An historical vindication of the divine right of tithes from scripture, reason, and the opinion and practice of Jews, Gentiles, and Christians in all ages : designed to supply the omissions, answer the objections, and rectife the mistakes of Mr. Selden's History of tithes / by Tho. Comber ...

CHAP. XI. Of Arbitrary Consecrations, from the year 1000 till after the year 1200.

§. I. THE great strength for Mr. S. his proofs of Lay Consecrations, lies in the many Instruments yet remaining in the Chartularies of the old Ab∣bies, which he hath here collected, as undeniable evidence that Lay-men, from the year 1000 till after the year 1200, did at their own pleasure (without requiring the Bishops consent) consecrate their Tithes, or any part of them, to Monasteries; which Donations were made, as he pretends, only by these Charters he produces, and allowed by the practiced Law of that time, and that if there were any Confirmations of Bishops added to the Lay-Donors Char∣ter, they were procured by the Monks afterwards to satisfie the Canons. But all this is so contrary to truth, and to the practice of that Age, that though I have no other help than what I receive, from the Chartularies of Ro∣chester (transcribed by Doctor Tildesly, formerly Arch∣deacon there) from the Monasticon Anglicanum, and from Mr. S. his own Instruments here cited; yet I doubt not to shew, that the Bishops Consent was required to make the Lay-mans Grant valid from the beginning, yea that the very Bishops Charters originally allowing these Lay-Grants are extant, even in Sir Robert Cottons Library, out of which Mr. S. quotes these Instruments, so that it was impossible for him to find the Lay Grant, but he must at the same time see the Bishops Charter; yet he conceals the Bishops Charter most disingeniouly, and fraudulently transcribes the Lay Charter, as if it were arbitrary, and made without any Bishops consent at all. And besides, he

often cites later Confirmations of the Lay granters Heirs, as if they were Original Grants, and pretends these to be Arbitrary Consecrations, when the Tithes mentioned in them were confirmed by Bishops long before; indeed this whole Chapter is so full of designed mistakes, and fraudu∣lent dealing, that it is enough to shew how little he can be trusted in matter of fact, who to serve an evil end, and support a false Opinion of his own, values not how falsly he represents the matter. But because his Instances are thrown into a confused heap, I shall render the practice of the time more intelligible, and more orderly and briefly confute all his Instances, by reducing them under those several evidences of Ecclesiastical consent, which over∣throw his pretended Arbitrary Consecrations.

First, The ancientest way of declaring the Bishops con∣sent was, by their signing and sealing the Original Charter; which practice was used in the old Saxon Times before the Conquest, where we find no Charters made to any Abbies, but still the Bishops do sign and seal them; and though the Saxons usually gave only Land, and rarely any Tithes to their Abbies (the first gift of Tithes to the Abby of S. Augustines, Canterbury, being one of William the Conque∣ror(o)) yet still their Bishops consents were desired to confirm it, and therefore they subscribe all Lay Grants with these words, Confirmavi, Corroboravi, Assensum dedi, &c. so in the Chartularies of Abingdon, Pope Leo, and Rethun a Bishop, consent to Kenulphs's Donation, An. 821(p). Bi∣shop Hedda consents to Ina's Grant, An. 699(q); and ano∣ther of King Ina's Donation, is said to be Canonically and Ecclesiastically confirmed by King Ina and Daniel the Bishop(r): So the Charter of King Edward the Confessor to S. Benets in Hulmo, is confirmed and allowed by six Bishops(s). And when Osrich, a Nobleman, founded the Abby of Gloucester, by Licence from King Ethelred, An. 690, Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury, and Bosel first Bishop of Wor∣cester, confirm it(t). The same method of declaring Ec∣clesiastical consent by the Bishops signing the Original Grant, was used both in Ireland(u), and also in Scot∣land(w).

And so it was in Normandy before our Conquest, for when Robert Duke of Normandy founded the Abby of S. Vigours, and endowed it with Tithes, An. 1032, six Bishops seal the Grant and corroborate it(x); and accordingly after our Conquest the Norman Bishops still signed to all the Kings Grants to Monasteries there until the times of Henry the First(y), yea of Henry the Second(z). Hence it came to be also the Custom in England in the Conque∣rors time, for the Bishops to witness the Donors Charter, and so to express their consent: So the Conquerors Char∣ter to Battel Abby, in which he gives three Churches with Tithes, is signed by Two Archbishops and four Bishops(a); and King William Rufus expresly declares, he had the Bishops consent, who are also named as confirming his Grant(b). King Stephen also made his Donation to God∣stow Priory by the Consent of his Bishops, who confirmed it(c). Such Examples of Bishops signing, and so decla∣ring their consent to the Kings Charters, are frequent in the Monasticon, in the Reigns of King Henry the First(d), King Henry the Second(e), K. Richard the First(f), and King John(g). And in many of Mr. S. his Instances, which he brings in as Lay-mens Arbitrary Grants without Episcopal consent, the Bishops are Witnesses to the Instrument: so here pag. 300. he cites a Charter of Henry the First, con∣firming the Grants of Alberic de Vere to Colm a Cell of Abingdon, An. 1111, as if it were made without any Bi∣shops consent, whereas the very Charter is extant at large in the Monasticon, and is witnessed by two Bishops, yea and the Preface introducing it (cited out of Sir Robert Cottons Library) saith, Alberic de Vere got it confirmed by the Authority of the King and the Bishop Mauritius, in whose Diocess it was(h); but this Mr. S. most unworthily con∣ceals. So again, pag. 310. he pretends, Henry the First ar∣bitrarily gave the half Tithe of Tarentford, and of Whales catched in the Diocess of Rochester to the Priory there; but King Henry's Charter is extant in the Monasticon, and is directed to Archbishop Anselm, and signed by Two Bi∣shops(i); so that it is certain it was not without Ecclesi∣astical

consent. And pag. 311. William of Albeny's Grant of Elham and Bilsintune, is confirmed by King Henry's Char∣ter directed to Anselm, in whose Diocess they lay, and sign∣ed by Roger a Bishop and Chancellor(k), which Mr. S. also conceals. The gift of Geoffry E. of Essex to the Nuns of Clerkenwell (produced by Mr. S. for an arbitrary Lay-grant, pag. 319) is extant in the Monasticon, signed by three Bi∣shops (l);(i) and Henry the Seconds Confirmation of Maurice of Totehams gift to the same Nuns, is signed by the same three Bishops(m), Seld. p. 351. Henry the Seconds Confir∣mation to the Monks of Thetford, is yet extant, and wit∣nessed by three Bishops(n), Seld. ibid. King Edward's gifts to Westminster (only confirmed by the Conqueror) were all signed by his Bishops, and allowed by the Pope before King William came in(o), Seld. 353. The Charter of Mannasses Arsick is confirmed by King Henry's Charter, to which the Bishop of Lincoln is the first Witness(p). But Mr. S. takes no notice of all this, yet it utterly overthrows his pre∣tence of arbitrary Lay Consecrations, because we see that ordinary Lay-mens Grants were confirmed both by the King and Bishop, and that the King himself gave not Tithes, unless the Bishops declared their assent at least by sealing and signing to his Charter: And we may be sure, the Bishops would not witness an Arbitrary Lay Grant, so contrary to the Canons, if their Consent were not first had thereto. I note also, that this Custom of the Bishops witnessing the Lay Grants, is a good reason why it is rare to meet with any special Charters of Bishops confirming Tithes granted to Abbies, especially before the year 1100: and now, if any shall think to excuse Mr. S. by saying, he did not know of this custom of the Bishops witnessing the Lay-grants, I can prove out of his own Examples that he did, for pag. 339 he produces a Charter of William Earl of Warren, signed by the Archbishop and three Bishops more. And pag. 346. King Stephens Charter to the Priory of Eye, is signed by the King, Queen, Prince and Ten Bi∣shops (and no other) who also add an Anathema to their subscription, shewing they were parties to the Confirmation:

so that he purposely concealed this Evidence of the Bishops consent in many of his Instances, on purpose to make them seem Arbitrary.

