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. XII. Of Appropriations.

§. I. IN the next place Mr. S. makes a like unfortunate attempt to prove, that Lay Patrons did arbitra∣rily Appropriate whole Churches and Tithes to Monasteries. In the Saxon times, he saith, the Charters conveying them have usually nothing but Ecclesias, with some Land or Rent annexed(a). The reason whereof may be, either because only the Patronage was then con∣veyed, or rather, that Tithes and Churches were so constant∣ly annexed in those times (before Bishops had consent∣ed to so many Grants of Tithes disposed from the Parish Church) that it was not necessary to name more than the Church, since no Tithes were then separated from it. But those Appropriations of Bertulph, Beorred, and Edred, Saxon Kings, which he cites out of Ingulphus(b), have the Subscription and Ratification of divers Bishops, yet extant in that Author, and so were made with Ecclesiastical con∣sent

(as all such Donations in that Age were) and there∣fore they are no Arbitrary Lay Appropriations. Nor were there any such after the Conquest, for that Covenant, generally used in all these Conveyances, That the Incumbent of the Appropriate Church was to answer to the Monastery for Temporal Profits, and to the Bishop for Spiritual Jurisdiction, shews the Bishops joyned in the Conveyance, and so took care to secure their own Jurisdiction. And when we might have expected some Charters of Arbitrary Lay Appropri∣ations, Mr. S. here sets down a Bishops Confirmation of Appropriate Churches within Seventeen years after the Conquest; and the Historian saith, it was by the Kings express order,(c) and the Bishop there grants them by the words of Do & Concedo. And if the Conqueror could do this by himself, why did he order the Bishop to do it? If it be objected, The Priory of Durham was possessed of these Churches before: I answer, Whenever they were given in any time of the Saxons, the custom ever was for the Bishops to sign the Grants. But let it be noted, that all the Churches given to Monasteries in that Age were not conveyed to them pleno jure, so as the Monks could take the Profits in usus proprios, and so they were not strictly Appropriations; the Abby at first only had the Patronage, and so presented a Clerk to the Bishop, who anciently had all the Profits, till first the Monks charged their Churches with Pensions by the Bishops connivance, and afterward got them wholly Appropriate to them by Bishops Charters, reserving only a Competent portion for the Vicar, which is usually set down in the Instrument of Appropriation: but to make it plain, that no Lay-man could make a Church to be Appropriate, let us consult the Monasticon, where there are very many forms of Appro∣priations yet extant. One by John Bishop of Norwich (consecrated An. 1177) confirmed by Hubert the Arch∣bishop(d). Another Appropriating the Church of Gar∣grave to Sally, by William Bishop of York, An: 1121. Six Churches together are appropriate to Tavestoc in one Charter,(e) by Bartholomew Bishop of Exeter, An. 1159(f).

Three more Churches appropriate by the Archbishops of York, two of them by Turstan (consecrated An. 1119)(g) with many other Examples after the year 1200(h). And the form of proceeding was this, First the Patron usually petitioned the Bishop to appropriate the Church, as ap∣pears by a Charter of Roger Bishop of Worcester (consecra∣ted An. 1170)(i): Then the King also gave Licence to the Monks, — quantum in nobis est (as his Charters speak)(k), that he who had power to unite and appropriate might do it(l): And then the Bishop made his Charter of Appropria∣tion, and sometimes the Popes confirmed it, and made the Monks pay well for it(m). And if the King himself gave the Church, they were first to resign it to the Bishops dis∣posal, and he gave it back by his Charter of Appropriation(n), only reserving still what portion of the Tithes or Profits he thought fit, for the Vicars maintenance(o); all which abundantly proves, that Bishops only could appro∣priate Churches: Which yet may further appear from that Article of enquiry in the Visitation of the Bishop of Lin∣coln, An. 1230, Whether any Monks had appropriated Tithes or Churches to themselves, without the Diocesans Licence, or somewhat of that nature(p). And a Synod at Worcester, An. 1240, decrees, That all Religious Persons shall shew by what Title they possessed Tithes, contrary to the Jus commune(q). And therefore the Monks of Stanlaw prove their Title to the Church of Whally by the Patron's Gift, the Diocesan's Confirmation, and the Pope's Appropriation(r). William Archbishop of York, requires the Monks of Shrewsbury to prove their right to the Church of Kirkham, by the dona∣tion of the Earl, and the confirmation of the Archbishop(s); and the Abbot of S. Maries York is summoned to shew, by what Title he receives Parochial Tithes against the tenor of the Jus commune; and they producing the Popes Bulls, and the Archbishops old Charters, the present Archbishop con∣firmed them(t). A like summons there is from Walter Bishop of Coventry, to all the Religious Houses in his Dio∣cess(u), and another from Richard Bishop of Worcester(w). Sometimes also the King ordered Inquest to be made,

