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. VI. The Practice of Tithes from the year 800, until the year 1200.

§. I. THe Testimonies for Practice and Opinion are now so many, and so clear, that they admit of no evasion; for which cause Mr. S. hath pas∣sed them over very briefly, as he hath done also the History of the Canons and Laws for due Payment, to make room for his new device of Arbitrary Consecrations; yet first for the Practice he grants, That not only from Devotion, but through Ecclesiastic Censure also, aided with Secular Power, a∣bout the very beginning of this 400 years many Churches of the Western Empire had Tithes paid as a duty(o), And though he might have found an hundred plain proofs of this, yet he (who designs to pick out those Evidences that seem the slightest) chooses to instance in an Epistle of Alcuinus, written to perswade Charlemain, not to impose the yoke of Tithes on the newly converted Huns and Saxons, so as to force every Family to a full payment of them(p); but he wilfully

conceals, that the Emperor did not follow this advice, "For the King having imposed on them the yoke of Christ (saith Krantzius)

left this order in the Province, That the People should be excused from Tribute, but should re∣main obliged to the Churches and Bishops by the Law of Tithes(q). And another Historian saith, "Being now conquered and converted too, both Rich and Poor were by Law obliged to pay to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and to his Priests, the Tithe of all their Cattel, Fruits, Tillage, and of all that they had(r).

And surely if Mr. S. had been impartial, he should rather have related the Emperors Practice than private Advice, which took no effect; yet from Alcuinus Epistle we may infer, That if Charlemain so strictly imposed the Laws for Tithes on his New Conquests, he would not relax these Laws in his own Country, where Opinion and ancient Custom had setled Tithes long before his Civil Laws for Tithes were made. So that it is both improbable and untrue which Mr. S. (to make way for his arbitrary Consecrations) af∣firms, viz. That the execution of those Laws soon after failed, and this practice of payment became to be of rare use(s). To confute which, we might here bring innumerable Evidences of the due payment of Tithes in the French Empire, but that we shall have occasion to mention them as we go a∣long; at present therefore we will only note, that Mr. S. himself in his Review, cites Hincmarus and Rabanus Mau∣rus in the Margen, but doth not transcribe the passages which indeed overthrow this false Assertion, for Hinc∣marus saith, Ausoldus, a Bishop of that time, forbid Prayers to be said in a Chappel, till the People of that Town paid their Tithes to the Priest, according to the Ancient custom(t). And the Century Writers mention an Oath which was wont to be taken in Rabanus Maurus his time by the Laity, to prove they had duly paid Tithes(u); to which we might add, that Alcuinus judged it a Sin fit to be confessed by a Peni∣tent, if he had omitted to pay Tithes, as was shewed be∣fore: But we need not multiply Testimonies in so clear a case, nor question the payment where Christianity was

setled since in New converted Countries they were setled after the Example of the French Empire, of which one Example here may suffice,

Mieceslaus, first Christian King of Poland, erected Bishopricks, and by a perpetual De∣cree endowed them with Tithes of all kind of Fruits of his own and his Nobilities Lands, so that the Laity should carry them after Harvest to the appointed place —there were Priests also, who had Lands given them by the King and rich Men, and certain Tithes assigned them by the Bishops(w).

This model being after the German pattern, whence the Preachers of the Gospel came, doth enough shew the practice of Tithes did continue there by virtue of the Canons and Imperial Laws for many years. But Mr. S. is so very large in his Arbitrary Consecrations, which he hopes will undermine the right of Tithes, that we must not enlarge on this Subject.

§. II. If we reflect upon the Opinions, the Canons, and Secular Laws of this Age concerning the Right of Tithes, it cannot but seem very strange, that the Laity in despite of all these should dispose of their Tithes as they pleased, yet this is that which Mr. S. here undertakes to make out, but by Proofs so mistaken, so weak, and so falsly alledged, that to examine the particulars is enough to confute this his new device of Arbitrary Consecration. First, He brings divers Phrases out of some Councils about the beginning of this Period, which he fancies point at the use of such Con∣secrations, but we judge they disprove them. First, The Council of Mentz. Decrees,

That if any man will be∣queath any thing of his propriety to some other place, he shall not take away Decimationem proventus priori Ec∣clesiae legitimè assignatam(x).

Where we see Tithes were by Bishops so legally assigned to Parish Churches, that if a Lay-man would give any thing to a new erected Church, he could not give his Tithes which were setled by Law. Secondly, The Council of Mentz, An. 890, forbids Lay-mens retaining Tithes,

For the Priest who serves in loco ubi decimae antiquitùs fuerint consecratae,

he only shall have

them(y); which Place where Tithes were anciently conse∣crated, is meant of the Parish Church, to which Tithes were annexed by the Bishop at its first consecration; for the Bishop by the old. Canons was to do this before he consecrated any Church, and he only was to set out Parishes and settle Tithes on the several Churches(z). Thirdly, The Second Council of Mentz mentions, Decimae quae singulis dantur Ecclesiis(a); but the meaning is not of Tithes given arbitrarily, but given ac∣cording to Laws Civil and Ecclesiastical then in force, as the Capitular he cites here doth prove; and the old Law which he also mentions here, more fully expresses it by—per justitiam dari debet(c); and thereupon Hincmarus Rhemensis saith, Enquiry must be made what is spared of the Tithes, which be∣long to the Church by the holy Canons(d); yea Mr. S. himself saith, By the Laws of this time every Rector should have enjoyed the Tithes where he administred the Sacraments, pag. 72.(b) which he proves by the fore-cited Decree of Pope Leo the Fourth, which saith, That he and his Predecessors had ordained, That the People should fully pay Tithes only to their Baptismal Church(e), and by the frequent Laws for it in the Capitulars; he might have proved it also by almost all the Councils of this Age: yet, as if all the Canons of Councils, Decrees of Popes, and Laws of Princes had been meer Bruta fulmina, he still says, They were little obeyed, but hath no other way to prove so improbable a fancy, than barely by saying so, and by bringing in the Laws that forbid taking Tithes from Churches, to which of right they belong, to make it out that Men did give Tithes to what Churches they pleased(f). I am sure this Law orders the Kings Officer to di∣strain for the Tithe so arbitrarily given from the Parish Church, and to force the Offender to restore the Tithe with its forfeiture; and therefore Mr. S. prays you (before he cites it) to believe it was not put in execution. I pray, why not? Surely for no other reason, but that if it were executed it spoils his project of Arbitrary Consecration. Surely he thinks the French Emperors very weak to make so many Laws, and never look to their execution, this would the way to have made their Persons and Laws both to be have been contemptible; but he grants a∣bove,

pag. 70, that the Secular Arm did now aid the Church in forcing Men to pay Tithes; and here he confesses the Clergy were to be deprived if they presumed to perswade Strangers to come to their Churches, or to give them Tithes belonging to other Churches(g); and the Laity are strictly forbidden to come into any but their own Pa∣rish Church, except in a Journey, or on occasion of a Law-Suit(h). Surely the Parochial-right was well setled then, when the Clergy were so punished for doing any thing against it, and the Laity so strictly forbidden all that might tend to it. But at last he finds a complaint in Italy, that (Quidam Laici, is the word) Some Lay-men did give away their Tithes to other Churches at their pleasure(i); and be∣cause it is forbidden there, thence he infers, it was usually practiced. I reply, That the Fact of some Lay-men, doth not imply usual practice, much less any right, for some Lay-men committed Incest, Sodomy, &c. as we can in∣fer from Canons forbidding them; but these were neither very usually done, nor done at all by right. I am sure this Canon saith, this disposal of Tithes is known to be al∣together against the Law of God and the holy Canons. And the Emperor Lambertus threatens, severely to punish all that in contempt of the Canons of Holy Fathers, and the Capitulars of his Progenitors, presumed either to give or receive Tithes in this manner(k). And before him one of the Popes had excommunicated both the Givers and Receivers(l). All which abundantly shews, that it could not be done very often, and whensoever it was, it was condemned and pu∣nished both by the Church and State, and therefore surely the Acts of wicked and Lawless men cannot prove that the Laity had any right to make Arbitrary Consecrations, any more than the like facts of such persons can prove Simony, Bribery, or Perjury to be right, because some have done these acts.

But we hasten to his Examples, by which he is very con∣fident he shall prove these Arbitrary Consecrations, though I doubt not to shew in every one of the particulars, that they do all either virtually or expresly contain the Bishops consent, and are not arbitrary consecrations of the Laity;

But Assignations of some portions of Tithes by the Bishops consent to some particular Church or Monastery, and if this could not be done without the Bishops leave, then it was no Arbitrary Consecration.

It is somewhat strange that Mr. S. his first instance of Arbitrary Consecrations should be of the French Princes, who made such strict Laws against them, and if the elder Pipin, Charles Martel, and Caroloman, Ancestors of Charles the Great, did assign the Tithe of their Customs about Ʋ∣trecht to that Cathedral, this is no good proof of Arbi∣trary consecration of Parochial Tithes; for first the Tithes of Customs, as also of Wreck, Treasure-trove, and Fish∣ings, were not ordinary Tithes belonging to any Parish Church. Secondly, It is no more but an assignation to a Cathedral Church of such Tithes within the Diocess as were not before ('tis likely) claimed by any Parochial Church. Thirdly, This Charter was made as the very words of it declare,

because Boniface the Archbishop de∣sired it, who as Guardian and Bishop then presided over the Church of Ʋtrecht(m).

Which Sentence Mr. S. conceals, as shewing the Bishops consent, and sufficiently manifesting this was no Lay arbitrary consecration.

Secondly, Gutha's Promise to the Bishop of Ʋtrecht, to endow a new built Church (which he gave to the Church of Ʋtrecht) with the Tithes of four Villages(n), shews, that the Bishop was to be made acquainted how the Laity disposed of the Tithes in their Diocesses; and if Gutha could have done this arbitrarily, why did he apply himself to the Bishop? Indeed the custom of Germany was, That all the Tithes in the Diocess should be given to the Bishop, who distributed so much of them to the Country Clergy as he thought fit; and if this Custom (as is very likely) then obtain∣ed at Ʋtrecht, this may easily be discerned to be no more, but that usual endowing of new Churches with Tithes, which the Builders were obliged to consent to, before the Bishop might be allowed to consecrate the Church; but it was the Bishops Act at consecration that gave that particular Church a right to those Tithes, not the Lay Mans Promise.

Thirdly, If Raginer and Rigimer, two Dukes of Lorrain, did endow two Monasteries with Decimas quas habebant, the Tithes that they had in two several Towns, that phrase, Which they had, implies this was rather a restitution of some infeo∣date Tithes taken from the Church by Charles Martel, and given to these Princes, than any original Grant; and it is no wonder if the Bishops were ready to consent to Lay-mens giving back such Tithes either to Churches or to Monaste∣ries, rather than keep them in their own Hands, however the Law at that time, and the Custom also, was, That these endowments of Monasteries should be made by the Bishop of the Diocess where the Tithes lay, in whom it was believed the right of all Tithes was originally vested, and by whose Act Tithes were then only judged to be le∣gally conveyed, as the next Example would have fully shewed, if Mr. S. had fairly related it. For,

Fourthly, The Tithes given to the Monks of Clugny were only Tithes of their own demesn Lands, which were then called Decimas indominicatas(o); and these Tithes were not first given them by Lewis his Charter, An. 939; and after confirmed by succeeding Popes, as Mr. S. unjustly pretends(p), for the very words of this Charter of Lewis the Fourth are, We confirm those Tithes, which by the Popes privi∣ledge and the Charters of Bishops, they have procured, and do hold and enjoy; which doth evidently shew, that the Church-Men first gave these Tithes to the Monks, and Lewis only confirmed them afterward; and this manifests Mr. S. his integrity also, who cannot be excused for omitting this passage here, by saying, he did not see it, since he doth cite this very passage of the Charter afterwards(q), and there expresly tells us, it was only Lewis his Confirmation of what Bishops had given before; yet here he most dis∣ingenuously brings it for an Example of arbitrary Lay consecration. But nothing is plainer than that Bishops did in this Age actually grant those Tithes which Mona∣steries had, by Charters, having the very words of Damus & concedimus, as Mr. S. here confesses concerning Adhemar Bishop of Xantoign; nor was it done by one Bishop only,

for an Abbot of Clugny, who lived a little after, saith, They had right to those Churches with all their Revenues, which they justly, freely, and Canonically possessed, being bestowed on them by the Bishops, without any Mony given for them(r); which shews these Monks had no Tithes, but by Bishops Grants.

