius Valon▪ Antioch lib. 6. Antholog. Ms. Sed verba eius repe∣runtur in Syntag••••. 1. De Dits Syrit cap. 6.
• n 1.62

  In Arati Pha∣nomena.
• o 1.63

  Halicarnass. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• p 1.64

  Apud Seruium ad Aen••id 8. comm. 30.
• q 1.65

  Myrfilus L••••bius apud Halicarnass. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. citatur Histo∣ria etiam apud Eusebium in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• r 1.66

  Ad Ebraeos cap. 7.8.
• s 1.67

  Hares•• 50.
• t 1.68

  Apud Prudentium 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hymn. 2.
• u 1.69

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• x 1.70

  Lib. 5. Canon. 13.
• y 1.71

  Vide Clement. Alex. Strom. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiphan. Haeres. 51. & D. Chrysost. hom. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• z 1.72

  Apud Th. Bal∣samon Ms. in Bibl. Patrij Iunij.
• a 1.73

  Videsis (si hanc rem obiter vellis explicationem) Synod. 6. in Trullo Canon. 99. & ibid▪ & ad hanc Dio••ysii Epistolam, Theo∣dorum Balsamo∣nem, & Euseb. lib. 5. Eccl. hist. c. 23▪ &c.
• b 1.74

  Lib▪ 5. Can▪ 18. & 19.
• c 1.75

  Lib. 2. Canon. 34.
• d 1.76

  1. Sam cap. 8.
• e 1.77

  Lib. 2. Can. 36.
• f 1.78

  In Zonara. edito a l. Quintin•• Ca••. 4.
• g 1.79

  Lib. 1. Epist. 269 & vide ibid. 425.
• h 1.80

  In Epist. 229. edit. nuper a V. Cl. R. Monta∣cutto.
• i 1.81

  Balsamon & Zo∣naras▪ ad Can. A∣post. 59. & vi••e de hac re ••nonymū de recuperat. Tetra Sancta cap. 14. in vol. Gesta Dei per Francos dicto.
• k 1.82

  Vide Adrenald. lib 1. de Mir••s. S. Benedicto cap. 14. & Flo••oard Rhem. hist lib. •• cap. 12. & Capitular. exhi∣bit Lutour 2 Imper post Ca••onem 59. c. 10 q. 1. edit. Gregoriana.
• l 1.83

  Constit. Imperial. tom. 1. pag. 15.
• m 1.84

  Annal. Boi••rum lib. 1. pag. 179. edit. B••s. a. d. 1615.
• n 1.85

  Centur. 8. cap. 7. & 9.
• o 1.86

  Tom. 3. pag. 117.
• p 1.87

  Festus Pauli in Pecunia & ib. Scalig.
• q 1.88

  Goldast. tom, 3. pag. 648.
• r 1.89

  Idem tom. eod. pag. 118.
• s 1.90

  Post. c. 59. c. 16. q 1. edit. Gregor·
• t 1.91

  Vide Goldast. tom. 3. pag. 64••.
• x 1.92

  Anastasius in vita eius. & vide Baronium sub ann. 154. & Polydor. de Inuent. rer lib. 6. cap. 3.
• y 1.93

  Synod. 6. in Tull. Can. 55. & videsis etiam Constit. A∣postolorum dictas lib. 5. Can. 13.15. & 18. & Consule Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 26. & Socratem Hist. Ec∣cles. lib. 5. cap. 81.
• * 1.94

  Praeter ea quae ad hanc rem §. 1.2. & 3 habemus Videsis Hinc marū in opere Capitum 55. ad Laud Epi∣scop. cap. 1. & Ra∣banum apud Cen∣turiatores cent. 9. cap. 7. de iureiu∣rando quod exi∣gebatur nonnun∣quam de decimis rite solutis.
• a 1.95

  Apud Auentin. Annal. Bae••rum lib. 6. pag 379. edit. Bas. 1615.
• b 1.96

  Ad tit. de Dec. c. duaum. num. 11.
• c 1.97

  Innocent. ad dict lec. & tit de confirm. vt & in∣••til. c. eum dile∣cta 4.
• d 1.98

  Tit. de his qua f. apral. sine &c. c. 7. cum Apostolica.
• e 1.99

  Tit. de Dec. c. dudum 31.
• f 1.100

  Extr. tit. de pr••∣script. c. 6. & 8.
• g 1.101

  Vide Innocent. 4. ad tit. le pr••∣script. c. si diligentia & ad tit. de Decim. c. dudum &c.
• h 1.102

  Prouerb. 20.25.
• i 1.103

  Krantz. Metro∣pol lib. 6. cap. 19. & cap. 29. & lib. 7. cap. 48.
• k 1.104

  Helmoldus presb. hist. Seliuiorum cap. 92.
• l 1.105

  Vita Abbonis Floriac. cap. 9.
• m 1.106

  Apud M••l••hior. Goldast. Gonstit. Imper. tom. 2. pag 50.
• n 1.107

  Et vide cap. 7. §. 3. ad sin•• m.
• o 1.108

  Bertrand •• Ar∣gentre in Cons. Brit. tit. des Approprian∣ces ••rt. 266. pag. 1110.
• p 1.109