and then the Monks were to prove their Churches were Canonically appropriated to them(x); and if their Evi∣dences were burnt, they confirmed it by mens Oaths, who had seen the Bishops Charters(y). Whence it is as clear as the Sun, that no Lay-man could ever make any Appro∣priation. And indeed, the Lay-granters do express as much in their very Charters: Rees, a Prince of Wales, gives some Churches to Tallach Abby, Quantum ad Dominum fundi pertinebat(z). Nigellus de Munevil gives all the Churches of his Demesns, with their appurtenances, &c. to the Monks—as far as a Lay-man had right to give Ecclesiasti∣cal Profits, Anselm the Archbishop giving his assent and Au∣thority to the gift, An. 1095(a). Eustachius Fitz-John, An. 1150. gives a Church to Malton, As far as it was lawful for a Lay-man(b); and the same phrase is used by Roger de Flamvil in a like gift(c). Richard de Heriet gives Somer∣ford Church to the Nuns of Kington, As far as pertains to the Patron, in the presence of Herbert Bishop of Sarum, An. 1196(d). William Bishop of London, An. 1219, con∣firms Churches to Monks, which they had by the gift of Geoffry de Mandevil and his Heirs, as far as was in a Lay-mans power to give them(e). Now, though all this be so plain, yet Mr. S. proceeds to search for occasions of Cavil.

§. II. And first he saith, that in elder Appropriations the Church and Tithes passed from the Patron by his gift, as a free∣hold passeth by Deed and Livery: Neither was confirmation or assent of the Ordinary necessary, as of later time. And this he proves by one Example only, of Robert Dane, who about King Henry the Seconds time, appropriated the Church of Waldrene to the Priory of Lewes in Sussex(f). But I have given nigh an hundred Examples and evident Proofs, that the Ordinary's consent was necessary, both before Henry the Second's time, in it, and after it; and this one Exam∣ple of his, is neither ancient (being but about An. 1160) nor is it any Appropriation at all; for Robert de Dene only gives the Patronage of Waldrene Church to the Prior of

Lewes, with a Pension of Six shillings eight pence out of the whole Profits, to be paid by the Incumbent, whom he obliged to live single, or to forfeit the place, and the Prior to present another; but then let it be considered, the Bi∣shop must institute this Parson of Waldrene, and so con∣sent to these Covenants, or else they were not good in Law; and though Mr. S. have not produced the Bishops Charter, yet the practice of the time makes it probable there was one; however, being only a conveyance of the Patronage, and a very small Pension, it is impertinent∣ly brought for an instance of an Appropriation. He adds, Very many are extant, so made as well by Common Persons, as Kings in the Saxons time and since, without Confir∣mations(g). I answer, If many were so made, it is wonder he could not produce one; and for the Saxon Times I never saw one, but it was subscribed, signed, and ratified by the Bishops; and afterwards, when the Bishops by special Charters did appropriate Churches, there are innumerable of them extant, and if some be lost, it is no strange thing, considering many Lay-grants are lost also, for in some Foundations all the Lay-Charters are lost, and only the Bishops Confirmations remaining(h); yet as I will not be so vain as to argue, there never were any Lay-grants, because none are now extant: so Mr. S. must not say, there were no Bishops Confirmations, be∣cause none now are to be found. He tells us, The King and Superiour Lords confirmed ordinary Lay-mens Grants, and some say, the King did it as Supream Ordinary. I answer, That the Kings and Superior Lords Confirmations are ge∣nerally directed to the Bishop, and many Bishops Charters were made to confirm these Confirmations, by the Kings and Superior Lords special request; yea the King himself did not give Tithes and Churches, but by the consent of Bishops. King Henry the First, in his Charter to Tewks∣bury, An. 1106. saith, All these Gifts my Barons confirmed with me (naming) Girard Archbishop of York and four Bi∣shops more(i). His Charter to Eynsham was made, by the assent and counsel of his Bishops and Barons(k). His grant