Fifthly, The Abby of Vendosm, founded (not as Mr. S. mistakes, An. 1050, but) An. 1033(s), was indeed endow∣ed with Tithe of Salt-pits, which was no ordinary Tithe; and yet Mr. S. confesses that Geoffry of Vendosm alledges the Grants of the Bishop of Xantoign's Predecessors, to justifie the right of his Monastery to them: and since the first Donation was by a Bishop, I wonder how Mr. S. came to bring in this as an Example of Lay consecrations. This was a Grant made by a Church-man, and confirmed by Pope Ʋrban, An. 1088, (that is, 'tis likely almost as soon as these Tithes were first granted) as this same Geoffry of Vendosm doth affirm in this very Epistle which Mr. S. cites(t). And within a short time after, viz. An. 1120, Mr. S. confesses that it was generally believed in all France and Italy, that even Churches were obliged to pay Tithes to other Churches, if the one had Lands in the others Parish, so firmly then was the Parochial Right setled(u). Whence we may conclude, that his next instance of Ansellus de Gar∣landa's Grants to his new Abby of Gornay, An. 1124, had the Bishops consent and confirmation, or otherwise they had not been valid either by the Law of the Time, or the Custom of Normandy, where the Bishops always gave leave to the founding and endowing of Abbies, of which there is an Example An. 1080(w); and many other proofs in the second Tome of the Monasticon. Whence we may conclude, That the Confirmation of Pope Innocent the Third, of all the Tithes given to the Abby of Holy Cross, and S. Leoffrid in Normandy, was grounded upon former Charters of Bishops, this Bull of the Pope bearing date 100 year after the first Foundation, and it mentions ex∣presly the Grant of the Bishop of Eureux, in whose Diocess this Abby was; and since the Canonical Rights of that Bi∣shop are reserved in these Tithes, as the Bull mentions, we

may be sure these Tithes were granted at first by the Bishops consent: Nor can we imagine this Pope Innocent would confirm so many arbitrary Lay Grants of Tithes, who saith, No Lay-men can grant Tithes to others, because they can∣not rightly possess Tithes themselves(x). And indeed all the Popes Bulls do confirm only those Tithes which the Abbies did justly and Canonically possess. Now according to the Canons no Abby justly possessed Tithes but by the Bishops Grant; so that hitherto we have not one full or fair proof of any arbitrary Lay Consecration.

Sixthly, But finally Mr. S. crouds into his Margen a heap of Examples of Arbitrary Consecrations, as he pretends, whereas every one of them, being searched, do only shew Mr. S. his unjust dealing in concealing the Bishops consent, which is mentioned in every one of these Quotations. First, That of Galfridus, Vicecomes, expresly speaks of the consent of Theodoric, Bishop of Chartres(y). Secondly, That of William Earl of Nivers, saith, Hugo Nivernensis Episcopus procuravit, & Ivo Carnotensis confirmavit(z). Thirdly, That of Adelardus hath these words, Ego Rainal∣dus Andegavorum Episcopus donum quod Adelardus —per ma∣num nostram Sancto Albino de decimâ portus castelli sui fecit — confirmavi(a). Fourthly, That of Godfry of Bulloign mentions Burchard Bishop of Cambray, declaring, That the Donor intreated it might be confirmed by the Authority of his Decree(b). Fifthly, The last Decree of Pope Innocent was only a confirmation of what the Archbishop of the Province had by his Charter granted before, Sicut (saith he) in ejusdem Archiepiscopi Authentico plenius continetur, con∣firmamus(c). So that every one of these directly destroy his false Opinion of Lay Arbitrary Consecrations, nor can we imagine Mr. S. would gave produced them here, but that he hoped his Reader would take them on his word, without ever searching the places.

He proceeds to hook in all passages that might give any colour to these pretended Arbitrary Consecrations, of which he explains that Arbitrary disposition of Tithes to the Poor, about the year 1200(d), condemned (he saith)

by Pope Innocent the Third. But if it were poor Monks to whom these Tithes were given, why should this Pope con∣demn the practice, since he produces the same Pope in the very last Page, viz. 77, as confirming such Grants to the Monasteries; wherefore though it be true that Pauperes be sometimes put for Monks, yet here it signifies the ordinary Poor, who are plainly meant as well in the Sermon he cites, as in the Epistles(e), and Decretals of the same Pope(f). And in all these places the practice is condemned, though it be there intimated to be occasioned by the uncharitable∣ness of the Clergy, which moved some Lay-men to give part of their Tithes immediately to the Poor, whom the Clergy so much neglected, and therein did an act of In∣justice under pretence of Charity, as those Decretals de∣clare: So that this doth not shew any right of disposition of Tithes in Lay-men originally, but an illegal act of some few, grounded on the Clergies Male-administra∣tion.

The Practice of those Bishops, who claimed (not Predial, but) Personal Tithes of a Family after its removal into ano∣ther Diocess(g), shews, that not only continual payment of many years, but the Doctrine of the Fathers, and the Laws of God and Men, had now so setled Tithes, that they must be paid to some Church or other; and this being only a Question which Church had right to these Tithes, and a dispute between two Bishops about the distribution of them, is nothing at all to Lay-mens arbitrary giving them, but rather supposes the Clergy were to determine to what Church men should pay; and the Pope here blames the Bishop from whose Diocess the Family was removed for claiming Personal Tithes(h): and soon after another Pope expresly determines the matter, viz. That predial Tithes shall be paid to the Church in whose Parish the Land lies, and personal to that in whose Parish the man dwells(i). Yea, and the Decretal Epistle here cited says nothing of any Arbi∣trary Consecration, but expresly saith, Their Ancestors had paid Tithes to their own Bishop or Priest in former times, which implies an Ancient right and due.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Lastly, He would infer Arbitrary Consecrations from the Phrase Redimere decimas, used in the Capitulars and Canons about the beginning of this Period. As if the Laity, who forced the Clergy to redeem Tithes had acted fairly, and only sold their own right; but I reply, That wherever this Phrase is used, the Laity who did force the Clergy to redeem Tithes, are condemned as wicked and unjust Per∣sons for this Act, and he confesses here, that Hincmarus Rhemensis affirmed, That the most profligate Lay-men in his Parish durst not presume to take mony for his Tithes(k). Yea, the Emperor, in the Capitular cited by Mr. S. orders his Offi∣cer to force such Men to pay their Tithe freely(l); and can any man infer a right from so exploded a practice? Indeed the very word Redimere, shews that Tithes were the Cler∣gies own before, or else it would rather be said, they bought them, than redeemed them; for as S. Anselme ingeniously notes upon God's redeeming our Souls, that they were his before, For we are said to buy that which was anothers, but to redeem our own(m); if therefore some Lay-men were so unjust, as to force the Clergy to redeem that which was their own; this neither proves the Laity had any right to Tithes, nor yet that the Clergy had none. Ivo tells us, that some Lay-men forced the Priests to redeem the very Oblations of the Altar(n); but no man will say they be∣longed to the Laity. But finally, Mr. S. confesses, that Hales, by Tithes redeemed, means only feudal Tithes, which were first taken from the Church; and no doubt the Clergy would retrieve these on any Terms from Lay-possessors, and if this be the sense, it is still less to his arbitrary Lay Consecrations, which now I hope we have fully dis∣proved.

§. III. Appropriations are next considered; for explain∣ing whereof he falls into a tedious discourse about the Ancient way of filling Churches with Incumbents, run∣ning back as far as to the Councils of Neocaesarea, An. 315, and Antioch, An. 341, to find the Original of Parish Priests, whom he rightly calls Curates to the Bishop, for in him

was vested both the maintenance, and care of governing all the Country Churches in his Diocess, as was proved be∣fore out of the old Canons(o); and though every one of these Country Priests had his certain proportion of the Profits, yet it was assigned by the Bishop, who both chose the Oeconomus and took in his Accounts(p). He confesses also that the Bishop put in all Incumbents, and distributed the whole Revenue (according to the Canons) for the first 500 years, and we have proved Tithes were paid to the Church long before that time; whence it appears that Lay-men of old had nothing to do with the disposal of Church∣es, and if they had any such Power afterwards, it must be∣gin either by Usurpation or Grant from the Clergy. But Mr. S. is mistaken in saying, that Lay-men began to put in Incumbents almost as soon as they began to build Church∣es, and that these Incumbents received the Profits without any Admission from the Bishop(q). For it is certain, Lay-men began to build Churches long before the year 500, yet so long he consesses the Revenues were distributed by the Disposition of the Hierarchy. The first Council of Au∣range mentions Lay-mens building Churches, and forbids any but the Bishop of the Diocess to dedicate them(r); and Sidonius mentions one Simplicius, a young Knight, who builded a Church in the Diocess of Bourges before the year 470(s). And the power of choosing was long before taken from the People(t), and put into the Bishop to pre∣vent Factions, and if any Lay-founder did put in any In∣cumbent, it was contrary to the Law and Custom of this Age, wherein a Council decrees, That the Lords of the Mannor should not put strange Clerks into the Churches against the Bishops will, to whom this priviledge in his own Diocess doth belong; and that none be put in, but such as the Bishop approves, and commands to officiate there(u). About the same time also the Emperor Justinian enacted, That the Patron might present a Person to the Bishop, who was thought worthy by the Bishop, and allowed by the Canons; otherwise the Bishop might reject him, and ordain a fitter Man(w); which Orders were renewed in succeeding Councils(x). And though the

Bishops did connive at these Recommendations from Lay Founders to encourage the building of Churches, yet as soon as it was perceived, that from thence some Patrons began to pretend a right in disposing of the Revenues, that Practice was condemned(y). And to prevent this, both the Imperial Laws and Church Canons in the East, forbid the building Churches in any Diocess, without the Bishops leave, as Theophylact relates(z). So that if (as Mr. S. speaks, p. 81.) we may conjecture the use of the time, by what Laws and Canons ordain; even after Lay-men built Churches by the leave of Bishops, they had nothing at all to do with the Revenue, nor did they till after the year 500 so much as present In∣cumbents for the Bishops approbation.

Mr. S. indeed pretends, that for all these Canons divers Lay Patrons had, or at least challenged an interest in the Profits of the Churches they built(a); which he would prove by those Canons of Bracara and Toledo, which he produced, and we examined before, Chap. 5. §. 6. yet here (according to his custom of repeating every thing twice or thrice, that seems to make against the Churches right) he brings them on the stage again; but we refer the Reader thither for the confutation of this pretence, where it doth appear that the Canon of Bracara supposes such a vile thing had been sometimes done by connivance perhaps of the Bishop, but utterly condemns it, and forbids the Bishops consent to so wicked a practice; and the Canon of Toledo evidently declares the Patron and his Heirs had no right to Church Revenues, nor remedy for the abuse of them by the In∣cumbent, but by Complaint first to the Bishop, and then to the King; both which do disprove his Assertion. But he brings a strange proof of Lay-Founders challenging a right in the Profits of the Church, out of an Epistle at∣tributed to Pope Damasus, An. 380, where he saith, this is titled An old Custom; to which I reply the words are on∣ly Hanc consuetudinem, that is, the Decree saith, it was an ill Custom of that time (not for Lay-Founders surely, who Mr. S. saith, began not to build Churches till An. 500, but) for some of the Laity sacrilegiously to seize (by violence,

and not by any pretence of right) upon the Church Reve∣nues; which practice is there condemned, but it is nothing to Mr. S. his purpose. And yet if it were, since this is only a De∣cree attributed to Damasus by Ivo and Gratian (whose Colle∣ctions he elsewhere so much undervalues)(b), there is no rea∣son he should be allow'd to urge it here for a genuine Decree.