Secondly, There are yet extant very many Charters of Bishops, which both granted and confirmed such Tithes as were given to Abbies by Lay-men, all within the time be∣tween An. 1000 and a little after An. 1200, in which space Mr. S. pretends the Lay-granters never required any Bi∣shops confirmation; a Catalogue of such Charters we will here set down out of the Monasticon, after we have first shewed, that divers such Original Charters are yet extant, which were made to confirm those very portions of Tithes, which he most unjustly produces here as Arbitrary Lay-grants. Among such Grants to the Priory of Rochester, he reckons Tithes of Strodes and Chealks, pag. 310. Bertrcy, pag. 313. Henhurst, pag. 314. Westbroc, pag. 315. Edintune, p. 316. Rundal and Tuang, p 317. and quotes the Chartu∣laries of Rochester for it, whereas in those very Chartularies there is a large and full Charter of Gundulphus Bishop of Rochester, from An. 1077 till An. 1107, which actually grants the Monks all these Tithes lying in his Diocess, and confirms the Lay-mens giving them, which, because it shews the use of the time nigh the Conquest, and totally confutes Mr. S. his pretences, I will here cite at large, Gundulphus, Bishop of Rochester, &c.—perceiving the Christian Charity of our Sovereign King Henry, and some of his Nobles, to the Monks of S. Andrew—We do approve and ratifie their devotion to these Monks, and give Episcopal Autho∣rity and consent thereto, conferring on them, and granting to them the Tithes which are in the Parishes of divers Churches within our Diocess, viz. the Tithe of Strodes and Chealks in the Kings demesn, and by his liberality—the Tithes of Hen∣hurst — Rundal and Thuang—Bertrey —Edintunc, Westbroc, &c. (reckoning up the Lay-donors of each parcel) And I will and command, that these Monks have and retain these Tithes arising out of the Mannors in our Diocess, and by my Episcopal Authority I assign them unto them, commanding and ordaining, that they shall have them for supply of their pro∣vision

for ever. This Charter Mr. S. must needs see, if he read over the Chartularies of Rochester; and we may judge of his integrity, in that he not only passeth it by in silence, but brings these Tithes by name as arbitrary Lay Consecra∣tions without Episcopal consent. So also the gifts of Tithes to the same Monks in Bilsintune and Elham, pag. 311, Bugley and Gedding, pag. 312. Stalefield, pag. 313, Hain∣wold, Schrombroch, and Dodindale, pag. 316. and in Ysfield, pag. 317. are produced by Mr. S. as other instances of such Consecrations; whereas all these being under the Juris∣diction of Canterbury, are in the same Chartularies con∣firmed by the particular Charters of those who were Arch∣bishops at the time of these several Grants, which Char∣ters are still extant there, and this Record beside, The Tithes belonging to the Jurisdiction of Canterbury; Bilsintune, El∣ham, (and all the particulars aforementioned) are Cano∣nically collated and confirmed by our Venerable Fathers, the Archbishops of Canterbury, Anselm, (Consecrated An. 1093) William, Theobald, Richard, Baldwin and Hubert, as by their Authentic Instruments doth appear(q). But Mr. S. pag. 318. fraudulently passing by the elder Confirmations of An∣selm, William, and Theobald, (which are as ancient as the Ori∣ginal Grants of these Tithes) tells us, these Tithes were afterwards confirmed to them by the Archbishops of Can∣terbury, citing the Confirmation of Richard, An. 1176. and also of Baldwin and Hubert afterwards, as if these had been the first Confirmations, whereas these Tithes were some of them setled on them by the Archbishops consent above 80 years before. Pag. 315. It is not certain when Henry de Malmeins made that Grant of Tithes, cited by Mr. S. but it is confirmed in the Chartularies of Rochester by Wal∣ter, who was Bishop there An. 1147, that is, in all proba∣bility as soon as the Gift; but not a word of this in Mr. S. nor of those other Confirmations of this Walter, and of Gilbert, both Bishops there before An. 1200, whose Char∣ters are yet extant, setling Tithes on these Monks by the words of Damus & Concedimus; and so are the Bulls of Pope Adrian and Alexander, also extant there, both which

were Popes before An. 1200. Pag. 319. He brings in the gift of Tithes of Hamenesc by Walter Clifford, about King Johns time, An. 1200, and of Risebury by Robert Malherb to Leonminstre, as Original arbitrary Lay Consecrations; but there is a Charter of Richard Bishop of Hereford yet extant in the Monasticon(r), which declares, That he had granted with his own hand, and confirmed to Redding, the Church of Leonminstre with all the Parishes pertaining to it, and parti∣cularly he names these two Hamenesc and Risebury, and this was An. 1123. viz. nigh 80 years before the confirmation of Walter Clifford, which though he cites here as an Ori∣ginal Consecration, is no more but a confirmation of what his Ancestors had presented to the Bishop to settle on that Church many years before. Pag. 330. Mr. S. speaks of Tithes confirmed to the Abby of Boxgrave, by William and Robert St. John, An. 1180, formerly granted by their An∣cestors, but he dishonestly conceals the Charter of Hilary Bishop of Chicester, extant at large in those very Chartu∣laries, which grants and confirms to those Monks—all their Possessions lawfully conveyed to them, and particularly the Churches of S. Mary of Boxgrave, of Hanton, Honestan, Brideham, Ichenore, Walborton, Bernham, and the Tithes of Tadeham, Chienor & decimas gabulorum totius Parochiae(s); all which Mr. S. brings in for Examples of arbitrary Lay Consecrations, yet this Hilary was Bishop of Chichester, An. 1133, which was almost as soon as the Monastery was built. And Pag. 332. Mr. S. grants some of these Tithes were confirmed to the Monks of Boxgrave by Seffrid, who was Bishop of Chichester at the time of the Foundation. Pag. 334. He speaks of Lay Consecrations of Tithes to the Priory of S. Neots; but in the Monasticon there are two Charters John Bishop of Norwich (circ. An. 1175,) and one of Hugh Bishop of Lincoln (circ. An. 1186) confirming those Churches and Tithes to them, which lay in their seve∣ral Diocesses(t); but of these Mr. S. says nothing. Yet among his Examples, pag. 327. he cites a confirmation to the Monks of Tinemuth, of the Tithes within the Bisho∣pric of Durham, by Hugh, who was Bishop there, An. 1195.

and saith, they had the like from the Archbishop of York. And pag. 344. he produces one clear instance of the use of the time about An. 1100; for the Charter of William Giffard Bishop of Wincester (consecrated An. 1107) de∣clares, That one Siward of Ealdested came into his presence, and upon the Altar offered the Tithe of Hludrake to the Cha∣nons of Suthwerc by his consent, and the Bishop accordingly commands they shall enjoy it. And in the Monasticon there is another Charter of this same Bishop, declaring also, That the Patron and Parish Priest of Stokes came before him, and offered up the Tithes of Stoke to the same Canons, by a Knife laid upon the Altar(u). Whence we may infer, that all gifts of Tithes to Abbies in that time were passed through the Bishops hands, who by their Charters did so usually confirm them, that we shall here present a Catalogue of such Confirmations yet extant in the Monasticon, between the year 1000 and the year 1240, setting down the dates of the Charter, where they have dates, and where they have none, the time of the Bishops Consecration.

A Catalogue of Bishops Charters extant in the Monasticon.