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

of Tithes to Cirencester was, by the consent and authority of Pope Innocent, and by the counsel and approbation of his Arch∣bishops and Bishops(l). King Henry the Second, gives Tithes to Dodford by the advice and at the request of Bald∣win the Archbishop(m); and of this we might bring ma∣ny more Examples. And since he confesses, there were two Councils in the time of Henry the First, both con∣firmed by that King, to prohibit Lay-men from giving Churches to Monks without the Bishops assent (both cited before)(n). We may conclude, no such Lay Appro∣priations were then made, the Chartularies of Rochester have one clear Example of the use of that time, viz. about An. 1140; for it is recorded, That Alice de Elsings reque∣sted Theobald the Archbishop, to grant the Church of Elsings, built upon her Land to the Priory of Leeds, for she (as far as in her lay) had given the Temporalities of it to them for ever. And Mr. S. (for all his brags) hath not one Example of the contrary, but flies to remote Conjectures about other matters; for the Preamble of Alexanders Decretal(o) concerns not Appropriations, only it condemns a wicked and enormous Custom of investing Clerks with Churches without Institution from the Bishop; but the Decree doth excommunicate the Receiver, and all the other Decretals here cited declare the Donation to be void(p). I will not enter into the dispute about Investitures, but keeping close to the business of Appropriations of Parish Churches to Monasteries, shall note, that Mr. S. offers but one Exam∣ple of a Parson that was Instituted by a Lay-man, Legitimè institutus à W. Nobili viro(q); and this is so notorious a forgery that he may well be ashamed of it; for the Decre∣tal he cites hath no such matter in it, speaking only of a Parson E. who (as the Bishop of Exeters Letter informed the Pope) was legally instituted by R. his Predecessor of happy memory(r), that is, by Robert Bishop of Exeter; and this W. the Noble man, would have put this E. out of the Living, though he had been so instituted, upon pretence that E. had resigned it to his Lords Chaplain, now deceased, and so the Church (as W. the Noble man and Patron pretended)

was void, and he would have presented another. So that this shews the use of Institutions as early as Robert of Ex∣eters time, An. 1150. and manifests how bad a Cause Mr. S. manages, since it needs these base supports of manifest false quotation.

§. III. The Grant of Rents and Pensions out of Recto∣ries by Patrons, would shew somewhat of arbitrary dis∣posal of part of the Church Revenues, if it could be proved to be done without the Bishops consent. But the Grant of six Marks per Annum to S. Noete out of the Church of Wimbish, by Robert Fitz-Walter in King Johns time(s), plainly supposes the Bishops consent, because the Charter saith, Whatever Parson upon his or his Heirs Presen∣tation, shall be instituted to Wimbish, he shall give security to the Monks for this payment. Wherefore, since the Bishop was to take security at his Institution, we may be sure he allowed of the Pension. And the Chartularies of Roche∣ster will more fully explain this, where Gilbert de Glanvil (about An. 1200) grants to the Priory of Leeds, by the will and consent of Roger de Mereworth, Patron, and Martin, Parson of Mereworth, Forty shillings in the name of a per∣petual Benefice, to be received from the said Martin while he lived, and afterward from his Successors —and the said M. sware, to make this payment in the Bishops presence. So that we see these Grants were made before the Bishop, and he con∣firmed them; yea, and the Incumbents consent was neces∣sary also, for in the same Records, William Parson of Fren∣desbury consents to make Strodes (formerly one of his Chap∣pels) to be a Parish Church. And the Monasticon hath many full instances of the Incumbents consent to all Grants concerning the Tithes of his Church. Maud, Countess of Warwic, gives Tadcaster to the Monks of Sally, Nicholas Parson of that Church being present, and consenting(t). And the Patron undertakes to satisfie the Parson of Saltry, when he gives that Church to the Abby(u). The Parson also did consent(w), and if not, the Patron and Bishop both in their Grants are forced to save and except to them their

possession during their life(x); yea Mr. S. confesseth at last, pag 381. That the assent of the Patron and Bishop was sometimes had, and he proves it by a full instance, An. 1196. and though he say, he never met with an instance wherein the Incumbent was Grantor, yet the Register of Rochester hath two Charters; the first of which, made by Gilbert Parson of Sutton, declares,