Another proof of Lay-mens challenging a right to dis∣pose of the Endowments and Offerings of those Churches whereof they were Patrons, is, That divers times provision is made against it in the Capitulars; but he wisely cites no particular place, and indeed there is none that provides against their challenging Offerings, and for other Endow∣ments, though some very ill Men against all right did Sa∣crilegiously seize of them toward the end of this Period; yet it was an Usurpation, and was remedied by those ma∣ny Canons which condemned and forbid it(c). And in∣deed the Patron could not without great injustice pretend any right to any of these Profits, because before the Bishop consecrated any new erected Church, the Founder did first by a Writing under his hand solemnly settle these Endow∣ments and Profits on the Church, which, with the sub∣jection of the Church to the Bishop, were delivered into his hand before the Consecration(d); so that to challenge a propriety in these afterwards was like the Sin of Annanias and Saphira. As for the other interest, which was that of collating Clerks into Livings, and giving them Possession without any aid from the Bishop, which (Mr. S. saith) could hardly be gotten from the Lay Patrons, though some Imperials were provided against it(e). I reply, the Imperial which he cites(f), it is the very words of the Third Council at Toledo, An. 598, and saith not one word of collating Clerks into any Livings, but condemns those Founders of Church∣es, who denied the Endowments were to be disposed by the Bishop. And though there were in all Ages some who would not be governed by Laws, and so perhaps some such lawless Persons might place Incumbents in their Li∣vings without the Bishop; yet it is certain the Laws of that time highly condemns this(g), and the Emperor calls

it no mean presumption, and a piece of most wicked boldness(h); and it is plain the Bishop then had the ancient liberty of refusing any Clerk nominated by a Lay-Patron, if he gave a reason for it(i): and since Mr. S. confesses no Lay-man could make a building to be a Church without the Bishops consecration, and no consecration could then be made by a Bishop till he had first received the Subjection of that Church; thence it follows, that the Collation as well as the Endowment were put into the Bishops Power, and could not be made without his consent: which is very plain from the instance he brings to prove the Lay-Patrons right; for Ʋlric, Bishop of Auspurg, An. 950, having fi∣nished the Consecration, and taken livery of the Endowment, he commended the procuration of the Altar to the Priest he had approved there, and commended the Advowsion of the Church to the Founders heir, by putting on him a Robe(k); where we see the Bishop approved the Presbyter, and that the very Patron received his right of Advowsion from the Bishop, who therefore doubtless would not give away his ancient right of approving or rejecting the Clerk nominated. And indeed Hincmarus•• also assures us that the Church at first did choose these Patrons to their office, The Holy Church (saith he) by its sacred Bishops, chooseth to it self in every Church, Vice-Masters, Advocates, or Defensors(l); and therefore they did no doubt reserve to themselves their old priviledge of approving all Collations. And since the very right of Patronage was first derived from the Church, it is very unreasonable in Mr. S. to suppose, that Patrons re∣served any such liberty to collate without the Bishop, when as the very power they had to Nominate, was from the favour of the Church to encourage the building of Church∣es. I grant P. Damianus doth mention some Lay-men in his time who usurped this power of Collation, and deli∣vered their Churches to an Incumbent with this phrase, Accipe Ecclesiam; but this same Author in the same Epistle thus expresses this Act, Licet injustè aliquo modo Ecclesias futuris Rectoribus tradunt(m), intimating that it is unjust in Lay-men after any fashion thus to collate, and that the

Incumbents so collated were not yet Rectors of the Church till the Bishop had confirmed the Collation, which was of the same nature with our modern Institution, though it were not called by the same Name; and for his Quotation out of Ivo, it speaks of the Kings investing a Bishop chosen by the Clergy, which indeed did give the Bishop seisin of the Temporalities of his Bishopric; but this doth not at all prove, that Lay-Patrons gave any such investiture to Pa∣rish Priests of their own choosing, without the Bishops con∣sent first had. Nor doth the phrase of Commendatio Ec∣clesiae signifie any such matter in any of his Marginal Quo∣tations here produced(n). The first place only forbidding Lay-men to take bribes for the commendation of a Church to any Priest(o), and the very next Capitular before pro∣hibits Lay-mens putting in or casting out Priests without the Bishops consent(p). The second Quotation hath not so much as the word Commendatio, nor any thing to that purpose(q): And the third is positive proof against Mr. S. saying, The Patron shall commend what Priest he likes to officiate there, but with the Bishops consent, lest he be evil(r); and Luitprandus adds,—so that the said Priest shall obediently apply himself to the Bishops good pleasure(s); whence it is plain that Commendatio Ecclesiae did suppose the Bishops con∣sent, and was not (as Mr. S. falsly expounds it) The Livery of a Church and the Endowments, to the Incumbent, to take care and dispose of, as a Ʋsufructuary of what the Patron was the Proprietary, or as a Tenant of that whereof he was in rever∣sion: there being no ground from Antiquity or Reason for any such pretended Propriety in the Patron. And indeed it is an odd Propriety which a man hath to a thing, that he can neither take to his own use, nor give to another with∣out the consent of a Third person; and a strange kind of Tenancy, when the Lessor must receive no acknow∣ledgment, nor retains any power to put the Lessee out of possession in any case whatsoever. Yet so strangely doth Mr. S. dote upon this Opinion that he fancies every thing he meets with sounds that way, or else he would never have attempted to prove the Bishop had nothing to do

with the Endowments by a Canon of the Council of Chal∣cedon, which was made within that first 500 years, while, by his own confession, the Endowments were wholly in the disposal of the Hierarchy, p. 82; and the meaning of ordaining a Man without a Title then, implies only, that (though the Bishops then filled all Country Churches, yet) the Bishops could not put an Incumbent into a Church al∣ready full, and therefore if there were no Vacancy, he might not ordain any Sine Titulo: But if he did ordain any so, the very Law of Pope Innocent, here cited by Mr. S. declares the Orders were not void, but the Bishop should maintain him that was so Ordained till some Church be∣came void(t); all which proves not, that the Bishop did not collate, but only that he had not alwaies Vacancies ready to bestow, which is nothing to Mr. S. his purpose. And whether the Patron chose a Person ordained, or not yet ordained, it is all one, since even Duarenus himself (whom Mr. S. here cites) saith, The Patron hath no right at all to administer the goods of the Church, and consequently can∣not give such power to another meerly by his own Act(u). The truth is, that though originally the disposition of Church∣es was wholly in the Bishops, yet they had so far receded from their own right, as to allow the Patron a power of Nomination; so that now neither could the Bishop with∣out the Patron, nor the Patron without the Bishop dispose of a Church with its Endowment, but the Bishop had the advantage, because he had power in some cases to reject the Clerk, and he did the last act toward giving Possession, which shews how little ground there is to pretend the Patron had any propriety in the Endowments of Church∣es. Nor was there any such use, as Mr. S. pretends, of Clerks resigning at pleasure into the Patrons hand(w), for the Capitulars he cites to prove this, do not so much as name any Resignation at all, much less any resignation to the Patron; only they forbid Priests to leave their Church∣es without the Bishops consent, and punish those who did so, with Excommunication(x); and good reason, for they had made a Promise to the Bishop at their Ordination,

or Admission, not to leave them(y), and so were not only forbid to leave these Churches, but also to take any New ones without the Bishops consent(z). Wherefore unless all the prohibitions of good Laws be a proof that the practice prohibited was right before those Laws, these are no evidences, that Patrons had a right to dispose of Church∣es without the Bishops consent; suppose it do imply there was some Patrons and Priests so lawless as to do such things, these Mens facts prove no right at all. But Mr. S. saith, These Laws were little obeyed; for which we have only his bare word, and (besides that he cannot bring one instance where they were disobeyed, and the party was not punished) it is very unlikely that so many Laws, with so severe pe∣nalties annexed, should be meer Scare-crows, and never put in execution. But he thinks it proves the Patron had a propriety in the Profits, because if an Advowson descended in Coparcenary, the Church had as many Incumbents as the Par∣ceners had parts, as in other Inheritances. I answer, If this were so, it only shews, that the right of Nomination was divided among the Patrons heirs; but indeed it only ap∣pears, some would have had it to be thus divided, but the Laws did not allow it, as his own Quotations sufficiently prove. The first of which declares, It is unfit that one Al∣tar should have divers Priests, and orders the Bishop to forbid Divine Service to be said there, till the Coheirs agree to present one only(a), which was also enacted by many other Laws of that time(b). His second Quotation expresly affirms, All these Clerks were presented to the Bishop(c), (which quite overthrows his notion of Propriety), and yet it condemns the practice, because one Church can have but one Rector. His third Quotation also saith, The Bishop invested the Incumbent, (which according to Mr. S. p. 86. is giving him seisin of the profits) but hath nothing of a Church descending to heirs in Coparcenary. But the case is this, A certain Ladies first husband had presented a Clerk to a Church upon her Inhe∣ritance, and the Bishop had approved and admitted him; but upon her divorce and second Marriage, the second husband would have presented another Clerk, on pretence the first hus∣bands

presentation was void, because the Marriage was declared null; but the Decree confirms the first Husbands presentation, as having been allowed by the Bishop(d); which wonderfully con∣firms the Bishops Power then in such disposals, and con∣futes all the pretence of Propriety in Patrons. As for those Droits honorifiques de Signieurs d' Eglises, of the Patrons re∣serving some part of the Profits to himself, and leaving only a small part to the Incumbent; if there be any such in France among Lay-Patrons, they are most likely to have sprung from the old Infeodations there. But he tells us, this custome is where the Patron is a Spiritual person, which is no proof that Lay-Patrons had like power, and yet even this very custom in the places he cites to prove it, is condemned as wicked and unjust(e), and declared, that all such reservations are void without the Bishops consent, if the Patrons were Lay-men(f); and for the Vicars in the Churches of Monks, it was in the Bishops power by the Canons, to force the Monks to allow him a competent Portion.

That the Bishops did dispose of the Church Revenues as they thought fit in the Primitive times, is confessed by him, and proved by us before; but we shall not infer thence, that in these middle Times Bishops did dispose of Tithes so arbitrarily as of old, though if we should affirm that, there is better proof of it by far, than of his arbitrary disposal of Tithes by Lay-men; yea, Mr. S. himself hath clearer and firmer proofs of Bishops arbitrary disposing of Tithes in those middle Times, pag. 100, and p. 101, than all his Book affords for the Laity. 'Tis certain, by his own confession, there were Laws for the Bishops so to dispose of Tithes, it being decreed according to the most ancient Canons, That all Tithes should be disposed of by the Bishop or his Deputy(g); and, That all Tithes were to be in the Bishops power(h); but no such Laws were for his pretended pro∣priety of Lay-men. And though he speak so contempti∣bly of these Canons, as if no practice followed, yet he himself grants, that in Germany generally the Bishops had the Tithes of their whole Diocesses, and assigned what

portions of them to the Incumbents they pleased. And in other Countries where Parishes were setled, the Tithes may justly be said to be disposed of by the Bishop, because it was Bishops who divided Parishes, consecrated Churches, and received and ratified their Endowments, Bishops gave the Patrons priviledge of Nomination, and confirmed the party nominated to enjoy them, if he liked of him; it was Bishops also that reserved the third or fourth part of Parochial Tithes to their own use, as an acknowledgment of their ancient right to the whole Tithes; so that we may justly say, that even where Parishes were setled also, Tithes were disposed of as the Bishops pleased, and according to the Laws and Canons they had made for that disposal; which utterly destroys his fancy of Lay-mens right to dis∣pose of Churches.

The Investiture of Bishops and the more eminent Ab∣bots by Emperors and Kings, who anciently were (and al∣ways should have been) supream Ordinaries in their Domi∣nions, was upon the account of several Honours and Tem∣poral priviledges (not due to them by Gods Law, as Tithes, but) given them by the extraordinary bounty of these Princes, and therefore it is needless to dispute that matter here; only as to Parish Churches it is plain, that if at any time some great and lawless Lay-men had given them by investiture without the Bishops consent, it was a usurpation upon Episcopal right; and if the growing greatness of the Clergy caused it to be taken away, the Clergy therein did but reassume their ancient rights, as that Council at Rome (cited here)(i) declares, which saith, this practice of the Laity was contrary to the Statutes of the Holy Fathers(k). And that which he cites next, viz. the Council Lateran, re∣lates only to Parish Churches, and is no more but a confir∣mation of the old Canons and Imperials, viz. That no Priest should take a Church with Tithes from a Lay-man by meer investiture(l). I do not say that this was never done, but I affirm, that it is certain such disposal of Churches was always illegal and unjust, and I can scarce believe it was done often, because though the Church Laws could not

rule the great Lay-men, or hinder them from giving Church∣es; yet they would awe the Clergy, who were to be ex∣communicated for accepting them, and to forfeit both their former Living and this also, which was so unjustly procured(m); wherefore he very erroneously saith, the course of Institution upon Presentations succeeded this of investiture, since it cannot be proved that ever investiture of Parish Churches was of common use, and the Bishops power of approving or rejecting the Clerk nominated by the Patron (which answers to our Institution) was as old as Justinian at least (as is proved before) and therefore far older than the pretended practice of Investitures. And the very Quotations which Mr. S. produces here(n) to justifie his Opinion, do rather prove ours, viz. That Inve∣stitures were a usurpation upon the ancienter rights of Bi∣shops. The first plainly saith; that Investitures were new encroachments upon the Bishops power by the boldness of some Lay-men(o). The second shews, that Lay-Patrons often repented of their Investitures, and presenting others canonically to the Bishop, declared their former act to be void(p). The third suspends the Receiver ab officio & be∣neficio(q). The fourth calls it an evil custom of one Pro∣vince, and declaring it contrary to the Rules of the Holy Fathers, excommunicates the Receivers(r). The last only adds, that worthy Persons be put in the room of those so deprived upon presentations to the Bishop(s). And in∣deed this was the ancient course, only where it was altered in some few places by the injustice of some great Men, new Laws were made to restore the right and ancient use. And thus we have (as briefly as could be) disproved all these pretended Evidences of Lay-mens right to dispose of Tithes, which he hath laboured so earnestly for, in hopes to build his arbitrary Appropriations on this bottom, which being now taken away the Superstructure will more easily fall.