Name of the Mona∣stery to which the Tithes were gran∣ted.	The Bishop; name who made the Charter.	The Date, or Year of his Consecra∣tion.	The place in the Monastican where it is found.
1. Castle-acre	Herbert of Norwich	Consecr. 1088	Tom. I. Pag. 630
2 Eynsham	Remigius Lincoln	Dated 1091	ibid: p. 264
3. Farewel	Roger Chester	consecr. 1119	ibid. p. 441
4. Cumbermere	ibid. p. 765
5 Romburge	Everard Norwich	consecr. 1120	ibid. p. 404
6. Castle-acre	ibid, p. 630
7. Luffield	Alexander Lincoln	consecr. 1123	ibid. p. 522
8. Leonminster	Richard Hereford	dated 1124	ibid. p. 420
9. de Lyra (Normādy)	Henry Winchester	consecr. 1129	Tom. II. p. 986
Robert Hereford	consecr. 1131
10. S. Marys York	Adelwald Carlisle	consecr. 1133	Tom. I. p. 399
11. Romburge	Theobald Canterbury	consecr. 1138	ibid. p. 404
12. Nutly and Kington	Joceline Sarum	consecr. 1139	Tom. II. p. 156
ibid. p. 888
13. Monkton	Henry Murdac York	consecr. 1142	Tom. I. p. 476
14. Durham	William Durham	consecr. 1143	Tom. II. p. 846
15. S. James Exeter	Robert Exeter	dated 1146	Tom I. p. 644
16. Bristal	Robert Lincoln	consecr. 1147	Tom. I. p. 588
17. Osulreston	T. II. p. 276,
18. de Lyra Normandy	Gilbert Hereford	consecr. 1149	ibid. p. 986 (277.
John Worcester	consecr. 1150	ibid. p. 987
19. Nun-kelling	S. William York	must be dated 1153	Tom. I. p. 475
Roger York	consecr. 1154	ibid.
20. Albemarle	Robert Lincoln	dated 1156	Tom. II. p. 999
21. Stoke-Clare	Thomas Canterbury	consecr. 1162	Tom. I. p. 1005
22. Denny	Nigellus Ely	dated 1169	ibid. p. 492
23. Romburge	Galfridus Ely	consecr. 1174	ibid. p. 404
24. Reinham	John Norwich	consecr. 1177	ibid. p. 638
25. Bingham	idem	dated 1181	ibid. p. 346
26. Luffield	Hugh Lincoln	consecr. 1186	Tom. I. p. 582
27. Malton	Tom. II. p. 819
28. Reinham	Hubert Canterbury	consecr. 1193	Tom. I. p. 638
29. Monklane	William Hereford	consecr. 1186	Tom. I. p. 598
30. Southampton	Godfrey Winchester	dated 1204	Tom II. p. 110
31. Parco	Walter York	consecr. 1217	ibid. p. 290
32. Bristall	idem	dated 1220	Tom. I. p. 580
33. Barnstaple	William Exeter	dated 1233	ibid. p. 1025
34. Selburn	Peter Winchester	dated 1233	Tom. I. p. 343

Thirdly, But though the Original Bishops Charters granting divers of these Tithes mentioned by Mr. S. at the very first donation of the Lay Founders, be now perished by length of time, yet we may be assured there was such Charters by these following undeniable proofs.

First, Because it is recorded, that the Bishops (who ge∣nerally were taken out of Monasteries, and so were great Friends to the Monks) did advise and perswade the Lay Donors to make Grants of Tithes to Abbies. So Pag. 306. the Charter of Robert d'Oiley (out of which Mr. S. reckons up those gifts of Tithes to the Abby of Osney, as arbitrary Lay Consecrations) saith expresly, That he founded this very Abby, Consulente & confirmante Alexandro Dei gratiâ Lin∣colniensi Episcopo(w); so that it is plain he advised Robert d'Oily to found it, and confirmed the endowment at first, though his Charter be not now extant. And the Monasti∣con cites another old Record saying, Robert d'Oily founded this Church by the approbation of Theobald Archbishop of Canterbury, and Alexander Bishop of Lincoln(x). Also that other Charter of the same Robert d'Oily (cited by Mr. S. pag. 307) expresly saith, The Bishop of Lincoln ad∣vised and confirmed it, and Theobald Archbishop of Canter∣bury, is the first Witness to it(y); yet this he falsly produces for an arbitrary Lay Consecration, and basely concealing these old Testimonies of the Bishops consent to, and con∣firmation of the Founders Grant (which he must needs see, while he transcribed so much of the Charter;) he tells us, this was confirmed long after by Richard (it should be Robert Grosthead) Bishop of Lincoln, An. 1250, as if this had been the first Episcopal confirmation, whereas 'tis evi∣dent he knew it was confirmed by his Predecessor from the first foundation, viz. 120 year before, what credit can be given to such a Historian? Pag. 325. The Tithes belong∣ing to Tinemouth, confirmed by Henry the First to S. Albons, were given before to that Abby by Roger de Mowbray, By the leave of the King and the Archbishop Lanfranc (saith M. Paris in the place cited by Mr. S.(z)); and a little after By the Counsel of Archbishop Lanfranc, Id. ibid. Pag. 333.

The first founder and endower of the Abby of Lewis was William, the first Earl of Warren, whose Charter yet ex∣tant declares, he did it by the advice of Lanfranc the Arch∣bishop, and this Charter is signed both by the King and his Bishops in a Council at Winchester(a). And the Monasticon affords several such Examples: Walter de Gaunt confirms and endows Bardeney Abby, Consilio Radulphi Cantuariensis(b). Robert de Toteney gives Tithes to a Cell of S. Albans, Consilio D. Lanfranci Archiepiscopi(c). Roger de Montgo∣mery founds and endows the Abby of Shrewsbury, Consilio Roberti Episcopi, who also witnesses his Charter(d). Ro∣bert Fitzwalter gives Tithes to the Abby of Horsham, by the order and consent of Herbert Bishop of Norwich(e). Alberic de Vere gives the Church of Hegeham to the Nuns there, at the desire of Richard Bishop of London(f), with many more like Examples(g). Now if they desired, advised, and ordered the Patrons to make these Grants, what que∣stion can there be, but they confirmed them?

Secondly, Even where the Original Charters are lost, there is clear Evidence yet extant, that the Lay-granters had the consent of the Bishops, and did assign them by their Authority: So the Charter of Alberic de Vere; in Mr. S. pag. 300. concerning the sounding of Colm a Cell of Abingdon, is recorded to have been confirmed by the Au∣thority of the King, and of the Bishop of the Diocess, Mauricius(h). Pag. 308. Mr. S. confesses the Tithes of Wauretun, granted to Osney by Hugh de Crofts, An. 1192. were confirmed by William Bishop of Hereford, who was consecrated An. 1186, and so was Bishop there at the time of the first Grant. Pag. 313. The portion of Tithes in Halegele, given by Henry de Port, for the love of Ralph the Bishop of Rochester, An. 1108. undoubtedly had his confir∣mation, who was consecrated Bishop there that very year. Pag. 323. The same Historian which mentions the assigna∣tions of Tithes by Hugh de Trottesclive, Abbot of S. Augu∣stines, saith of the same Abbots donations, They were con∣firmed by the Letters Patents of Theobald the Archbishop(i). Pag. 343. The grant of Tithes of Wlhaveshull to the Abby