That the Bishop of Rochester, by his consent and will, had made a Grant of Tithes out of new Tillage in his Parish, to the Monks of Ro∣chester, and to confirm it as far as concerned him and his Church of Sutton he seals this Grant, An. 1192.

And in another Charter,

Thomas Parson of Koclestan, grants to the Hospital at Strodes, Ten shillings out of his Church yearly, assigned to the said Hospital by Gilbert Bishop of Rochester; and that this may be firm for ever, the said Parson sets his Seal to it.

Where we see both Bishops and Incumbents joyned in the Grant of Rents and Pen∣sions out of Rectories, and so it was no arbitrary Act of the Patron. As for the Fine he cites(y), An. 1184, it seems the Church of Budcketun was made void at that time when the Patronage was in dispute, and therefore no Incumbent is na∣med; but since the Prior of Lewes quits his whole claim for a Pension of 4 s. per An. we may reasonably believe it was only an old Pension renewed, or else the Prior would scarce have taken so small a compensation for his claim. However, it is sure the Patron and Prior both were sure of the Bishops consent, because they agree the Parson, Qui in eadem Ecclesiâ, per ipsum R. (the Patron) aut haeredes suos in∣stituetur, post institutionem suam coram Episcopo fidelitatem praestabit, &c. that he will pay the aforesaid Four shillings. Nor need we be startled at the word Instituted, which is here used for the Patrons presenting, since the Incumbent was to go to the Bishop for admittance after such presenta∣tion by the Patron, and then he was to give security to the Bishop for this payment, because indeed the Grant had been void, if not made with his consent. The like may be said to his other instance of the Church of Kirkham(z), An. 1196. since there also the Incumbent was to give Se∣curity

before the Bishop for true payment of the Pension. And indeed Mr. S. begins now to abate of his confidence, and (after a confession, that the Parson and Bishops assent was sometimes had) he only says now, It may be strongly conjectured, it was not thought altogether necessary; but our express Proofs shew it was necessary: to which we may add, The Confirmation of Benedict Bishop of Rochester (An. 1214) of a Pension of Forty shillings per An. out of the Church of Chealks, to the Monks of Norwich. And another of Five pound per An. to the same Monks from the same Church, Confirmed by Richard Bishop of Rochester, An. 1260. Both extant in those Chartulary Pensions, therefore were then confirmed by Bishops: And for the Bishops use of In∣stituting, he grants pag. 382. They most usually Instituted also where Lay-men were Patrons, after Anselm's time (An. 1114); And this he proves by Turstan Archbishop of Yorks grant∣ing power to the Archdeacon of Richmund to Institute (An. 1120)(a); and by two Decretals, one of which or∣ders the Incumbent at his Institution by the Bishop, to swear he will pay the Canonical Pensions(b). The other Decretal gives the Bishop power to refuse him that is presented, if he judge him unfit(c). And both a Chief Justice Glanvil, and a Learned Church-man, are here by Mr. S. brought in for evidence, of the Bishops usual Instituting in the time of Henry the Second, which utterly confutes his false Assertion, That Lay Patrons did arbitrarily fill their Churches; for they could not do it without the Bishop liked their Clerk, and ratified the Presentation by his Institution. As for the scruple he raises about the Archdeacons Instituting, and not the Bishop(d), it is well known that the Archdeacon is Oculus Episcopi, and but his Vicar in this Act(e); and in the vacancy he may suspend(f), receive Resignations(g), or excommunicate Intruders(h); but they are forbid to do these things Propriâ Autoritate(i). And for Mr. S. his In∣stance of a Writ directed to the Archdeacon for filling of a Church in Lincoln Diocess, An. 1207 or 1208, it is certain there was no Bishop of Lincoln at that time, for William of Blois died An. 1206, and Hugo Wallis was not