After this tedious circumference Mr. S. at last comes to Appropriations, whereby indeed not only the Patronage, but the Glebe and Tithe also, of some Churches, were con∣veyed

to Monasteries; but not (as he pretends) by the sole act of Lay-Patrons, for since we have proved they had no propriety in the Endowment, their single act could not settle it in a Monastery; and if they could not present once without the Bishops consent, much less could they convey it for ever: and Mr. S. grants, that the Monasteries which had such appropriate Churches, always presented their Clerks to the Bishop for Institution, as the Canons required, and indeed as the Patron had done before the Appropriation. 'Tis true, the Abbies (looking on them∣selves as part of the Clergy) did put in Incumbents under the name of Vicars, allowing them but a small part of the profits, while the greatest part of them were reserved to themselves; but this was so notorious a corruption, that Johan. Sartsburiensis complains greatly of it(t). And that Age did so fully believe the Bishops interest in all disposal of Tithes, that it was not permitted to Monasteries to al∣low these Vicars what maintenance they pleased, but the Bishops then had power to give the Vicar such part of the profits as he thought to be fit and competent, as is learnedly and fully proved by Dr. Ryves, in his excellent Tract called The Poor Vicars Plea, where Mr. S. his pre∣tence of the Vicars maintenance being wholly in the will of the Monastery, is so clearly confuted, that I refer the Reader thither; where he may be abundantly satisfied, that no Monastery had any Appropriate Church Tam pleno jure so arbitrarily setled in them, but the Bishop had still a power to order them in the disposal of their Tithes: and therefore in that very Bull of Pope Lucius the Second, confirming the Appropriate Churches to Kenilworth (cited by Mr. S. pag. 79) they are granted on these Conditions, First, that their Vicars be presented to the Bishop to be In∣stituted; Secondly, and that he remain under the Bishops Jurisdiction; Thirdly, that they gave this Vicar a sufficient allowance, which conditions quite overthrow the Monks arbitrary Power in their Appropriate Churches,: and let it be further noted, that the Founders Charter which gives them these Churches is signed by two Bishops, An. 1125.

and the confirmation thereof by K. Henry soon after, is signed by his Archbishops and Bishops(u); so that these Appropri∣ations were made at first by the consent of Bishops. But Mr. S. observes(w), That Lay-men sometimes made Appropriations, reserving the Patronage to themselves; but then their Presenta∣tions were accounted to be only to the Vicariges, which had Salaries annexed at the pleasure of the Monastery on whom the Church was setled in Appropriation. To which I reply, No Lay-man alone could make an Appropriation, and if they did reserve the Patronage, it was by the Bishops con∣sent: But it may be asked, what the Patron had to do with giving Ecclesiam cum decimis, since we affirm he had no propriety in the Tithes; and some may think, if his Pa∣tronage were reserved, there was nothing else in him pro∣perly to give. I reply, It was only the Patronage of the Vicarige which he reserved, as Mr. S. here grants: And since he was Guardian of the Church, and so obliged to see the profits disposed of to the fittest Clerks, when the Monks had perswaded Lay-Patrons, that they were the de∣voutest sort of the Clergy, it was requisite the Patron should by his Charter declare his desire and consent, that such a Church should with its profits be setled in such a Monastery; but whatever the words of that Charter were, I shall prove presently (and in the English practice) that the Bishop only made the Church appropriate, and as an Evidence of his ancient right in the disposal of Tithes, and of his consent to all Appropriations, the Forms do generally run with this Exception, Salvis nobis & succes∣soribus nostris jure & Authoritate Pontificiali(x), or as Mr. S. his instance of the Abby of S. Germans hath it, pag. 99. Sal∣vâ Diocesani Canonicâ justitiâ; which shews that Lay-Patrons had no arbitrary power in this matter.

But since Mr. S. cannot deny these Charters of Bishops in the Appropriating of Churches, he pretends, They were only Confirmations got by the Monks to satisfie the Canons, not to give validity to the Grant in secular and Common Law(y); whereas there was no Secular or Common Law at all then in use which took cognizance of this business, and

the very instance which he brings to prove the Bishops Charters came afterwards, plainly shews it was those very Charters which gave Monks a right to appropriated Churches; for this Charter of King Lewis is confessed by himself to have been only a Confirmation of Appropriate Churches and Tithes, which the Monks of Clugny had gotten, held and possessed (they are the very words of this Charter of King Lewis) by the Popes Priviledges, and the Bishops Charters. Whence it is evident that the Monks first procured the Appropriations, by Grants from the Bi∣shops, and Bulls from the Pope, by virtue of which they held them, only to prevent any opposition from the Secular Power they desired the Royal confirmation afterward: And when I come to the English practice, I shall undeni∣ably prove by innumerable Instances, That the Bishops Charters were always had to the first Grant of the Patron, and without them no Lay-man could appropriate any Church, of which this may suffice for a proof at present, That the Lay-Patron did request the Bishop to appropri∣ate a Church given to the Monks. So Roger, Bishop of Worcester, An. 1170, having seen the Charter of Manaster Biset, who gave, as Patron, the Church of Kerderminster to the Nunnery of Bradley, and the confirmation of King Henry the Second; He, at the request of the said King, and of the Patron, doth confirm their Grant, and ordain it shall be appropriate to them(z). Further proof of this also Mr. S. himself gives us in the next pages(a), where Bishops alone do convey Tithes of other Mens Lands to Monasteries, and he instances in Athelbero, Bishop of Hamburgh, An. 1141, and his Successors. And since no example can be produced where Lay-men alone made any such convey∣ance, we may thence conclude the Bishops Act was the main thing in all Appropriations. 'Tis true, these Ger∣man Bishops (as Mr. S. largely proves) had in them from the beginning of Christianity there, the sole right of Tithes through their whole Diocess, because Bishopricks were setled long before Parish Churches in that Country. But this alters not the case, because Bishopricks were setled in all Countries before Parish Churches, and the Bishops had

every where of old the sole right of Tithes in them, and though in some Countries the Bishops had consented to the Lay-Patrons power of Nomination and Presenting, and so there they could not so arbitrarily dispose of Parish Tithes to Monasteries, as the German Bishops could, yet still even in those Countries the Bishops were to allow and confirm all Grants of Churches and Tithes made by Lay-Patrons to Monasteries for perpetuity, as well as to Incum∣bents for life; and if the Bishops were Patrons themselves, they could arbitrarily dispose of them to Monasteries without any Lay-mans consent, which Lay-Patrons could not do: so that in other Countries, as well as in Germany, the Bishops had more power in this matter than any Lay-men had. And in Germany, even after Parishes were setled, the Bishops seem to have been Patrons of all those Parishes out of which they gave Tithes, and upon that ground A∣thelbero gave so many Parish Churches to the Monks, Mr. S. p. 103. But I see no ground to believe, either that Tithes were paid more justly in some of those Northern Churches than in other places; or, that in other Countries we shall find arbitrary Consecrations by Lay-men, continued until An. 1200(b): For as to the latter of these, Mr. S. hath not yet pro∣duced one arbitrary Lay-Consecration in any Country; and as to the former, we see no reason to doubt but Tithes were well paid every where in this Age, yet if these Nor∣thern Countries paid them so much better than others, it seems strange why Mr. S. should only hunt about for Exam∣ples, that they paid them unwillingly, and counted them a burden; yet if the more Barbarous of these Nations did despise the Laws of God and Man, and the custom of all Christendom besides, that will be no Precedent for others, and it is evident from the Historians here cited, that this People were as hardly brought to believe the Gospel as to pay Tithes, yet as they received the one so by degrees they submitted to the other. And these very Examples, which Mr. S. picked out on purpose to shew some People counted Tithes a burden, do expresly declare, that paying of Tithes was, according to the custom and example of all Churches, e∣specially of those near them, and that it was a duty by Gods Law.

S. p. 104, 105, which shews, the Persons were rude and barbarous who had this ill opinion of Tithes, and not to be imitated by any sober Christians.

And indeed in more civilized Countries now, there was no reason to complain of the detaining Tithes, but of the ill disposal of them in taking them from the Parish Re∣ctors, and giving them to Monasteries about the end of this 400 years, in great and frequent Consecrations and Appropriations, but all made by the consent of Bishops and Popes, who having been generally bred in Monasteries, did retain so partial a kindness for the Monks, that the Bishops encouraged the Laity to give them Churches with Tithes, and were always ready to confirm such Grants, whereby Tithes were taken away from the Parish Rectors, to whom they had hitherto belonged, and setled by the Bishop on the Monks; which being so contrary to the Ancient practice, and so great a hindrance to the due performance of Divine Admi∣nistrations in remote Country Churches, was much com∣plained of by the best Authors of this time, viz. Ivo Car∣notensis, Hugo Pontiniacensis, Stephanus Tornacensis, Petrus Blesensis, Petrus de Alliaco, and Petrus Abelardus, who (though himself a Monk) saith expresly, Those things which belong to the Parochial Clergy we usurp to our selves, and by any kind of means we get to our selves from the Bishops the Revenues of Parishes, as well in Tithes as Oblations(c); and Sarisburiensis blames the Popes and Bishops for these Grants(d); for Monks of old were required to pay Tithes of that Land which they tilled with their own hands(e): And the Founder of the Cistercian Order discerning this to be a du∣ty, when he would reform the practice of Monks, per∣swaded his Disciples, according to the letter of S. Benedict's Rule, to live of their hand-labour, and leave Tithes and Obla∣tions to the Clergy that serve in the Diocess(f). But after∣wards these Cistercians, as well as other Monks, got all the Tithes they could procure, yet not without the Bishops consent, as Turstan, Archbishop of York witnesses of them, in his Letter to S. Bernard; As to the profits of Churches and Tithes (for taking possession of which the Monks have been thought very blame-worthy) they will not receive any but by the

Canonical Order of the Bishop(g). Yet we must do the Bi∣shops of that Age right, so far as to excuse them on this ground, that they did not take such Grants to be aliena∣tions of Tithes from the Clergy, but only a taking of Tithes from an ignorant and scandalous sort of Clergy-men (as Seculars were then reputed) to give them to the regular Clergy, whom they judged to be more holy in their lives, and whose Prayers and other divine Administrations they thought more effectual: so that I wonder Mr. S. should affirm so evident an untruth, viz. That the Covents possessing these, were not pretended to be any part of that Clergy which made up the Evangelical Priesthood, p. 106. when him∣self elsewhere contradicts this and saith, Religious per∣sons were alwaies of the Popes sides and reckoned in the Cata∣logue of the Clergy(h). Nor could he be ignorant, that the Popes and others, who favoured and pleaded for giving Tithes to Monks, expresly call them Levites, and reckon them among the Clergy(i), and thence justifie their right to them. Since the religious (saith Hales) are reckoned in the order and office of Levites they may receive Tithes(k); yea, in the very Epistle cited by Mr. S. pag. 107. Peter, Abbot of Clugny, in answer to those who objected the Monks could not have Tithes which belonged to the Clergy; the Abbot saith, If the Tribe of Levi had Tithes granted, then the Monks also may rightly have them granted(l). And it is well known divers of them were in Orders, and did supply by Turns their Appropriate Cures themselves, and administer Sacra∣ments there, and where the distance permitted not that, they found Vicars who were Priests in Orders, and allow∣ed by the Bishops, who did minister all Sacraments to the People; which I do not alledge to justifie the Bishops of that Age, as free from all blame in confirming such Grants, but only to shew what grounds they went upon in these Acts: which doth abundantly manifest, that neither Lay-Patrons or Bishops did at all believe Tithes could be aliena∣ted from the Clergy, or that setling Tithes on a body of regular Clergy, was any such kind of alienation, which is the thing Mr. S. would gladly have us to believe. As for the Nuns, it is plain they paid Tithes of old, and we see

their Founders bound them to pay Tithes both greater and less out of their goods to the Parish Church, as other Parishioners were wont to do(m); but when the Monks practice of sup∣plying Cures by Vicars had obtained, then the Nuns not only got the Bishops and Pope to free them from paying Parish Tithes(n), but also to give them Appropriate Churches, which they could supply by Vicars as well as the Monks, though this practice was not very frequent.