of Persore, by John de Muchgrosse in King Johns time, is but a later confirmation of an elder Grant; but upon the burn∣ing of that Abby, and loss of their Evidences, divers per∣sons upon an Inquest do swear, That all their Tithes were con∣firmed to them by the Bishops of Canterbury, and by John Bi∣shop of Worcester (consecrated An. 1140) long before this Grant(k). But the plainest instance of this kind is, that Charter of W. Peverel to the Monks of Hatfield, which Mr. S. brings in as an instance of arbitrary Lay Consecrations, pag. 329. but durst not cite it at large, because it quite o∣verthrows his false Opinion; the words of it are, To the Reverend Lord, R Bishop of London, to all his Archdeacons and Prebends, especially to W. the Dean, W. Peverel sendeth Greeting — (and after the recital of the several Churches and Tithes he had granted, the Charter ends thus) — which Donation and Constitution I entreat you graciously to grant and consent to, as I am Lord of the place, and your Friend, circ. An. 1120(l). What can be plainer than this, to shew that Lay Patrons had no power to grant Tithes of them∣selves? but were forced to petition the Bishops to confirm them. So in the Chartularies of Rochester, the Tithes confirmed by Walter, Bishop there, are said to be Tithes which Gundulphus his Predecessor had given and granted them by the gift of the Patrons, and the Rectors consent(m); and Johannes Sarisburiensis speaks of the Church of Effingham, which at the Patrons request the Bishop of Winchester gave the Monks(n). But if we look into the Monasticon, there are very many Evidences in the very Lay-Charters of the first granters of Tithes, to prove that these Grants were con∣firmed by the Bishops Authority and consent (though the Bishops Charter be not now to be found.) So William de Percy declares, that Thomas Archbishop of York (An. 1109) was a granter and a witness of his donation to Whitby(o). Leofric, founder of Coventry, got a Licence from the Pope before he made his own Charter(p). Roger Montgomery founded and endowed the Abby of Shrewsbury, by the Grant of the King of Lanfranc the Archbishop, and Peter Bishop of the Diocess(q). Radulphus Pincerna in endowing Alcester,

saith, He did follow the Authority of Theobald Archbishop, and of Simon Bishop of Worcester, and other Bishops(r). Wil. de Breosa granting Tithes to Abergavenny, engages he will procure the Charters of King Henry the Second, of the Archbishop, and of the Bishop of Landaffe, to confirm his Grant(s). Nigellus of Munnevile declares, he had Anselms con∣sent to his Grant of Churches to Folkeston Priory, An. 1095(t). Robert de Lacy and Hugh de Val, had Thurstan Archbishop of Yorks consent to their Grant of Tithes to Pontefract(u). Simon, Earl of Northampton, in his Grant of the Church of Saltry to the Monks there, engages to se∣cure them from the Bishop of Lincoln, and the Parson of the place(w). Picot, and Hugolina his Wife, declare, they had given two parts of their Tithes to a Monastery, having first had the consent and allowance of Remigius Bishop of Lin∣coln (who was consecrated An. 1070)(x). Nicholas de Gresely gives a Church to Kenilworth, by the assent of Roger Bishop of Chester(y). The Earl of Buckingham desired Joseline Bishop of Salisbury to grant the Church of Bradly, with the Tithes, to the Priory of Nutley(z). William Earl of Sussex gives Lands and Tithes to Buckenham Priory, by the advice of William Bishop of Norwich (consecrated An. 1151), and that his Grant may be valid, he prays it may be confirmed by Royal and Ecclesiastical Authority(a). Robert Earl of Mellent endows the Priory de Prato with Lands and Tithes, by the Grant of King Henry the First, and Robert Bishop of Lincoln (consecrated An. 1107)(b). And is it likely all these Great men would be thus careful to get the Bishops assent and confirmation, if it were not necessary? I might give many more Examples(c), but these are suffi∣cient to shew, that though the original Grants of Bishops be now lost, yet the custom of the Age made it necessary to procure them.

Thirdly, Where the old Charters of Bishops confirming the first Grant are not to be found, yet there are later Con∣firmations which refer to former Grants, and clearly e∣nough prove there were such extant in ancient time. Thus those Tithes which Mr. S. out of the Chartularies of A∣bingdon,

pretends were arbitrarily consecrated by Lay-men, are confirmed by Pope Eugenius (not An. 1152, as Mr. S. mistakes, but) An. 1146. where there is named the Tithes of Lakin, Offinton, and Weckenfield,

which, with all the Possessions and Goods, which they then justly and Cano∣nically possessed or could hereafter acquire by just means, the Pope doth there confirm to them(d);

whence we may conclude, that Abingdon did then possess Lakin, Offinton, Weckenfield, and other Tithes (not by arbitrary Lay Grants, but) by Bishops Charters and Confirmations, for this only in the Popes account was a just and Canonical way of pos∣sessing Tithes. And note here, That all Popes Bulls ever have this clause, and confirm no Possessions to Monasteries, but such as they possessed justly and Canonically; whence it is probable the Monks must shew their Bishops consent to the first Grant, or else no Bull from Rome could be obtained. And for Abingdon, there is a Charter of King Henry the First, confirming divers possessions to it, signed by himself, his Son William, his Queen, and the two Archbishops, with the Bishops of Exeter and Winchester(e), which Charter must be made before young Prince William was drowned, that is, before the year 1121; and therefore there was Consent of Bishops to this Abbies Possessions long before the Popes Bull. So pag. 309. for the Tithes given to the Priory of Giseburn, about the year 1240, there is a Charter of Richard Bishop of Durham, dated An. 1311, relating,

That Hugh his Predecessor (An. 1154) had anciently con∣firmed the Tithes given to that Priory which lay in the Diocess of Durham, and other of his Predecessors had done the like(f);

and in all probability the Archbishops of York had done the like for what lay in that Diocess; and so none of these were Arbitrary Consecrations. Pag. 311. The Church of Waltun (saith Pope Adrian's Bull in the Chartularies of Rochester)

was given by Roger Bigod and his Heirs, and granted by the Bishops of Norwich, Her∣bert, (Consecr. 1088) Everard, and William:

so that this could be no arbitrary Lay Grant, since Herbert Bishop of Norwich lived at the same time with Roger Bigod the Foun∣der

(which was not temp. Rich. 1. as Mr. S. grosly mistakes, but) An. 1088, who was first Earl of Norfolk, and with his Son Hugh gave this Church to Felix-stow, a Cell of S. An∣drews, Rochester, as may be seen by the Charter of King William Rufus, directed to the Bishop of Norwich for con∣firmation of this Grant(g). Pag. 335. Saher de Quincy, An. 1203, did but confirm a former Grant of the Tithes of Eynesbury to S. Neots, for those Tithes had been con∣firmed to that Priory some years before, viz. A. 1194, by the Bull of Pope Celestine(h). But the Monasticon will ful∣ly clear this matter. The Confirmation of Bartholomew, Bishop of Exeter (An. 1159)

assigns divers Churches and Tithes to the Abby of Tavestoc, according as the Char∣ters of his Predecessors, made to this purpose, did more fully testifie(i).

Walter, Bishop of Coventry, confirms Churches and Tithes to Lilleshull, formerly granted by "Pope Eugenius, by the Archbishop, and by Roger his Pre∣decessor(k); which Roger consented to the Founders first foundation. Hugh Bishop of Lincoln declares, that his Predecessors had confirmed all those Churches and Tithes to the Abby of Bardeney, now confirmed by him(l): So Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury saith,

The Tithes he confirmed to Cumbermere, had before been confirmed by his Predecessor Baldwin, and by Richard Bishop of Coven∣try(m).

Richard Bishop of Winchester confirms a Church to S. Mary Overies, formerly confirmed by William his Prede∣cessor (consecrated An. 1107)(n). The Founder of Pon∣tefract gave some Tithes to it,

and these Benefices were confirmed by the Authority of Thomas the elder Arch∣bishop of York (An. 1070)(o).

Pope Gregory also con∣firms Churches and Tithes to the Priory of Catesby, which our Reverend Brother, Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln, and his Predecessors have granted(p).

Wherefore we must not argue, that there were no elder and original Bishops Char∣ters to confirm the first Grants of Tithes, because only some later Confirmations are extant at this day: yet this is a fallacy which Mr. S. frequently, and (I fear) designed∣ly useth.