  Iuo Epist. 289. editione secunda. primae deest.
• q 1.110

  Centur Magde∣burg. 8. cap. 8.
• r 1.111

  1 Sam. cap. 8.
• s 1.112

  Eiusdem gene∣ris, sub Decimae etiam nomine, prouentus Domi∣nis soluuntur in Gallijs, in Germa∣nia, alibi. videsis Bertran. d'Argen∣tre, Cons. Brit. art. 266. pag. 1109. & Specul Saxon lib 2. a••tic. 58. § 2. &c.
• t 1.113

  Will. Tyrius de bello sacro lib. 18. cap. 3.
• u 1.114

  Quod constat ex Marini San••ti T••••s••lli Secret. Fi∣delium lib. ••. part. 8 & epist. 8 & A∣nonym. de recuperat Terr•• Sancta cap. 18.
• x 1.115

  Ordonances de France liu 2. tom. 2. de Mines & Mineries.
• y 1.116

  Videsis dist. 10. c. 22. & 13. & extr de noui ops. is nuntiatione c. 1.
• z 1.117

  Videsis Suarez. de legibus lib. 3. cap. 8. §. 3.
• a 1.118

  Ad Consuet. Brit. tit. 22. de Succestionibus, ad rubricam.
• b 1.119

  Vide Chappin. du Domain•• &c. liu. 2. tit. 15. §. 5. Bodin de Repub. lib 1. cap 8. Suarez vbi supra &c. Philip. 2. in prag∣matica ante collect. L••gum Ro••ni.
• c 1.120

  Parl. 3. Iacobi 1. cap. 48.
• d 1.121

  Parl. 6. Iacob. 4. cap. 79.
• e 1.122

  Vide extr. tit. de Priuileg. c. 28. super specula, & ibid. Hostiens. l. Andr. Anton. de Butrio. item Choppin. du Do¦maine, liu. 2. tit. 35. §. 5. Bodin de Repub. lib. 1. cap. 8. & ante alios Sua∣rez de Legibus, lib. 3. cap. 8. v••de etiam pr••sat. ad Statut. Polonia, Prilusij.
• f 1.123

  Hieronym. ••igas tract. de Crin. lasa Maiest. lib. 3. quast. ••3. §. 18. & 19.
• g 1.124

  In Compond. Theolog. citatur in Notis, ad Furtisc. pag. 43.
• h 1.125

  In Biblioth. Int. Templi.
• i 1.126

  Vide Quintili∣en lib. 5 Instituti∣on. cap. 10. Atheric. Gontil de iure belli lib. 3. cap. 5 & He∣toman. Illust. quast 5.
• k 1.127

  Caluins ••ase, fol. 17. b.
• l 1.128

  In Hen. 2. pag. 347.
• m 1.129

  Ms. lib. 2. pag. 33. & 36. in Bibl. Cotton.
• n 1.130

  Videsis Cok•• Praesat. ad Relat. 3. & 8. & si placet Hot. ad Fortese. pag. 7. & 8.
• * 1.131

  Historia Cado∣nensis.
• p 1.132

  Chart. Eccles. Westm. in Inspex. part. 7. 1 Ed. 4. membr. 26. & vide Camden. pag. 104.
• q 1.133

  Ms. siue Autor Gu••l. Pictau. siue quis alius sit. in Bibl. Cotton.
• r 1.134

  Malmesb. lib. 3. de gest. Regum. pag. 56. a. alij in Will. 1. & videsis Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. pag. 1257. edit. Londin.
• s 1.135

  Sharde in Caes. in I••i••. Temp. Ed. 3. fol. 143. b.
• t 1.136

  Vide Roger de Honed. in Richard. 1. fol. 425. & 347.
• u 1.137

  In Bibl. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• x 1.138

  ff de Legat. 3. L. Item Legato 49. §. 4.
• y 1.139

  Authent. 89. c. 12. dis••reu•• igitur &c.
• z 1.140

  Videsis Mal∣mesb. de gest. Reg. lib. 2. fol 52.
• a 1.141

  18. Ed. 4 fol. 30. a
• b 1.142

  C. tit. de Nat. lib. c. cum qua 10. &c.
• c 1.143

  Videsis Bacquet de Domaine in Fr. ••ra••ct▪ du Ba∣stardise chap. 9. &c.
• d 1.144

  Apud Camden in Richmondia.
• e 1.145

  Videsis Pont. Hen••erum de libe∣ris Natural, cap. 12.
• f 1.146

  In Pan••gyric. ad Originem.
• g 1.147

  Christop Bin∣der as bo••is Ecclesia in ducat. VViten∣berg. pag. 94. &c.
• * 1.148

  Ex libello dicto. The complaint of Roderik Mors sometime a Gray Frier &c. olim impress. Geneu••.
• * 1.149

  saire.
• h 1.150

  Apud Innocent. 3. Epist. Decretal. lib. 2. pag. 242. edit. Colon.
• i 1.151

  Dist. 19. c. 1. Si Romanorum. Dist. 20. c. de Libollu.
• k 1.152

  Beda hist. Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 5.
• l 1.153

  Vide Cap. 14. §. 1.
• m 1.154

  G. Malme••b. hist. Nouell. lib. 2. pag. 103. b.
• n 1.155

  Ian. Angl lib. 2. § 43 vide, si ••lacet, Not. ad For∣tisc. pag 43. & 44.
• o 1.156

  De nug••s Curtae lium, lib. 8 cap. 21.
• p 1.157

  In Symbol. elect. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in Bibl. Cot.
• q 1.158

  Claus. 19. Hen. 3. membr. 22.
• r 1.159

  videsis 39. Hen. 3. apud Matth. Pa∣ris hist. maiori a. d. 1255.