But Mr. S. proceeds(o) to inform us, that the Abbot of Hersfielt justified his claim to Appropriate Churches a∣gainst the challenge of the Bishop of Halberstadt, An. 1059, which might well enough be, since this Abby was very anciently endowed with Tithes, for the Emperor Otho the Second gave Lands in exchange for some Tithes, of which this Abby was possessed An. 972(p); and since Mr. S. grants, the whole Tithes of the Diocess were from the beginning of Christianity in these German Bishops, no doubt the Tithes and Churches they had were given them by this Bishops Predecessors; yea, the same Historian out of whom Mr. S. cites this History, saith, that in the Council of Erpesford (called on this occasion) the Abbots of Hersfielt and of Fulda plead∣ed the Popes Bulls, and the Charters of this very Bishops Predecessors for the Tithes they enjoyed(q). So that it was a hard thing after 100 years peaceable possession, for this Bishop to endeavour to take them away by his great Authority with the Emperor, and to force the Thuringians to pay them to the Bishops Officers, whereas their Fore∣fathers had always paid them to the Monks; and that was the Legitima Patrum suorum, which these Thuringians con∣tended for, not (as Mr. S. falsly pretends) a right to de∣tain their Tithes, or arbitrarily to dispose of them, but only a right of paying them to such Monks, as their Fa∣thers by the Bishops Order had been wont to pay them; and therefore Lambertus saith, that the Thuringians had the same cause with the Abbots of Fulda and Hersfielt, viz. concerning the right of Abbies, to receive Tithes anci∣ently paid to them, and they all intended to appeal to the Pope about this, which the Thuringians would not have

done, if the right they claimed had been (as Mr. S. pre∣tends) a right of detaining Tithes, since they could not hope to be encouraged by the Pope in so impious a custom: so that we conclude the Thuringians rights were, the liberty of paying Tithe to such Abbies as their Fathers had paid them to by Bishops assignation; and they counted it so unjust an exaction for the Bishops Officer to take them, that they broke out into a War upon it, and afterward (saith the Historian) there was no more any exaction of Tithes in Turingia; that is, the Bishops Officer durst not take them any more; but it is like they paid them afterward to the Abby: for this Historian Lambertus (who so highly com∣mends the Thuringians) was a Monk of Hersfielt, and a par∣ty in this cause, which makes him call the paying Tithes to the Bishop Exactio decimarum; but when they paid them to the Abby, as before, that he judged to be no exaction: and therefore when the Bishops Officer ceased to take Tithes, he saith, Tithes were no more exacted there. Where∣fore neither this, nor any other proof yet alledged, doth make out any Arbitrary Power in Lay-men to consecrate or appropriate their Tithes, much less to detain them.

§. IV. Infeodations were conveyances of Tithes into Lay∣hands made by Bishops, to encourage the Laity to defend the Church, and by them detained and claimed as their Right. 'Tis true, P. Damian remembers these, and com∣plains of them to Alexander the Third; but Mr. S. him∣self saith, pag. 113. He complains of the Bishops for it(r); and if they came from the Church at first, then it will not serve Mr. S. his purpose at all, nor shew any Arbitrary power in Lay-men to detain their Tithes, or give them a∣way to the Laity. As for the Original of Infeodations Mr. S. despises Krantzius extreamly for ascribing it to the time of Charles Martel, or the Ages near him, since there is no mention of them for 300 years after him(s), forgetting that himself produceth an instance of an Infeodation, p. 116. made by one of the Kings of France, An. 900, that is, within 150 years after Martels time: So that not only Pasquier, but Mr. S. also is mistaken in fixing the beginning

of them after the year 1000. 'Tis true, P. Damian who re∣members them, died An. 1085, and the Council of Lateran mentions them An. 1078; but if these had been the first mentioners of them, Mr. S. need not have been so severe on Pasquier, who would have them begin An. 1090. But o∣ther Authors, as well as Krantzius, think Infeodations much elder, though it is not my concern to prove that, since the later such a corrupt practice began, the less we need won∣der at it. And if (as Mr. S. saith, p. 114) the use of it ceased An. 1180, then according to him it was not older than about 130 years, and so no wonder if so late and so cor∣rupt a Custom were easily rooted out. But whenever they began, it is more to our purpose to prove they came from the Church; and Krantzius saith, When the Clergy could not be sure their right would be sufficiently defended by Lay-Princes, they gave part of the Tithe, into their hands, in the nature of a Fee or Benefice, choosing rather to lose the half than the whole(t). And the same Author relates the passage concerning the Emperor Frederic Barbarossa, An. 1186, (which Mr. S. cites out of Goldalstus)(u), That of old time, when the Pa∣gans invaded the Church, the Nobility received Tithes from the Church, as a reward for defending it(w). And if the Em∣peror pleaded that as a good Argument so anciently, we may thence infer, First, that Infeodations were older than Mr. S. pretends; Secondly, that they first came from the Church, or else the Friends of Lay-investiture had not pleaded it: and the Canon of that Lateran Council (which Mr. S. saith did first condemn Infeodations) An. 1078, plain∣ly intimates, that Lay-men had gotten them from Bishops, or from Kings and others to whom the Bishops had assigned them, and therefore they are commanded to restore them to the Church(x). Now we cannot properly be said to restore a thing to any, but them that were once the right Owners, which implies they came first from the Church. And that other Canon of the Lateran Council, An. 1180, (which Mr. S. saith prevented any new Infeodations from be∣ing made) Forbids Lay-men, that detain Tithes with the ha∣zard of their Souls, to transfer them any way to other Lay-men,

and if any receive them, and restore them not to the Church, he shall be deprived of Christian burial(y). Where we see the word also is reddiderit, and the giving them to the Church is called Restoring; but Mr. S. pretends tradiderit, is the truer reading. I Answer, That the Decretal reads it reddiderit, and so doth Hoveden(z), Newbrigensis(a), and Halensis(b), with all the rest of the Commentators; yea, and the former Council of Lateran, cited above, had that very phrase, whence we conclude this to be the truer Reading. And for the Sense of this Canon it is most like∣ly, that this Pope Alexander the Third designed to con∣demn all Feudal Tithes past as well as future, for his Prede∣cessor Gregory the Seventh had condemned both sorts be∣fore as Mr. S. shews pag. 112. and his Successor Ʋrban the Second condemned past Infeodations, ibid. pag. 113; yea, and Pope Innocent the Third so understood this Canon, as he confesses, pag. 139. Why then is it unlikely that Alex∣ander the Third should condemn old Infeodate Tithes? Mr. S. tells us indeed, this Canon did not prevail to take a∣way old Infeodations, but only to prevent new ones, which might be, and yet the Popes design was higher, than (through the power of some great Lay-men) could be brought about. However we gain these two points, That all Infeodations were thought Sacrilegious and unjust in the detainers, and yet the first original of them was from the Church, as (Mr. S. confesses, pag. 178) the French Lawyers generally hold and believe; and therefore neither do these Infeodations shew any Arbitrary Power the Laity had in disposing Tithes, excepting what they had from the Church.

He saith, Perhaps some Old Infeodations were made by Lay-Patrons in the vacancy of their Churches(c); which is a groundless conjecture, nor can he bring one clear instance of it, and though a Patron with a Bishop may dispose of the Endowment of a Church in the Vacancy, yet it will not follow from thence, that a Patron alone may in the Va∣cancy dispose of the Endowment to another Lay-man for ever: Nor is there any one passage in Flodoard, or P. Da∣mian,

that Lay-men without the Bishops consent made any such Infeodations; and his Canon of Innocent the Second's Lateran Council, which orders, They shall be restored from Lay-men to the Disposition of the Bishop, doth imply they were in the Disposal of the Bishop first, and by him conferred on Lay-men. I grant indeed, that after Bishops had once made Tithes infeodate, the Laity then, in after Convey∣ances, did without the Bishops consent give them arbitra∣rily; but we speak of the first conveyance, not of the after derivations. But that grant of Charles King of France of the Chuch of Egmond, Cum omnibus ad eam jure pertinen∣tibus, unto Thierry Earl of Holland, An. 900, which Mr. S. here cites, pag. 16. was not properly an Infeodation, but a Grant of a Church with its Endowments to be turned into an Abby; and if we judge of this Act by the use of the time, we may conclude the Bishop consented to this Grant, however we know the Bishops had Infeodated many Churches to the French Princes, and they very often gave them back again to Monasteries, as judging they had no good right to them. And Mr. S. confesses in the next page, That Princes often joyned with Bishops to bring in the payment of Tithes, that thereby themselves might have beneficial Infeo∣dations of them from the Church(d). So that if Princes themselves were beholding to Bishops for Grants of Infeo∣dations, we need not wonder how Princes came to have Churches and Tithes to give to Monasteries; and we may be sure if Kings could not make themselve Infeodations without being beholding to the Bishops, no private Lay∣man could make his own Tithes Infeodate, as here Mr. S. affirms without one Instance to prove it. As for the Ex∣empt Religious making Infeodations out of their own de∣mesns, confirmed and given to them by Popes and Bishops; First, It is but a secondary Conveyance, and yet even this practice is declared illegal, and the Grant to be null, in that very Decree of Alexander the Third, which he cites to shew there were such Infeodations(e): So also his two In∣stances out of Innocent the Third were so evidently reputed illegal, that the first was resigned(f), and the second re∣pealed

by Sentence(g). Indeed it doth hence appear some attempted to do such Acts, but withal it is plain, the Law and use of the time made them utterly void. His Exam∣ple of Henry, Count of Ratzenburgh, who had an Infeoda∣tion of Tithes from the Bishop of Oldenburgh(h) is no∣thing to his purpose, because derived from the Church: And Hildeward's Infeodation resigned to the Bishop of Hamburgh, An. 1174, in all probability came also from the Church too, because Mr. S. told us before, those Bishops of Hamborough had a Right to all their Tithes in their Diocess, and arbitrarily disposed of them, pag. 100. The Decretal cited in the Margin, doth not imply there were many Examples for it, only saith, Though it be a grievous thing, and worthy of Divine vengeance, that some Lay-men usurp that which is the Priests right, yet it is most of all to be feared, because they very often are encouraged in their Er∣ror by the Clergy, since some Prelates do indulge them to dispose of Churches and Tithes, &c.(i). The blame we see is chiefly laid on the Clergy, and the Sentence subjoyned is to de∣prive those Prelates for ever. And good reason, for the Lay-men to whom the Bishops gave these Tithes, spent them in luxury and excess, to the great scandal of Christi∣an People; and therefore no wonder if (as Mr. S. notes, pag. 118.) many of the Country People were by this Male-administration of the Bishops discouraged from paying Tithes. But still here is no proof of any Infeodations, but what came from the Bishops, which no way helps Mr. S. his Opinion, nor are these any instances of Lay-mens Ar∣bitrary detaining or disposing Tithes. We cannot expect but in that Age (as well as in all others) there might be some refractory, covetous, and sacrilegious Persons; but the practice of such being wicked, illegal and condemned, is no pattern for others, nor pretence that they had a right to detain their Tithes.