Fourthly, The Custom of Lay-mens presenting their do∣nations of Tithes to their Bishops, that they might give them to Monasteries, either at the first Consecration of Abby Churches (always done by a Bishop) or afterwards, shew their consent was had. Both these Customs are re∣membred by Mr. S. for pag. 324. those Tithes offered at the building of Crowland Church, no doubt were confirmed by the Bishop who consecrated that Church: and pag. 350. The renewed Donations to the new Nuns of Ambresbury, were confirmed by Richard Archbishop of Canterbury, and the other two Bishops who introduced them(q). But the Monasticon will more fully shew this Custom. The Tithes given to the Abby of S. Werburg, by Hugh Earl of Chester and his Knights, were presented at the dedication thereof by Anselm, and Hervey Bishop of Chester(r). William de Albeny, by offering his Knife upon the Altar of Wymund∣ham, gave Tithes to it at the Dedication thereof by Eve∣rard Bishop of Norwich(s). The Founder of Hurley Prio∣ry declares, that at the Dedication,

Osmond Bishop of Sa∣lisbury, by Episcopal Authority confirmed all his Dona∣tions(t), and this Bishop died An. 1099.

Alan Earl of Richmond endowed Romburg with Tithes, in the presence of Everard Bishop of Norwich, whose Charter confirming them is yet extant(u). At the Dedication of Cadwell Church, the Inhabitants give the Tithes of Penbray and Pennaltb, by the exhortation and assent of Roger Bishop of Chester, who consecrated it(x). Robert Fitz-martyn so∣lemnly offers divers parcels of Tithes to a Priory in Wales, when F. the first Abbot was installed by Bernard Bishop of S. Davids,

the said Bishop granting, whatever of my Tithes I had given to that Abbot, as his Charter speaks(y).

Geoffry Earl of Essex endows Walden with divers Churches, "in the hearing, and by the assent of the three Bishops of London, Ely, and Norwich(z). Miles, Constable of Gloucester endows Llanthony with a Church, and divers portions of Tithes,

by the hand of Robert Bishop of He∣reford, on the day and hour when the Church was dedi∣cated, An. 1137(a).

The Grants of Robert Earl of Mel∣lent

to the Priory de Prato, were all confirmed by Robert Bishop of Lincoln, when he dedicated the Church, An. 1107(b); all which doth still plainly prove, the Bishops ratified the first Grants of Tithes to Abbies.

And for such Tithes as were given afterwards, Mr. S. hath shewed pag. 344. by the Charter of the Bishop of Win∣chester, that the custom was to come and present them to a Bishop, and by his hand to make the Oblation; and the Monasticon largely confirms this usage. Joel Fitz-Alured giues Churches and Tithes to Barnstaple Priory,

by the hands of William Bishop of Exeter (An. 1107)(c).

A like Gift is made to the Priory of S. James at Exeter,

by the hand of Robert Bishop of Exeter(d).

Henry Bishop of York (An. 1142) in his confirmation of Tithes to Monk∣ton, declares, "they were given in his presence(e). Richard de Wicha offers up his Charter of the Tithes of Sally upon the Altar at Tavestoc, and the Bishop receiving it said, I as Diocesan Bishop, do by my Episcopal Authority confirm the afore∣said Donation(f). The Patron of the Chappel of Alswic offers it, with its appurtenances, on the Altar of the Holy Trinity, "in the presence of Thomas Archbishop of Can∣terbury, and gave it to those Monks by his hand(g). So the Church of Stanes was given by the Patron to the Priory there,

in the presence of Roger the Bishop, into whose hand he put it, and then the Bishop confirmed it(h).

William de Vesey gives the Church of Ancaster to the Ca∣nons of Malton,

by the assent and counsel of Robert Bi∣shop of Lincoln, and put this gift in his hand, and con∣firmed it by his Testimony(i).

Philip de Kyme gives Sothy Church to Bardeney,

putting it into the hands of Robert Bishop of Lincoln, humbly praying that he would make that Act valid, and confirm it by his Authority(k).

But Mr. S. himself hath a famous instance of William Earl of Warren, who, by the Bishop of Winchester's cutting of his Hair before the Altar, in the presence of four other Bishops at a renewed dedication of S. Pancratius Church in Lewes, gave all his Tithes to that Abby, pag. 340. And whoso desires more Examples of making these Grants in

the Bishops presence, and by their hands, may consult the places in the Margent(l). And note here, that Lay Pa∣trons were so far from thinking they could arbitrarily consecrate their Tithes to what Monastery they pleased, that it is evident they petitioned the Bishops to confirm them. Agnes de Arches having given a Church to Nun∣kelling,

beseeches William Archbishop of York to grant and confirm it(m).

Earl Baldwin petitions Robert Bi∣shop of Exeter to confirm his Grant to the Priory of S. James, An. 1146(n). William Earl of Warren humbly prays the Bishop of Norwich, to grant the Church of Me∣lewd to Castle-acre(o).

Avice de Romelli directs her Char∣ter to the Bishop of Lincoln and Archdeacon of Lecester, beseeching them for the love of God to make her Act valid, and to confirm it by their Authority(p).

And many more such Petitions are to be found(q), which shews how untruly Mr. S. pretends, that Bishops confirmations were never desired nor needed by Lay-Patrons, but only procured by the Monks afterward, for their own security against the Canons of the Church. I hope it is now very evident, that Lay-Patrons desired and procured them, and whether the first Charters be now extant or no, that un∣doubtedly there were such Charters obtained to all these Grants.

Wherefore as to the rest of Mr. S. his Instances, we shall only make some brief remarks on them and so dismiss them. And, First, divers of these which he calls arbitrary Lay Consecrations were granted by Charters directed To the Archbishops and Bishops, or elso to the Bishop of the Diocess; and that intimates, that the Bishop was to confirm this Charter afterward. So pag. 309. the Tithes of Lyum are gi∣ven to Gisburn Priory by a Charter of Robert Brus, the Found∣er, directed To the King of England, and the Archbishop of York(r), because both the King and Bishop were to con∣firm the Grant. Pag. 310. The half Tithe of Tarentford is granted to the Monks of Rochester, by King Henry's Charter, directed to Anselm the Archbishop, and signed by two Bishops(s). The same Kings confirmation of Eltham

and Bilsintun (mentioned in Mr. S. pag. 311) is directed to Anselm also, and attested by a Bishop(t). Pag. 319. Geoffry Earl of Essex, his Charter to the Nuns of Clerkenwell is di∣rected to the Archbishops, and signed by three Bishops(u). Pag. 345. Mr. S. himself produces a Charter of Geoffry Fitz-Robert, granting Tithes to Ipswich (An. 1152) which is di∣rected To William Bishop of Norwich, who no doubt was to confirm it. Pag. 352. Henry the First's confirmation of Tithes to the Priory of Mountague, is directed To John Bi∣shop of the Diocess(w); and Henry the Second confirms the same, by a Charter directed to the Archbishops, and signed by four Bishops(x): But of this, Instances are so very ma∣ny, it is needless to be particular(y); yet this shews, that the Consecration of Tithes were not arbitrary, for if so, why should the Gra••ts be directed to the Bishop.

Secondly, Some other of Mr. S. his Instances of Arbitra∣ry Consecrations are the Acts of Bishops, who no doubt acted agreeable to the Canons, and so if they were not Bishops of the Diocess themselves, had undoubtedly the Diocesans consent. So pag. 310. there is a grant of Ralph Archbishop of Canterbury (An. 1114) among his arbitrary Consecrations; but indeed it is a Confirmation of Tithes given by others in his Diocess. Pag. 316. The Tithes of Wickham were first given by Gundulphus Bishop of Rochester, whose Fee that Town was, and when he granted the Land to Godfry de Talbot, he reserved the Tithes to the Monks of Rochester; from Talbot the Land came to Columbers, who (upon a Suit between the Parson of Frendesbury and the Abbot) only declares what he found in his Deeds (as the Chartularies of Rochester shew,) yet Mr. S. hath the confi∣dence to produce this as an arbitrary Lay Consecration. Pag. 321. The gift of Odo, who was Bishop of Bayeux; and p. 337. that of Ael Bishop of Carlisle, were undoubtedly Canonical Grants, and so ought not to be produced by Mr. S. among arbitrary Lay Consecrations.