Consecrated till An. 1209(k); in this Vacancy therefore the Writ must needs be directed to the Archdeacon. And for the Institutions he speaks of pag. 385. by the Arch∣deacon of Leicester, An. 1221. they were either by Com∣mission from the Bishop, or else during the time that Hugh de Wallis was excommunicated by the Pope(l), for Lincoln was not vacant then. And for Induction, we are sure it hath been given by the Archdeacon ever since the time of Pope Adrian, An. 1156(m), and Johannes Sarisburiensis(n): so that after all this dust raised, our great Antiquary can find nothing yet, to disprove the Bishops consent to all fair dispositions of Church Revenues.

§. IV. Another Argument of Patrons disposing Churches without the Bishops consent, Mr. S. takes from two Canons, forbidding the Sons of Priests to inherit their Fathers Benefices(o), or to claim them by succession, or for any Incumbent to appoint his own Successor(p); which he supposes could not be done, if the Bishop had then Instituted upon presen∣tation, as is now usual. But I reply, The very Bishops sometimes consented to such Succession, which occasioned that Canon in a London Council to forbid them to consent to it(q); yet above four year after the first Canon, the Pope by a Decretal to Anselm, allows him to admit the Sons of Priests into Churches, since the most and best of the English Clergy then were such(r). But several of Mr. S. his Quo∣tations here out of the Canon Law, do shew that the Bi∣shops did institute Priests Sons into their Fathers Bene∣fices(s). His third Quotation speaks of a Priest, the Son of a former Incumbent, who had Canonically got the Living, and enjoyed it Thirty year, about An. 1150(t). The fourth is the same Case, saying more plainly, That he who possessed the Church of C. Jure haereditario, did Cano∣nically obtain it, i. e. by the Bishops Institution(u). The Eighth Quotation shews, that Incumbents of Livings be∣longing to Abbies, promised Pensions to the Monks on condition they woul present their Sons after their decease(w); which implies, the Bishops would allow such Suc∣cessions

till the Pope here forbid it. The last Quotation directs the Bishop, in what case he may admit Sons(x). These therefore do expresly shew, that Priests Sons did often succeed their Fathers by the Institution of Bishops, and therefore such succeeding in Benefices is no good Ar∣gument, that the Bishops did not Institute in those days, or that Patrons without their consent could dispose of their Church Livings. His Second and Seventh Quotati∣ons, forbid Bishops to admit such Incumbents as Patrons nomi∣nated, on condition of others to succeed them(y), and his Sixth Quotation expresly mentions the Patrons presenting to the Bishop(z): yet these Mr. S. brings in (hoping they would never be examined) to prove Patrons giving Livings to Priests Sons without the Bishops consent, which is flatly contradicted by Seven of his Nine places brought to prove it, and the other Two places neither affirm nor de∣ny the Bishops consent. As for the Verdict, An. 1195, of a Priest that gave a Living to his Son, according to the Custom of Cambridge then, let it be noted this Priest was both Patron and Incumbent, and so might well be said to give his Son the Living, if he gave him only a Presentation to it, to intitle him to the Bishops Institu∣tion; and those words, According to the Custom of Cam∣bridge then, are put in, because of old, Priests Sons there might have succeeded their Fathers, though now when this Verdict was given, such Succession was not allowed. But suppose Mr. S. could find some few irregular Patrons and Priests, who in contempt of the Bishops ancient right, and the Laws did dispose of their Livings without his consent; yet we see this course was illegal, and the more usual custom was in all times to get the Bishops con∣sent.