§. V. The Exemptions granted by the Pope and Bishops to some Religious Orders being so undeniably from the Church, and granted to such as that Age did account among

the Clergy, is nothing to Mr. S. his purpose. He supposes here that which he hath not proved, viz. That Lay-men enjoyed a liberty in most places from the beginning of Christia∣nity till An. 1200, in not subjecting themselves to the Laws of the Church for the payment of Tithes, and admitting Canons that touched their Estates, no further than they saw cause(k). We have proved, no such liberty was enjoyed by Lay-men, in any places that were civilized in this part of the world, and have shewed there were Laws of the State, as well as the Church, to oblige them; we have made it out that the Laity were subject both to these Laws and Canons, so that Tithes were now generally paid, and therefore there are more falshoods than lines in this supposition: and all his instances concerning the Clergy, are only about one sort of Clergy-mens paying, or not paying to another, which be∣ing no more but various methods of disposing Tithes a∣mong the divers kinds of Clergy, or reputed Clergy; it doth not prove there was any Opinion, that Tithes ought not to be paid by the Laity. He tells us, some Bishops and Abbots prohibited their husbandmen to pay Tithes to their Parish Churches: but this was upon supposition, the right of them belonged to themselves as being of the Clergy; yet the Council of Chalons condemns this practice, and strictly orders them, that they should make Tithes of those Fields and Vineyards they possessed, for themselves and their Brethrens stipends, to be paid to the Church, and that the Fa∣milies on their Land should pay Tithes to the Church where they had Sacraments and Prayers(l). The Decree of Pope Paschal forbids Clergy-men to pay Tithes to Clergy-men, and if Mr. S. expound it of Monks, then he grants they were accounted Clergy-men(m). Yet it seems Monks must have paid Tithes to Monks, if they had Lands in the Parish of a Church appropriate to another Abby, unless discharged by mutual consent, as in that composition made by this Pope, between (not the Templars, as he mistakes, but) the Cistercians and the Praemonstratenses, An. 1142; at which time Exemptions were not used, yet they began to be granted soon after, viz. An. 1150(n), and were imme∣diately

complained of, as censured and very unjust by the Authors of that Age, viz. Sarisburiensis(o); and Peter Blesensis boldly saith, These Dispensations were Dissipations(p). And the Monks of Clugny renounced these Papal privi∣ledges(q), as did also the Cistercians in their Charta Cha∣ritatis, made by Stephen their Third Abbot(r). So that the practice of Exemptions was held unjust by the best Men; and yet the continuance of Exemptions, notwithstanding the injury to the Parish Rectors, and the many complaints amongst them, shews how great a Power the ruling Cler∣gy then had in the arbitrary disposal of Tithes, when so unjust and unreasonable practice was continued. But it is objected, The Templars and Hospitallers were not of the mini∣string Clergy, yet they also had Tithes given them. I Answer, They were accounted the Churches Souldiers, and since no man goes to war at his own Charges, they thought they might be paid out of Church Revenues, if the Bishop and his Chapter agreed to it; especially they might be given them in Charity, because these Knights had renounced the World, and so were Pauperes Voto as well as the Monks, as Pope Honorius declares(g). Yet from this ill practice of the Pope, in exempting Monks and Orders of Spiritual Knights from paying Tithes, came all the Lay-usurpations upon them ever since; and though the one be far more justifiable than the other, yet both deserve to be con∣demned as contrary to the first end and design of Tithes.

§. VI. If Mr. S. had been as industrious to collect parti∣cular Opinions for the Divine right of Tithes, as he hath been to search out for Instances of Arbitrary Consecrati∣ons, this Section had been much larger; but however we have this general confession from him, That the Testimony of Councils in this Age, which speaks of Tithes as due by God's Ordinance, are very frequent(h). And that Res dominicae, Dominica substantia, & Dei census, are the Attributes given to Tithes by the Ancients of this Age(i); but he might as well have told us, that all did now hold Tithes to be due by the Law of God, for he can find but one Example of any

that opposed it, viz. one Leutardus, pag. 124, who was a Heretic in other points (as Mr. S. confesseth;) and the Historian out of whom he cites this instance, calls his O∣pinion about Tithes a Doctrine not more base than damnable, and adds, That when he could get no Followers, he drowned him∣self(k). But to assure us of the universal agreement in point of the Divine right of Tithes, not only the Council of Mentz saith, they are instituted by God, and due to him(l); but that of Arles, in the same year, expresly grounds them on Gods Law(m): That of Chalons in the fame year excommunicates the Neglecters of this payment(n), and that of Rhemes then also decreed, Tithes should be fully paid(o). And to the same purpose speak all the Councils from the beginning of this 400 years(p), and the Capitulars which are taken out of them do in many places repeat the same thing(q). Mr. S. objects, They ordinarily ground them on the Levitical Law. I answer, Many of them do not mention that Law at all, and those which do, de∣clare they did not esteem it ceremonial or abrogated, as far as concerned the payment of a Tenth. As for the Council of Aquisgrane, which he saith, cites the syllables of Moses for the right of Tithes, the Reader may note, that the passage which Mr. Selden points at, is no Canon of that Council, but a Book presented by the Bishops there to the Emperor, containing a collection of all passa∣ges in both Old and New Testament, relating to piety and bounty toward God's service, and Abel, Abraham, and Jacob are cited there, as well as Moses Law(r). Again, he saith some of these Councils styled them Patrimonia pauperum, &c. but this doth not take off the Clergies right to them, since the same Councils declare, that the Clergy ought to have the disposal of them, only (as all Christians, after their own necessities are supplied, ought to distribute what they can spare to the Poor, so) the Clergy were more especially obliged to give what was more than they needed to the Poor, and they were generally so bountiful to them, that the Poor had no other Patrimony or certain provision made for them in that Age, but the Clergies allowance of

what they could spare of the Tithes. But we go on to sup∣ply Mr. S. his omissions of the Opinions of private Fa∣thers in this Period. Paschasius Rathbertus saith, Christ doth not relax the Tithing of the least things—and therefore it is lawful to offer them as pertaining to the honour of God(s). Agobardus (who Mr. S. calls a great and Learned Author) tells us, that the Fathers reckon Tithes among the things that are Gods,— and what Christ saith ought to be done, was then and ever will be fit to be performed(t). Walafridus Strabo, besides what Mr. S. quotes out of him, thus argues, If the Jews paid Tithes so strictly—why should not Christians more carefully fulfil the same Command, who have more Priests, and a purer Worship; adding a little after, that this will bring God's Blessing on the Peoples labours, and leave the Priests freer to attend their Ministry(u). His contemporary, Rabanus Maurus, saith, It is the Lord's Command both in the Old and New Testament, that Ministers should live of Oblations and Tithes(w). Hincmarus Rhemensis threatens Lay-men with God's Judgments for usurping Tithes, saying, Belshaz∣zar was not guilty of so great a Sacriledge(x). In his time also it is plain, That Tithes belonged to the Church by the Sacred Canons(y); and he speaks of a Church which had its Glebe, and the Tithe of the Faithful(z); which, toge∣ther with the Opinions of the Popes, and the Articles of enquiry at Visitations, whether the People had paid their Tithes; as also the Penitentials, which order the neglect to be confessed as a grievous Sin, all cited by Mr. S. pag. 123. These, I say, sufficiently prove, that both the Opinion and Practice of this Age declares, they generally thought Tithes were due by the Law of God; and if our designed brevity would allow it, we might bring many more Proofs thereof. But Mr. S. hopes to undermine all this, by pre∣tending, That the practice of the Time allowed by the Clergy, of disposing Tithes to Monks, Nuns, Hospitals, and religious Or∣ders of Knights seems to contradict this Opinion(a). I answer, that the disposal of them by the Clergies consent (and other disposals the Clergy never allowed) doth rather prove, they were held originally due to the Clergy by God's Law,

than any way contradict it: And Ivo, Bishop of Chartres, doth not say, The Church might give Tithes to Monasteries and Hospitals by the Law of Justice; but by the Law of Cha∣rity, which is no more than any man may do by his own estate; but the same Ivo there saith, Tithes principally belong to the Clergy, who may (if they please) enjoy all they have in common with the Poor(b); and Mr. S. cites Ivo wrong in the next Page, viz. 126. where he saith, Monks could not receive Tithes ab iis ad quos non pertinent (so is the true reading) from Lay-men to whom Tithes did not belong(c); wherefore he is a good Witness, that it was then believed Monks had no right to Tithes, otherwise than as the right owners, viz. the Bishops bestowed them upon them. I grant, that the Bishops did ill in making such dispositions of Tithes to Mo∣nasteries; but since there were Monks in Orders who did administer Sacraments and Preach, and their Administra∣tions and Prayers were esteemed the most efficacious of all; yea since these Regulars were counted the holiest sort of Clergy-men, I cannot think those ancient Bishops acted so much against their Consciences, or did commit so fear∣ful a Sacriledge, as Mr. S. pretends, in consenting to such disposal of Tithes to Monks, though they still held them due to the ministring Clergy by Gods Law, because they reckoned Monks among the Clergy, and thought they did well in assigning Tithes to them; and Innocent the Third calls the giving of Infeodate Tithes to a Monastery, recalling them to the Churches use(d), the Disposition was made by the right owners, and for the service of the Church, as they believed, wherefore it was not contrary to their Opinion at all: yea, Mr. S. is forced to prevaricate, pag. 126. to make some colour for this pretence, saying, The Clergy held it con∣trary to the Divine Law to convey Tithes to any other Churh than where the Owner received his Souls food: For the proof he brings only saith, it was contrary to the Divine Law and Sacred Canons to dispose of Tithes to another Church, Contempt â Episcopi dispo∣sitione, that is, without the Bishop did so dispose of them(e), which Sentence had Mr. S. put in, it would have appeared the practice was not contrary thereunto. Again, he won∣ders

If Tithes were then held to be due by the Divine moral Law, how the Pope could grant Exemptions, and asks, if Rome were then so bold to grant Dispensations against the Law of God(f)? I answer, That Rome even then declared ex∣presly, That the Pope could dispense with the Law of God(g), though the pretence of Monks being of the Clergy served the Popes to excuse this, as if it were not a dispensing with Gods Law. However impartial men (even of those who lost nothing by these Dispensations) did blame both the Pope and the Monks too, for them, and did rightly con∣demn them as contrary to God's Law. Since the Lord com∣mands Tithes to be paid (saith Peter Blesensis) who can dispence against his Precept? Where divine and humane Laws are con∣trary, God is to be obeyed rather than Men(h). Sarisburiensis not only says, these Exemptions derogate from the Divine Constitution; but affirms, There were some things which were not expedient for the Pope himself to do. And though he durst not condemn the Pope, yet he freely reproves the Monks for seeking them, or making use of them(i). As for Infeodations, Mr. S. will inform us, what cunning distin∣ctions the Schools invented to make the irregular Acts of some Bishops look plausible, pag. 156; but he grants, they were condemned and disanulled by Popes and Coun∣cils(k), and therefore from a few condemned Acts, no general inference can be made against the common Opi∣nion of the divine right of Tithes. Much less can any thing prejudicial to that Opinion be inferred from Tithes Infeodate in Lay-hands from their first creation, since there never were any such Tithes, nor can he produce one Instance of them.