Thirdly, There are others of his Examples, which he produces as if they were Original Consecrations of Tithes, when indeed they are only the Confirmations of the Lay-donors

Heirs, obtained by the Monks after long possession of Tithes, confirmed to them by Ecclesiastical consent many years before, some of which we have already taken notice of; and such is the Tithe of Tarentford, pag. 310, confirmed by King William Rusus(a), yet produced by him, as if Henry the First originally confirmed it. So pag. 316. the Tithes of Wickham Canonically given by Gundul∣phus, are by him produced as a Lay Consecration of Colum∣bers. Pag. 319. Walter de Clifford's confirmation of Ha∣mensec, &c. An. 1200, was given long before, and confirm∣ed by the Bishop of Hereford at least 70 years before(b). Pag. 324. The Abbot of S. Albans gift of Caysho and Wat∣ford Tithes, An. 1235. was no other but a grant of Tithes, confirmed to them by Pope Honorius, An. 1218; which Bull of Honorius mentions Eight preceding Popes con∣firming their Possessions to them, and the first was Calixtus, An. 1120(c): so that these Tithes were setled in the Abby above an hundred years before. Pag. 325. The Tithes be∣longing to Tinemouth, were given to S. Albans by Roger de Mowbray, by the leave of the King and Archbishop Lan∣franc, as Math. Paris shews(d), and were confirmed by a Charter of King Williams, directed to the Archbishop, and to the Bishop of Durham(e), long before King Henry came to the Crown; whose Confirmation of this old Grant, set∣led by Ecclesiastical consent before, Mr. S. produces for an Arbitrary Consecration. Other such like wilful mistakes are those Confirmations of S. John to Boxgrave, Seld. p. 330. That of Muchegrosse to Persore Abby, pag. 344. and of King William the Conqueror to Westminster, p. 351.

Fourthly, Others of his Examples are too late in time, and were made long after the year 1200, and so could not be Arbitrary Consecrations, because he grants Parochial Right was then so firmly setled, that the Laity (by his own confession) could not so dispose of their Tithes. Under this Head we may reckon the Grants of Peter de Brus to Gisburne, An. 1239, 1242, 1246(f). That of Maud de Mandevil Countess of Essex, to Clerkenwell(g); for she was not Countess of Essex, till An. 1227. That of the

Abbot of S. Albans, An. 1235(h), and that of the Prior of Lewes, An. 1260(i); the custom of the Time acknow∣ledged by Mr. S. shews all these were impertinently alledged here.

Fifthly; Many of his Instances are not concerning Paro∣chial Tithes, as that of Geoffry Earl of Essex is a Grant of the Tithe of Meat used at his Table(k). That of William Earl of Warren, is of the Tenth penny of his Rents in Mony; and it was for detaining of this that the Arch∣bishop blames his Widow(l). So also the Tithes of Ve∣nison may be reckoned an extraordinary Tithe(m), as well as that of Whales(n); yet most of these Grants were by Ecclesiastical consent, as is shewed before. And for all those Grants of Abbots and Covents (which did dispose of Tithes sometimes, anciently setled on them by Bishops Charters and the Popes Bulls) they cannot be reckoned Lay Consecrations; and besides they were not arbitrary, for his own Historian, Thorn, who writes the History of S. Augustines Canterbury, assures us, That the Abbots there use to have the confirmation of the Archbishops, even to these dispositions of their own Tithes(o). And he brings divers of these Abbots Leases of Tithes setled Cano∣nically on their Abbies, among his Arbitrary Consecrati∣ons(p); and that which he falsly calls a grant of Tithes from Alexander Prior of Stanesgate to Clerkenwell(q), is a plain Lease of Tithes under the yearly Rent of Ten shil∣lings, as the Deed yet extant shews(r). So that I hope now I may conclude, that Mr. S. hath brought no sufficient proof of any common use of Arbitrary Lay Consecrations, for I have particularly disproved almost every one of his Instances, and fully proved the custom of that Age could not admit any such kind of Consecrations; so that if (for want of Books and Records) there be five or six among Mr. S. his vast heap, which are not disproved by name, yet it is plain enough they also were confirmed as the rest were. But lest any scruple should remain, I will add two Arguments to prove there could be no Arbitrary Lay Con∣secrations in this time.

First, Because Lay-men could not give Parochial Tithes without Bishops consent, in regard Parochial right was so firmly setled all the time when these very Charters (which Mr. S. produces for Arbitrary Consecrations) were made, as I will prove out of him. Faricius Abbot of Abingdon, An. 1158. would not receive a gift of Tithes from Offin∣ton, "lest he should diminish the ancient right of the Pa∣rish Church; and till they had agreed to let the Parish Rector have Twenty four Sheaves out of every Acre, (which is a full Tenth part in ordinary Land) according as he used formerly to receive, he would not accept of a se∣cond Tithing to the Abby, which here we see was paid beside Parochial Tithe(s); and thus we must understand those second Tithes of Fruits and Corn, at Staves and Sandford, given to the Nuns of Kington(t), viz. of Tithes paid over and above Parochial Tithes. And I appeal to any impartial Reader, if the setled right of Parish Tithes be not plainly declared in these Phrases, so often occurring among these very Instances of Mr. S. viz. De rebus quae De∣cimari solent(u); Quae Decimari possunt & debent(w); De omnibus unde Decimae dantur(x); De quibus Decima danda est, & datur(y); De quibus Decima rectè datur(z); Quae Decimari debent more Catholico(a); Ʋndecunque Decimae S. Ecclesiae spectant, aut provenire debent(b); Decimam quam Parochiani dant(c); Quae Parochiani debent reddere, & fa∣cere suae matrici Ecclesiae(d); Ecclesiam cum rectitudine sua(e) &c. All these plainly shew that Parochial Tithes were u∣sual, and due to be paid by Parishoners to their Parish Church, and were a right belonging thereunto, setled by Law, Prescription, and ancient Custome; and if so, how then could any Arbitrary Consecrations be made out of them? We see by that Suit between the Parson of Frends∣bury and the Chantor of Rochester, that Parochial right was sued for, before the year 1200, for the Parsons claim was grounded upon Parochial right(f). And the Parsons consent was necessary to the Patrons alienation of Tithes; so that Alured, Priest of Stokes, about An. 1120, joyns with the Patron in the gift of that Church to the Canons of

Southwark(g), and Robert Priest of Walborton, and William Priest of Bernham, are Witnesses to the Grants of their se∣veral Churches, An. 1180(h); yea, Sarisburiensis informs us,, that Jus Parochiale cum Decimis, was judicially adjudged to Robert de Ʋngot before the year 1150(i). Which proofs, with very many in the former Chapter do so fully assure us, of the settlement of Parochial right long before these pre∣tended Grants, that this reason alone might suffice to shew they were not Arbitrary.

Secondly, If the Laity could have made any such Grants of Tithes, the Monks durst not have received them, for fear of displeasing the Pope and the Bishops; for Mr. S. tells us,

The Decrees both of the Pope and General Councils were anciently against it—and the Provincial or National Synods here had like Canons forbidding it, viz. An. 1103, in a Council under Anselm, Monks are forbid to receive Churches, unless from the Bishop(k).

Another under the Popes Legate, An. 1125, ordains,

That no Abbot, Prior, or Monk, shall take a Tithe or Eccle∣siastical benefit of a Lay mans gift, without the autho∣rity and assent of their own Bishop, and if he do, the donation is declared void(l)—and the King (saith Mr. S.) gave some allowance to these Canons(m);

but if he durst have told the truth, That King Henry the First confirmed these Canons by his Royal Authority, and there∣fore is it likely this very King should confirm so many arbi∣trary Lay Consecrations, as Mr. S. pretends? or can any think the Monks durst (in despite of the Popes Decrees, and Bishops Canons, and the Kings Confirmation added thereto) frequently receive such Consecrations? I make no question they dared not to do it without the Bishops consent, and therefore there was no Lay arbitrary Conse∣crations in or about that Age, at least no common use of them.