§. V. We have proved, that Bishops alone admitted all Clerks to Churches in the first Ages, and when Patrons were allowed to nominate, still the Bishop was to ap∣prove, Chap. VI. §. 3. and we have shewed, that Bishops did Institute here long before the year 1200; so that we do

not thank Mr. S. at all for granting, That after this time, neither Kings nor other Patrons filled their Churches otherwise, than by Presentation to the Bishop(a); for we may be sure Bishops Instituting was long used here, before the Law of Lapse (which is grounded on it) was made: yet he truly cites Hoveden to shew this Law was made in Alexander's Lateran Council, An. 1179(b); and he might have found in the same Author, that the Dean of York did plead this very Law of the Lateran Council, for his refusing an Archdeacon of the West-riding, presented by the Arch∣bishop after the Six Months was expired, An. 1195(c); and therefore we need not wonder it was alledged here in Courts of Justice very anciently, and become Consuetudo regni Angliae(d), when it had continued above an hun∣dred years. But Mr. S. wanting better Arguments, falls to criticize upon the old form of the Writ of Quare Im∣pedit, hoping to squeeze somewhat but of it to prove, that Lay Patrons anciently invested Clerks into Parish Churches without the Bishop: but I think this Writ will prove the contrary, for first, this Writ could not be older than the Bishops power of refusing Institution to Incumbents, and the form is, to order the Bishop, That he justly, &c. permit the Patron to present a fit Person to such a vacant Church belonging to his donation. Here the word [Permit] de∣clares it must be done by the Bishops leave, and he also is Judge whether the Parson be fit or no. The word [Donation] implies no more than giving a Title, and [Praesentare] signifies no more than to Present a Clerk to the Bishop, no not in the Decretals he cites, where Re∣presentare is also used in the same sense(e), as any man may see who will examine the places: And to say, that [Praesentare] is taken for constituting a Priest in that sense that Timothy and Titus did [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Ordain Elders in every City, Titus I. ver. 5. (as Mr. S. very absurdly affirms) is to make Lay Patrons Bishops, and give them power of Or∣dination. And if he that only hath the bare nomination of a Clerk, be said [Praesentare;] then surely to Present cannot signifie Investing, or Compleat putting into possession;

for Mr. S. saith, pag. 86. The Patrons at this day have no more power but of Nomination, which gives no interest or pos∣session. And yet Patrons have now as much power as they had of old, for Mr. S. confesseth here(f), that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the oldest word used in this matter, even in Justinian's Law, which he here cites; by which it is plain, that of old Patrons had no power but of bare Nomination, and if they have exercised any more since, it hath been by Usurpation. But the strangest thing of all is, that Mr. S. should cite Cicero's Epistles to prove, that Nominatio signifies, to invest with an Office: When Brutus there, upon the Vacancy of the Consulship, desires Cicero (who, as being Augur, was to name the Candidates for vacant Offices) to name Bibulus, Neque enim (saith he) digniorem nominare potes quam Bibulum(g); but though the Augur named the Candidates, the People in Comitiis chose whom they pleased; and it was not the Augur's naming (no more than it is the Patrons presenting) that put them into the Office, but the Peoples approbation; and though 'tis like Cicero did name Bibulus, yet History shews he did not get the place: so that Nominatio doth not at all signifie to invest into an Office, in Cicero, nor had the Patrons ever any such Power legally vested in them. All which strongly proves, that the Church Profits were always, and ought to be disposed by the Bishops consent.

Notes

• (a)

  Hist. Tithes, pag 370.
• (b)

  Ingulph. hist. p. 490, 492, 498.
• (c)

  Hoveden, part. 1. p. 263. An. 1083.
• (d)

  Monast. Angl. Tom. 1. p 638.
• (e)

  Ibid. p. 842.
• (f)

  Ibid. p. 998.
• (g)

  Tom. 2. p. 103, 104.
• (h)

  Ib. pag. 57, 208, 433, &c.
• (i)

  Ib. p. 409.
• (k)

  T. 1. p. 493. & T. 2. p. 319.
• (l)

  T. 1. p. 493. & ibid. 489.
• (m)

  Tom. 1. pag. 898.
• (n)

  T. 2. p. 665.
• (o)

  Tom. 1. pag. 506, & Tom. 2. 265, 656, &c.
• (p)

  Spelm. Con∣cil. Tom. 2. p. 193.
• (q)

  Ib. p. 254.
• (r)

  Monastic. Tom. 1. p. 902.
• (s)

  Ib. p. 380.
• (t)