§. VII. When neither Devotion, nor the Doctrine of the Fathers with Church Canons, were sufficient to cause some to pay Tithes, then pious Princes first began to make Se∣cular Laws to compel the refractory. The ancientest instance of such a Law is that of Congallus, King of Scot∣land, An. 570, which enjoyns general payment there; but Mr. S. not only removes it into this Period, but labours

to discredit Hector Boetius, who relates it(l) as if he feign∣ed it, though he gives no other reason of this charge than this, That Buchanan hath left out the name of Tithes, and only saith, He enriched the Clergy with Lands and other Profits. I answer, Buchanan is a late Historian, and (since he had a hand in the taking away Tithes from the Clergy) may justly be suspected to leave out the name of Tithes, the bet∣ter to colour his own ill deeds, and having such cause to be partial, he is not to be credited against an old Histo∣rian, especially since the same Hector saith, Wonderful things are recorded of the Piety of this Prince. And one of this Kings Successors, An. 840, made a Law, That the Bi∣shops Courts only should have cognizance of Tithes(m), which supposes they had been anciently and generally paid there. Machbeth also renewed this old Law for Tithes in Scotland about An. 1050, as Mr. S. confesses, and Hector Boetius with Spelman confirm that relation(n). The Imperial Laws for Tithes were made as soon as ever the Barbarous Nati∣ons, that had long overrun the Empire, were subdued; and it was the remains of Barbarism which made it necessary for Charles the Great (as soon as he had reduced things to a peaceable state) to make these Capitularies for Tithes, divers of which we cited before §. 6, and we now add ma∣ny others(o). And Mr. S. grants, that these Imperials do settle Parochial right, decreeing, That every Church shall have its Bounds, that it may be known of what Villages it must receive Tithes(p). But though there were plenty of these Laws to choose of, Mr. S. cites one only at large (which he produced once before) because it intimates, some were so wicked to force the Priests to redeem their Tithes(q), however it appears, the practice was condemned and pu∣nished by the Secular Magistrate. At length Mr. S. being pressed with the force of so many and clear Laws, invents this evasion, That the effect, of these Laws were short, and it appears enough in story, about An. 845, that little or no practice was of any of those Laws(r). An assertion as strange as it is untrue; for Lewis the first, who made divers of these Laws, lived till An. 841, and Carolus Calvus, who made

others of them lived till An. 879; and since he grants Tithes were generally required and paid in Charles the Great's time, pag. 70, and pag. 131, who can imagine they should cease in his Sons and Grandchild's days, even while new Laws were daily in making to confirm them? none of Mr. S. his Quotations do prove any such general omission. Ba∣ronius is speaking of the obstinacy of such who detained Tithes infeodate, and shews God's Judgments on the Na∣tion for it(s); but this is nothing to Parochial Tithes: and those five Epistles of Pope John the Eighth do not once mention Tithes, but complain of some who wronged the Church of Rome and other Bishopricks of their im∣moveable goods, i. e. their Land, and who violently took away res Ecclesiae; but this is nothing to a general neglect of Parochial Tithes: Nor can any more be inferred hence, but only that there were some Sacrilegious and unjust Per∣sons in that Age, as there are in all Ages; but who would conclude from thence a general cessation of the execution of Laws? Yet on this ground Mr. S. builds many Castles in the Air, which fall of themselves, as soon as this totter∣ing foundation is removed, and indeed the Nona and De∣cima (so often named in the Capitulars) paid by the Church Tenants do declare, that besides the Ninth part due for rent, that Age believed, the Tenth was of it self due to the Church; and accordingly they paid both Ninths and Tenths, as Mr. S. himself confesses; which, together with the for∣mer proofs out of Hincmarus and others, do fully shew, that Parochial Tithes were then generally paid in obedi∣ence to the Imperial Laws then in force. And no wonder, since the Canons of the Church also enjoyned the same thing, as appears by the Councils of Mentz, Arles, Chalons, Rhemes, Aix, Metz, &c. cited before §. 6. and to all these were added Pontifical Decrees, which were much regarded about that time; and though Mr. S. can find no Papal De∣cree ancienter than that of Pope Nicholas, An. 1059(t), yet we affirm the three last Books of the Capitulars were confirmed by Papal Authority before the year 900(u), yet in those Books Tithes are often fully and strictly enjoyned.

Again, that Decree of Pope Leo the Fourth, An. 850, That it seemed good to him and his Predecessors, Tithes should be justly paid by the People to their Baptismal Churches(w), is a plain constitution, and not barely a declaration of his O∣pinion, for Visum est was the old style of Laws, and Popes use not to preach, but command in their Decretals; yea, Luitprandus expresses this very thing in the highest terms of command, We enjoyn by Apostolic Authority, &c. and a little after he saith, the Pope Excommunicated those who did not obey this Decree(x). Wherefore, though the Decrees of Popes were not collected into one body till An. 1051, yet there were Decrees made, and in many places obeyed, long before, concerning Tithes. And as the Popes Power in∣creased afterwards, so these Decrees grew more numerous, so that 'tis endless to repeat them all, only we shall note that so many Papal Decrees grounded upon old Canons, and added to Imperial Laws, must needs settle this ancient payment of Tithes; and none that will impartially weigh the force of all this Authority, can think that Tithes were now generally not paid. But Mr. S. objects out of an E∣pistle of Pope Gregory the Seventh to some Princes of Spain, that the Pope there only perswades and exhorts, but doth not command the payment(y). I reply, Mr. S. commits many mistakes in his relation of this Epistle, for it was not writ to any Princes of Spain, there being no Gothic Princes there at that time, for Alphonsus is by the same Pope styled Rex Hispaniarum in another Epistle, and the Title of King of the Goths wholly ceased there after the year 713(z). Nor was there in Spain then any such Gothic corrupti∣on as to occasion the Popes joy, for the New conversion of the Nation, which leaving the Pagan errors were come to the true Christian Faith, as Gregory speaks in this Epistle(a); where∣fore this Epistle was sent to the Gothic Princes of Sweden and Denmark, then newly converted from Paganism(b); yea this Pope Gregory the year before writ an Epistle Sue∣tonum Regi, to the King of Swethland, declaring he had heard that the Christian Faith was begun to be preached there(c). To these Gothic Princes therefore he writ this

Letter, who with their People being new Converts, they were rather to be dealt with at first by entreaty than by command; and yet the words of this Epistle are high e∣nough considering the circumstances, We admonish you (saith he) by the Authority of the holy Roman Church, and in the name of the Apostles Peter and Paul, to give Tithes, and enjoyn them to your whole Kingdom, which are the words of this Epistle: and his Successor writes more strictly still to the same Goths, We command you, that the People committed to your government, do faithfully and devoutly pay Tithes, as it is known the Lord instituted, and that ye diligently warn them so to do, yea, if need be, under penalty of Excommunication(d). So that it is now made very evident that there were Impe∣rial Laws, Canons of Councils, and Decrees of Popes from the beginning of this 400 years to enjoyn the pay∣ment of Tithes; and there is abundant proof of general practice long before Pope Gregory the Sevenths time; so that Mr. S. is too confident of his own performances to fancy he hath sufficiently shewed the contrary; yet still he suggests, No General Council in Pope Gregory's time had once remembred the Duty, and the first that mentions them is that of Lateran, An. 1119(e). I reply, There was no need for General Councils to mention them, so long as either Devotion, or Provincial Laws and Canons were sufficient to make them paid; but there was a Canon of a Roman Council under this very Pope Gregory, An. 1078, wherein the Lay-men, who detained Tithes from the Church, are en∣joyned under penalty of damnation to restore them(f), and that General Council of Lateran he speaks of, An. 1119, speaks of them as then belonging to Parish Churches, and pertaining to the Bishops(g). The next General Council of Lateran, under Innocent the Second, An. 1130, condemns Feudal Tithes, as contrary to Parochial right, which is there clearly supposed ancienter than Infeodations; and the word Restore them to the Church, shews that it was then believed they were taken away from the Church at first(h). Again, the next General Council of Lateran clearly supposes the antiquity of Parochial right, An. 1180, for it prohibits

Tithes to be infeodate, or conveyed to Monasteries, be∣cause such disposition of Tithes would be injurious to Pa∣rish Churches, which were then in possession of them(i); and the exemption of Leprous People from Parochial Tithes, Can. 23, is undeniable proof that Parochial Tithes were then commonly claimed and received: so that though none of these Councils purposely command the payment of Parochial Tithes, because there was no need, yet (for all Mr. S. his pretences) they all expresly suppose them a duty of common right, and usually paid. But his reason for all this shuffling is to make out an assertion of his Friends, the Common Lawyers, viz. That before the Council of Lateran every Man might have given his Tithes to what Church he would. A saying that may be true in one sense, viz. they might do it with the Bishops and Incumbents consent, both which were by the last named Council of Lateran, An. 1180, forbid to consent to any such disposi∣tion of Tithes, and the religious Orders were prohibited to receive them. And this (very likely) was the meaning of the old Lawyers by this their common saying: But as Mr. S. expounds it of arbitrary disposal of Tithes by Lay-men, without any consent of the Bishop, it was always false, and he plunges himself into a thousand difficulties to make out this strange fancy; being forced to suppose here, that this last named Council of Lateran only pro∣hibited Religious houses to receive newly created Tithes without the Bishops consent, whereas the Decrees of for∣mer Popes, and the History of that time assure us, the Ro∣man Church designed long before to cut off that innova∣tion of Lay-mens disposing any sort of Tithes without Episcopal consent, yea even of infeodate Tithes, of which Pope Innocent the Third (Alexanders Successor, who knew the meaning of this Canon better than Mr. S.) expounds the preceding Canon of Alexander's Lateran Council, as Mr. S. confesses, pag. 139; yea he himself thinks it may be meant of infeodate Tithes, pag. 146, and therefore we doubt not to conclude that Tithes were paid parochially long before this Council of Lateran, and that there was

no time when Arbitrary Lay Consecrations were allowed or much practiced; for Laws, Practice, and Opinion of this Age, all: agreed to demonstrate they believed Tithes were due to the Clergy Jure Divino.

§. VIII. We might here have concluded this Chapter, but only that in the Review, where we might have expected a retractation of some of the Errors and Mistakes of this Chapter Mr. S. persists in his Opinions, and asks, How the Founders of Monasteries could have made Tithes part of their endowment, if Parochial payment were not frequently omitted or continued by Lay-men at their pleasure(k)? I reply, By the consent of Bishops and Popes they might give Tithes to Monasteries, though Parochial payment were not arbitra∣ry; and we have proved that Bishops did not only confirm Lay Donations afterwards, but always consented to them at first, and this consent only made them valid. Indeed these Charters of Bishops are sometimes called Confirma∣tions, but they were Confirmations Non solum ad solennita∣tem, sed ad necessitatem actus, as the Canonists speak; and the Bishops use of the words, Damus & Concedimus, very fre∣quently in those Grants; but the name of a Confirmation properly signifies the Charter of some following Bishops, who having seen the Lay Founder's Grant with his Prede∣cessors Charter, allowing it and making it valid at first, he by a new Charter confirms that which was granted by his Predecessor before. But as for Parochial Tithes, the Grant of them by a Lay-man to any Monastery without the Bi∣shops consent, was always void, and not only after the Lateran Council, or the year 1200; as appears by one of his own Instances, Where Tithes given to a Monastery by a King and Queen of Hungary, and confirmed by Pope Clement the Third divers years before, were by Pope Innocent the Third, An. 1200, declared to belong still to the Church, to which they were due of old, and the Donation and Con∣firmation are both made void, for want of the Bishops consent at first had(l). But Mr. S. his other instance of the Donation of the Knight of Berry, was a gift of infeo∣date

Tithes with the Bishops consent, which Pope Innocent is so far from declaring void (as Mr. S. fully pretends) that he expresly declares, for such Tithes, if any Lay-man will give them to a Covent with the Bishops consent, it shall stand firm for ever: so that he utterly mistakes this Decree, it being not of any Parochial Tithes, nor doth the Donation make it void(m). And we may justly wonder at Mr. S. his confidence in saying concerning these two Instances, That every Canonist will acknowledge they were of new Creation, at least not of Infeodate Tithes, when as the former Example is of Tithes anciently debitas Ecclesiae Ves∣primensi, and so no New creation: and the latter is expresly said to be meant of Infeodate Tithes in the very words of the Decree, and so neither of them prove what he in∣tended. But if any ask, why Bishops did more frequently dispense with Parochial right before the year 1200, than afterward. I reply, That it was of old believed the sole right of all Tithes in the Diocess were in the Bishop, and while the Monks were poor, and had a great same of Piety, the Bishops often encouraged the Disposal of Tithes to them; but as they grew rich, and Parochial Rectors im∣poverished by these Grants, it was judged a Male-admini∣stration, and condemned, and by degrees disused.