§. II. This large and full proof will make it unnecessary to be very particular in answering the remote Conjectures which Mr. S. still brings to establish his false Opinion.

The ancient Writ which he urges out of the Register of Fitz-herbert(n), he confesses to be a single Example, not seconded in any Law-Books elsewhere, yet against all reason he would have it refer to the common use of arbi∣trary Grants; but if any such use had been common, there would have been more Examples of such kind of prohibi∣tions. Besides, if this were not till King Johns time (as Mr. S. guesseth) then this H. Bishop of Lincoln, was Hugh Wallis, who died not till 1234, and so it comes too late for the time he limited before. As for the Writ it self, it prohibits a Cause of Tithes to be tried in the Spiritual Court, between the Precentor of Lincoln (on whom the Bishop of Lincoln, after the custom of his Predecessors had freely collated these Tithes) and the Prior of S. Kathe∣rines, who claimed them as due to one of his Parish Churches; and the reason of the prohibition is, Because the collation of these Tithes might devolve to the King by reason of custody or escheat, since the King and many of his Nobles used to confer such Tithes in some of their Demesns. But if this were a special priviledge of the King, and of many (not, all) his Nobles, and in some of their Demesns only, then doubtless it was no Common right belonging to the Lord of every Mannor, as Mr. S. hath pretended, pag. 366. Exceptio firmat regulam, this special priviledge utterly de∣stroys his universal liberty. Besides Mr. S. fallaciously puts in the word [libere] pag. 355. where he is speaking of the King and his Nobles power to collate unto these Tithes, since the Writ apparently makes a difference between the Bishops Power, and the Kings or his Nobles, in this parti∣cular, saying, Episcopi loci praedicti liberè conferre consueve∣runt; but of the King and his Nobles it only saith, Conseri∣mus (not, liberè conferimus) the reason of which difference is easily this, That Bishops might collate to them without the leave or consent of any other; but both the King and his Nobles must have the Bishops consent. And if (as he thinks, pag. 55.) these Tithes were Decimae separatae, i. e. a portion taken out of some Parish Tithes, then we can prove, that the King and his Nobles had this priviledge

(here claimed) by the Bishops consent at first, because Bi∣shops did separate such Portions by their Authority, as appears by Chartularies of Rochester, where it is said, The seperate portion of Crankburn Tithes in Hadlo Parish, was by the Bishops consent; and therefore at the Institution of a Parson of Hadlo the Bishop used to accept those separate Tithes. Now if the King or Nobles had any such privi∣ledge from the Bishop at first, it secures the right of the Clergy in disposition of Tithes, and makes not for Mr. S. his purpose. I am sure the Tithes of Harewell in his next example of a Prohibition(o), were given to the Abby of Osney by the Founder, and are named in his Charter, An. 1129, as given by the advice and confirmation of the Bi∣shop of Lincoln(p), and therefore whatever Priviledge Edmund Earl of Cornwall (then Patron of the Abby in all probability) or the King upon the wardship or escheat of that Family, might pretend; they had it at first by a Bi∣shops Grant, and so this Prohibition doth not disprove the Bishops power of disposing Tithes; and withal, since these Tithes were of old, viz. 150 year before this Pro∣hibition (which was but An. 1279) setled Canonically on the Abby of Osney, we may be confident The collating of Tithes here spoken of, could not mean arbitrary giving them to what place or person they pleased, but only the collating either of an Abbot to the whole Abby, or else of a Vicar to this Portion of Tithes, and neither of them do hurt our Opinion. Again, The special priviledge of Story, To build a Church in his Demesn, and to send his Tithes to what Church he pleased(q), shews, this was no Common right; and by the use of the time we have reason to be∣lieve, this Privledge was granted him by the Pope and Bishop of the Diocess; for if it were granted from the Se∣cular Power, it could only allow him to do it without the Licence of any Secular Superior, but doth not exclude the Bishops assent. And it is very strange that Mr. S. should first say, It is specially found, of this one man, and then infer, that this liberty was common to all.

§. III. As for the liberty challenged by Bishops and Ba∣rons in King John's time, to erect new Churches on their Land(r), it will not prove a liberty of Arbitrary Conse∣crations in Lay-men, because the Bishop of the Diocess must dedicate this new Church, and ratifie the endowment thereof, or else the building was no Church, nor did the endowment legally belong to it; nor did this destroy Pa∣rochial right, but divide those Tithes between two Churches by Ecclesiastical consent, which were formerly enjoyed by one, both for convenience of the Parishioners, and encouraging of Devotion. And the Decretal of In∣nocent, cited by Mr. S. to prove this right of the Barons, doth not say, They challenged this right without Episcopal con∣sent. The Bishops of England, in their Letter to Innocent about this matter, say, By the Custom of England, Tam Archiepiscopi, quam Episcopi, quam etiam Laici, authoritate Diocesani Episcopi possint Ecclesiam conventionalem in suo con∣struere fundo. Gervas. Dorobern. col. 1612. And the Bi∣shop of Canterbury, for his new erection at Lambeth had the Confirmations of two preceding Popes, Lucius and Ʋr∣ban, and if the Archbishop did not challenge such a right without Ecclesiastical Licence, why should the Lay-Barons do it(s)? And if Lay Barons did challenge a right of building Churches without consent, yet still the Consecra∣tion and Ratification of the endowment made the Bishops consent absolutely necessary before the design could take effect. Again, the Cases about Tithes in Johannes Saris∣buriensis do shew, that when two Churches contended about Tithes, he that proved Jus Parochiale, carried them(t). And in the latter Example, Parochial right is proved by endowment at the Consecration, Episcopo Londi∣nense praesente & approbante (saith that Author:) so that An. 1150. Parochial right was a good plea in Law, and Endowments were made valid long before that, by Bishops at the Dedication. The Donation of William Earl of Warren, which he here calls an Arbitrary Consecration(u), he himself shews was made in the presence, and by the consent of divers Bishops(w). Nor was there any need

for Mr. S. to run so low as An. 1265. to find an instance of Tithes sued for upon this ground, because they were ari∣sing within the Parish; for his former Instances out of Sarisburiensis, and divers others, confessed by him, and by me produced both in this and the former Chapters, abun∣dantly shew that Suits upon that Title were far more an∣cient, and that his English Monks either are sadly mistaken in fixing the beginning of Parochial right, or he grosly misinterprets them: see Chap. X. §. ult. And surely the Parson of Gillingham, An. 1278(x) durst not have com∣plained of the King himself, in Parliament, for detaining Tithes due to him (as growing within his Parish) De jure communi, if the Parochial right had not been setled long before; and this complaint shews the injury was very un∣usual, and the Parson very confident of his right, which doth no way hurt, but strengthen our Opinion.

§. IV. From the preceding evidence it is very plain, that whatever was done contrary to Parochial right, un∣der pretence of either Common or Canon Law in this Age, it was an Innovation and a Usurpation upon that ancient right, which was setled here long before the Con∣quest; but neither before the year 1200, nor afterward, was it lawful to dispose of Parochial Tithes without the Bishops consent. And for the Tithes of vast Forrests, and land not lying within the limits of any Parish, the Canon Law determines, they belong to the Bishop(y); and Herle, an ancient Common Lawyer, An. 1333, is of the same Opinion(z). But it seems the King, by virtue of his Prerogative, challenged a peculiar Power to dispose of these Tithes to what Church or Monastery he pleased, as King Henry the First did the Tithes of Inglewood Forrest to the Priory of Carlisle; yet let it be observed, That Henry the First (as is proved before) generally made his Grants of this kind with the Bishops consent, and so in all probability he had such consent to this gift; but however it is evident these Grants were so little used, that both the Parson of the adjacent Parish, and the Bishop, severally

claim these Tithes, and sue the Prior for them, which shews that it was not yet determined in Law, whether these Grants of the King were good or no, nor yet to whom the right of these Tithes belonged. And if we grant to Mr. S. all he desires, yet the special Priviledge of the King, is no proof of any Common right in the Subjects; nor are Tithes of vast Forrests ever limited to any Parish, a fit parallel for Parochial Tithes, which after all his pretences do still appear so anciently and firmly setled, that the Laity could never arbitrarily dispose of them, and so we dismiss this tedious Chapter.