  An. 1344. Tom. 1. p. 392.
• (u)

  An. 1319. ibid. p. 1022.
• (w)

  An. 1404. Tom. 2. p. 856.
• (x)

  Ib. Tom. 2: p. 803.
• (y)

  T. 1. p. 207. Tom. 2. p. 92
• (z)

  Monast. Tom. 1. p. 466.
• (a)

  Ib. p. 560.
• (b)

  T. 2 p. 816.
• (c)

  Ib. p. 818, 819.
• (d)

  Ib. p 887.
• (e)

  T. 1. p. 364.
• (f)

  Hist. Tithes, p. 373.
• (g)

  Ib. p. 374.
• (h)

  Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 476. 404, 420, 442, & Tom. 2. 432, 433, &c.
• (i)

  Monast. T. 1. p. 162.
• (k)

  An. 1••09. ibid. p. 265.
• (l)

  An 1133. Tom. 2. p. 89.
• (m)

  Ib. p. 3••7.
• (n)

  Ch. xi. §. 1. in fine.
• (o)

  Append. ad Concil. Later. par. 28. c. 11. ap. Bin. Tom. 3. p. 2. pag. 620.
• (p)

  Decret. l. 3. tit. 38. cap. 10. pag. 1443. item cap. 11, & 21.
• (q)

  Hist. Tithes, pag. 378.
• (r)

  Append. ad Concil. Lat. par. 8. c. 14. Bin. Tom 3. par. 2. p. 589.
• (s)

  Hist. Tithes, p 378.
• (t)

  Monastic. Tom. 1. p. 843.
• (u)

  Ib. p. 850.
• (w)

  Ib Tom. 2. pag. 80.
• (x)

  T. 1. p. 638. Tom. 2. p. 97. pag. 409.
• (y)

  Hist. Tithes, pag. 379.
• (z)

  Hist. Tithes, p. 381.
• (a)

  Decret. l. 3. tit. 8. cap. 6. p. 1163.
• (b)

  Ib. l. 2. tit. 24. c. 11. p. 874.
• (c)

  Ib. l. 3. tit. 38. c. 24. pag. 1452.
• (d)

  Hist. Tithes, p. 383.
• (e)

  Fulberti Ep. 34. Sarisb. ep. 1. pag. 499.
• (f)

  Idem Ep. 3.
• (g)

  Id. Ep. 5.8. Ivo Ep. 1.
• (h)

  Ivo Epist. 131.
• (i)

  Append. ad Concil. La••er. par. 24. cap. 2. Bin. T. 3. par. 2. p. 614
• (k)

  Godwin. de Vit. praesul. pag. 347.
• (l)

  Ib. p. 347.
• (m)

  Decret. l. 3. Tit. 8. c. 6. p. 1163.
• (n)

  Sarisb. Ep. 1.
• (o)

  An. 1103. Spelm. Concil. Tom. 2. p. 24.
• (p)

  An. 1125. p. 34.
• (q)

  An. 1237. ib. p. 226.
• (r)

  An. 1107. ib. p. 29.
• (s)

  Hist. Tithes, pag. 386.
• (t)

  Decret. l. 2. Tit. 20. cap. 7. pag. 766.
• (u)

  Append. ad Concil. Later. par. 8. cap. 22. Bin. T. 3. par. 2. pag. 590.
• (w)

  Ib. par. 28. cap. 8. p. 620.
• (x)

  Ib. par. 49. c. 14. pag. 640.
• (y)

  Decret l. 1. tit. 35. cap. 5. pag. 484.
• (z)

  Append. ad Concil. Later. par. 19. cap. 1. Bin. p. 609.
• (a)

  Hist. Tithes, p. 387.
• (b)

  Hoveden pars poster. p. 336.
• (c)

  Ib. p. 430. b.
• (d)

  An. 1281. Hist. Tithes, pag. 390.
• (e)

  Decret. l. 3. tit. 39. cap. 11. p. 1467. Et ib. Tit. 5. cap. 31. p 1150. Et l. 5. Tit. 33. cap. 3. pag. 1962.
• (f)

  Hist. Tithes, pag. 393.
• (g)

  Review, p. 471.