Notes

• (o)

  Chron. w. Thorn. A. 1070.
• (p)

  Monast. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 100.
• (q)

  Ib. p. 99.
• (r)

  Ib. Vide e∣tiam Monast. Angl. T. 1. p. 13.
• (s)

  Ib. p. 284.
• (t)

  Ib. p. 108.
• (u)

  Mon. Angl. T. 2. de Coenob. Hibern. p. 1027. 1031, 1032, 1035.
• (w)

  Ib. Caenob. Scot. p. 1052, 1054, 1056.
• (x)

  Ib. Caenob. Gallic. p. 958.
• (y)

  Ib. p 958, & 961.
• (z)

  Ib. p. 978.
• (a)

  Monast. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 317.
• (b)

  Ib. p. 318.
• (c)

  Monast. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 526, 358.
• (d)

  Ib p. 681.
• (e)

  Ibid p. 360, 366, 390.
• (f)

  Ibid. p. 558.
• (g)

  Ib. p. 478.
• (h)

  Monastic. Angl. Tom. 1. pag 437.
• (i)

  Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 30.
• (k)

  Ib. p. 30.
• (i)

  Ib. Tom. 1. p. 433.
• (m)

  Ibid.
• (n)

  Ib. p 667.
• (o)

  Ibid, p. 55, 60, &c.
• (p)

  Ib. p. 574.
• (q)

  Chart. Rof∣fens. p. 215.
• (r)

  Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 420.
• (s)

  Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 596.
• (t)

  Mon. Angl. Tom 1. p. 369, 370.
• (u)

  Mon. Angl. Tom. 2. p. 86.
• (w)

  Mon. Angl. Tom. 2. p. 137:
• (x)

  Monast. ib.
• (y)

  Monast. ib. pag. 138.
• (z)

  M. Paris. vi∣ta Pauli Ab∣batis pag. 51.
• (a)

  Monastic. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 615.
• (b)

  Ib. p. 142.
• (c)

  Ib. p. 327.
• (d)

  Ib. p. 376.
• (e)

  Ib. p. 416.
• (f)

  Ib. p. 1020.
• (g)

  Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p 650, 729, 764. & T. 2. p 86, 92, 96, 274, 298, 307, &c.
• (h)

  Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 437.
• (i)

  Chron. W. Thorn. A. Dom. 1128. col 1779. & col. 1828.
• (k)

  Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 206.
• (l)

  Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 330.
• (m)

  An. 1150. Chart. Rossens. p. 23.
• (n)

  Job. Sarisb. Ep. 28. p. 504. & Ep. 84. p. 521.
• (o)

  Monastic. Tom. 1. p. 73.
• (p)

  Ib. p. 303.
• (q)

  Ib. p. 376, & 381.
• (r)

  Ib p. 470.
• (s)

  Ib. p 558.
• (t)

  Ib. p. 560.
• (u)

  Ib. p. 649.
• (w)

  Ib. p. 850.
• (x)

  Monastic. Tom. 2. p. 29.
• (y)

  Ib. p. 119.
• (z)

  Ib. p. 156.
• (a)

  Ib. p. 274.
• (b)

  Ib. p. 313.
• (c)

  Monastic. Tom. 1. p. 22, 419, 440, 644, 729. & Tom. 2. pag. 145, 220, 352, 423, 462, &c.
• (d)

  Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 107.
• (e)

  Ib. Tom. ••. p. 105.
• (f)

  Monast. Tom. 2. p. 14••.
• (g)

  Ib. p. 29.
• (h)

  Monast. Tom. 1. p. 370.
• (i)

  Ib. p. 998.
• (k)

  T. 2. p. 145.
• (l)

  Ib. p. 850.
• (m)

  Ib. p. 914.
• (n)

  Ib. p. 940.
• (o)

  T. 1. p. 660.
• (p)

  T. 2. p. 897.
• (q)

  Hoveden. An. 1177. pag. 320.
• (r)

  Monast. Tom. 1. p. 201.
• (s)

  Ib. p. 339.
• (t)

  Ibid. p. 363.
• (u)

  Ib. p. 404.
• (x)

  Ib p. 424.
• (y)

  Ib. p. 445.
• (z)

  Ib. p. 449.
• (a)

  Tom. 2. pag. 70.
• (b)

  Ib. p 313.
• (c)

  Monastic. Tom. 1. p 684.
• (d)

  Ib. p. 645.
• (e)

  Ibid. p. 476.
• (f)

  Ib. p. 1002.
• (g)

  T. 2. p. 80.
• (h)

  Ib. p. 127.
• (i)

  Ib. p. 817.
• (k)

  Ib. p. 850.
• (l)

  Mon. Angl. Tom. 2. p. 234. ibid. 245.
• (m)

  Monastic. Angl. T. 1. pag. 475.
• (n)

  Ib p. 644.
• (o)

  Ib. p. 638.
• (p)

  T. 2. p. 97.
• (q)

  Tom. 1. p. 1025, & T. 2. p. 127, 230, 276, 277, & 893.
• (r)

  Monastic. Tom. 2 p. 147.
• (s)

  T. 1. p. 30.
• (t)

  Ibid.
• (u)

  Ib. p. 433.
• (w)

  Ib. p. 668.
• (x)

  Ibid.
• (y)

  Ib. p. 142, 354, 380, &c.
• (a)

  Monast. Tom. 1. p. 29.
• (b)

  Ib. p. 420.
• (c)

  Ib. p. 59, 60.
• (d)

  Vit. Pauli Abbatis, p. 51.
• (e)

  Monast. Tom. 1. p. 334.
• (f)

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 11. p. 309.
• (g)

  Ib. p. 320.
• (h)

  Ib. p. 324.
• (i)

  Ib. p. 344.
• (k)

  Ib. p. 320.
• (l)

  Ib. p. 342.
• (m)

  Ib. p. 352.
• (n)

  Ib. p 310.
• (o)

  Chron. W. Thorn. col. 1779 & 1828.
• (p)

  Hist. Tithes, p. 322, 323.
• (q)

  Ib. p. 319.
• (r)

  Monastic. Tom. 1. p. 623.
• (s)

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 11. p. 302.
• (t)

  Monast. Tom. 2. p. 288.
• (u)

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 11. p. 305, 306, 307, 324.
• (w)

  Pag. 308, 336.
• (x)

  Pag. 319.
• (y)

  Pag. 328.
• (z)

  Pag. 328.
• (a)

  Pag. 359.
• (b)

  Pag. 333.
• (c)

  Pag 339.
• (d)

  Pag. 320.
• (e)

  Pag. 302.
• (f)

  Hist. Tithes, p. 317.
• (g)

  Monast. Tom. 2 p. 86.
• (h)

  Monastic. Tom. 1. p. 595.
• (i)

  Sarisb. Ep. 21. pag. 503.
• (k)

  Spelm. Concil. T. 2. p. 34.
• (l)

  Spelm. ibid. pag. 36.
• (m)

  Hist. Tithes, pag. 375.
• (n)

  Hist. Tithes, pag. 353.
• (o)

  Hist. Tithes, pag. 357.
• (p)

  Monast. Tom. 2. p. 137.
• (q)

  Hist. Tithes, p 36.
• (r)

  Ib. p. 361.
• (s)

  Innocent. 3. Decret. l. 1. pag. 288.
• (t)

  Sarisb. Ep. 21. p. 503. & Ep. 84. p. 521.
• (u)

  Hist. Tithes, p. 362.
• (w)

  Ib. p. 340.
• (x)

  Hist. Tithes p. 364.
• (y)

  Decretal. l. 3. tit. 30. pag. 1332.
• (z)

  Hist. Tithes, p. 368.