He had told us, pag. 70, these arbitrary Lay-Grants were clearly allowed by the Clergy, yet here he saith, They were practiced against many Canons both Papal and Synodal(n); but who can believe the same men did clearly allow, yet frequently condemn the same thing? wherefore we affirm such Grants were never allowed by the Clergy without Ecclesiastical consent. And whereas he pretends the Monks had divers Tithes so granted by Lay-men arbitrarily, for which they (as he saith) cunningly pleaded no Title but Prescription, after they perceived the Donation of Lay-men was not allowed without Episcopal consent. I Answer, There would have been no cunning at all in this plea, be∣cause Prescription was never allowed where the Thing was not fairly come to at first, as is expresly declared by Pope Innocent in the Example of the Monastery endowed by

the King and Queen of Hungary, mentioned just now; for when the Monastery pleaded Prescription, it was said, No Prescription could have beginning from a Lay Donation; and because no Lay-man could give that to another which he had no right to himself, therefore the plea of Prescription was not allowed, and the Donation is made void(o). And the Decretals cited by Mr. S. in the Margen speak not of Prescription ground∣ed on Lay-Grants, or pleaded by Monks against Parochial right, but of Prescription pleaded by one Parish Church against another(p); and one of them expresly saith, No Prescription can be grounded on a Lay-Donation(q); and ano∣ther, "In prescription of Ecclesiastical profits, bona fides & justus titulus exigatur(r). Therefore unless the Lay Do∣nation were confirmed by a Bishop originally, it is evident Prescription could not be pleaded in bar to Parochial right. But at last, after all these attempts to prove arbitrary Lay Consecrations, Mr. S. complains, He cannot find in the Leiger Books, or ancient Libels, any title to Tithes derived from these Arbitrary Consecrations, nor is there a formulary of any Libel in Durandus that touches this kind of Grants(s). And no wonder, for there never were any such Arbitrary Con∣secrations, but in Mr. S. his imagination; so that he truly confesseth this Doctrine is new, and never pointed at be∣fore, and therefore 'tis not strange that the poor Monks 400 years ago (never dreaming of this New invention) did not draw their claims to Tithes by Mr. S. his Novel Scheme; yea 'tis a little hard he should condemn them for unjustly concealing their Lay Benefactors bounty, since they do in their Leiger Books frequently mention Lay-Donors of Tithes, but withal they also record the Bishops consent which made them valid, and the true reason why they set down no Tithes given them only by the gift of Lay-men, is, because there was no such thing. His dis∣course about Appropriations wholly relies on this false foun∣dation also, that divers of them were made by Lay-Patrons alone; which I have disproved before, and therefore shall only remark, that he grants here even a dedication of Tithes to Gods service, if it had been made by a Lay-man at first,

makes them so sacred, that no Lay-man can ever after have a good Title to them in Equity and Conscience, which he would have our Impropriators seriously to consider, since it is destruction to a man to devour that which is holy. The Exhortation of Gerold, Bishop of Oldenburg, to those of the Desarts of Wagria, to pay Tithes(t), is not so very contemptible con∣sidering the Age he lived in, and may be justified if taken in a Latitude allowable to all popular discourses; and however the encroaching Monks might scoff the Bishops, as if they went from the business in hand, when they turn∣ed their discourse to reprove them for unjust taking away Parochial Tithes. I am sure there was great need to put a stop to that growing mischief, which had so impove∣rished the Parish Rectors in that Age, as might in time have ruined Religion it self. As for Infeodations coming from the Church at first, he brings nothing new to disprove it here, but confesses it was believed so very anciently, and brings one good Argument to confirm it was really true, viz. That no Tithes are paid to the Church out of any such Infeodations which would sometimes have been claim∣ed, but only that these Tithes now alienated by Infeoda∣tion with the Bishops consent, were the very same Tithes which had first belonged to the Church; and Mr. S. (who never yet produced one clear Example of any Infeodation that did not originally come from the Church) here gives one clear instance out of Ivo's 289 Epistle of an Infeoda∣tion made by a Bishop: So that reason, authority, Laws and history of practice do thus far declare, that Tithes were ever reputed to belong to the Church.

Notes

• (o)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 70.
• (p)

  Epist. Al∣cuin. ad Car. Magn. An. 797.
• (q)

  Krantz. Metrop. l. 1. cap. 8.
• (r)

  Helmold. histor. Sclav. lib. 1. c. 3. ita etiam Adam Bremens. hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 9.
• (s)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p 71.
• (t)

  Hincmar, 55. Capit. ad Laudun. cap. 1.
• (u)

  Cent. Mag∣deburg. Cent. 9. cap. 7.
• (w)

  An. 963. Cromer. de reb. Polon. l. 3. Johan. Hebart. hist. Poton. l. 2. c. 1.
• (x)

  Concil. Mogunt. can. 16. qu. 1. c. 42.
• (y)

  Concil. Metens. c. 2. ap. Bin. T. 3. p 2. pag. 1••6.
• (z)

  Concil. Bracar. Can. 5, & 6. Concil. Ticin. An. 855. Bin. Tom. 3. p. 1. §. 2. p. 400. Grat. c. 16. q. 1. cap. Plures bap.
• (a)

  Concil. Mogunt. 2. An. 847. C. 10. Bin. Tom. 3. p. 1. §. 2. pag. 374.
• (c)

  Addit. ad Capit. 4. c. 73. & Leg. Longob. lib. 3. Tit. 3. cap. 7.
• (d)

  Hincmar. Rhem. ep. 7. cap. 35.
• (b)

  Capitul. l. 5. cap. 46.
• (e)

  Leo 4. in c. 16. qu. 1. de Monachis, c. 45, 46.
• (f)

  Addit. 4. ad Capit. c. 73.
• (g)

  Capitul. l. 7. c. 141.
• (h)

  Capit. l. 1. cap. 143, & cap. 154. Concil. Nannet. cap. 1.
• (i)

  Synod. Ti∣cin. ap. Bin. Tom. 2. p. 2. pag. 400.
• (k)

  Concil. Mutin. A. 898. ap. Sigon. regn. Ital. l. 6.
• (l)

  Johan. 8. An. 872. ap. Bin. T. 3. p. 2. pag 1.
• (m)

  Vid. Chart. apud Miraeum de Canon. cap. 20.
• (n)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 74.
• (o)

  Spelman. Gloss. p. 313.
• (p)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 75.
• (q)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 99.
• (r)

  Petr. Clun. l. 1. ep. 28.
• (s)

  Sirmond. not. ad Epist. Goffrid. Vind. l. 2. ep. 26.
• (t)

  Geofr. Vind. l. 3. Ep. 41.
• (u)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 76.
• (w)

  Epist. An∣selm. l. 2. ep. 14. in not. ibid. pag. 53.
• (x)

  Decretal. Lib. 3. Tit. 30. c. 31. p. 1347.
• (y)

  Andr. Quer∣cetan. not. ad Bibl. Cluniac. pag. 75.
• (z)

  Ibid. p. 174.
• (a)

  Sirmond. Not. ad Gof∣frid. Vindoc. pag. 95.
• (b)

  Miraeus de Canonicis, cap. 91.
• (c)

  Innocent. 3. decret. Ep. l. 1. pag. 160.
• (d)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 78.
• (e)

  Innoc. de∣cret. Ep. l. 2. pag. 483.
• (f)

  Decretal. l. 3. Tit. 30. c. 26. p. 1340.
• (g)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 79.
• (h)

  Innoc. de∣cret. Ep. l. 1. pag. 83.
• (i)

  Decret. l. 3. Tit. 29. cap. 5. pag. 1323.
• (k)

  Flodoard. hist. Rhem. l. 3. cap. 25.
• (l)

  Capitul. l. 5. c. 46.
• (m)

  Anselm. in Tit. cap 2.
• (n)

  Ivo Curnot. Epist. 12.
• (o)

  Chap. 5. §. 5
• (p)

  Isid. Peleus. l. 2. ep. 127.
• (q)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 83.
• (r)

  Concil: Araus. 1. Can. 10. An. 441. Bin. T. 1. p. 2. pag. 499.
• (s)

  Sidon. Apol. l. 7. ep. 9.
• (t)

  Concil. La∣odicen. Can. 13.
• (u)

  Concil. Aurel. 4. Can. 7. An. 545. Bin. Tom. 2. p. 2. pag. 35.
• (w)

  Justin. No∣vel. p. 123.
• (x)

  Concil. Cabil. An. 658. Concil. 9. Tolet. Can. 2.
• (y)

  Concil. 3. Tolet. Can. 19. An. 598. Bin. Tom. 2. p. 2. pag. 282.
• (z)

  Theophyl. Ep. 27. ap. Bibl. patr. Tom. 15. p. 257.
• (a)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 84.
• (b)

  Bin. Tom. 1. p. 1. pag. 512.
• (c)

  Concil. Valent. can. 9. Concil. Wormat. can. 6. Concil. Colon. can. 4. Mogunt. An. 888. can. 4. Capit. l. 7. cap. 368.
• (d)

  Concil: Bracar. 2. can. 5. An. 570. Greg. Mag. Ep. l. 12. c, 10. Concil. 4. Au∣rel. can. 33.
• (e)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 85.
• (f)

  Capit. l. 7. cap. 213.
• (g)

  Concil. Arelat. sub Car. M. can. 4. Turon. can. 15. Cabilon can. 42. Mogunt ca. 29. Meldens. c. 51. Wormat. can. 6.
• (h)

  Leg. Carol. M. edit. Vit. p. 311.
• (i)

  Capit. l. 5. cap. 178. Concil. Paris. An. 829.
• (k)

  Vit. S. Val∣drici ap. Seld. hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 86.
• (l)

  Hincmar. Dial. de stat. Eccles. pag. 65.
• (m)

  Petr. Da∣mian. l. 1. Ep. 13. ad Alexand. 2.
• (n)

  Hist Tithes, Chap. 6. p 87.
• (o)

  Capit. l. 5. c. 83.
• (p)

  Ibid. c. 82.
• (q)

  Addit. 4. c. 37.
• (r)

  Synod. Rom. c. 16. q 7. c. 33. Monasterium.
• (s)

  Euitprand, vit. Le on. 4.
• (t)

  Decretal. l. 3. tit. 5. c. 16. pag. 1128.
• (u)

  Duarenus de Minister. lib. 5. cap. 4.
• (w)

  Hist. Tithes Chap. 6. p. 89.
• (x)

  Capit. lib. 6. cap. 197. & l. 7. cap. 173.
• (y)

  Capit. lib. 5. cap. 108.
• (z)

  Ibid. cap. 43, and 82.
• (a)

  Addit. 3. cap. 25.
• (b)

  Leg. Longob. l. 3. tit. 1. c. 44. Concil. Tribur. c. 32. Concil. Cabil. c. 26.
• (c)

  Concil. Lat. sub Alex. 3. Can. 17.
• (d)

  Addit. ad Concil. Later. par. 15 cap. 7. Bin. Tom. 3. par. 2. p. 602.
• (e)

  Decretal. l 3. tit. 5. c. 30. pag. 1150. Et extrav. l. 6. tit. de Praebend. c. suscepti.
• (f)

  Decret. l. 3. tit. 38. c. 23. pag. 1451.
• (g)

  Synod. sub Joan. 9. A. 904. ap. Bin. Tom. 3. p. 2. pag. 137.
• (h)

  Concil. Au∣gustan. A. 952. ap. Bin. Tom. 3. p. 2. pag. 152.
• (i)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 91.
• (k)

  Concil. Rom. sub Greg. 7. An. 1078.
• (l)

  Concil. Lat. Calixt. 2. An. 1119, &c.
• (m)

  Concil. Nannetens. Can. 16. ap. Bin. Tom. 3. par. 2. pag. 133.
• (n)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 93.
• (o)

  Conc. Later. Alex. 3. Can. 9. & 14. Bin. T. 3. p. 2. pag. 558. & Decretal. l. 3. Tit. 38. c. 4. p. 1438.
• (p)

  Decret. ib. c. 10. p. 1443.
• (q)

  Ibid. c. 21. p. 1449.
• (r)

  Ibid. l. 3. Tit. 7. cap. 3. p. 1161.
• (s)

  Ibid. l 3. Tit. 5. cap. 31. pag. 1150.
• Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 94.
• (t)

  Sarisb. de nugis Curial. l. 7. cap. 17.
• (u)

  Monastic. Angl. Tom. 2. p. 114.
• (w)

  Hist. Tithes Chap. 6. p. 98.
• (x)

  Monast. Angl. T. 2. p. 208.
• (y)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 99.
• (z)

  Monast. Angl. Tom. 2. p. 409.
• (a)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 100, &c.
• (b)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 104.
• Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 106, &c.
• (c)

  P. Abelard. Serm. in natal. S. Joh. Baptist.
• (d)

  Sarisbur. de nugis Curial. l. 7. c. 21.
• (e)

  Privileg. Formos. Mona∣ster. Gigniacen. An, 896. ap. Baluz. Miscel. Tom. 2. p. 160. Decretal. l. 3. Tit. 30. c. 3, 4. p. 1326, 1327.
• (f)

  MSS. Bibl. Bodleian. ap. Monasticon, Tom. 2. p. 947.
• (g)

  Extat. Mo∣nast. Tom. 1. p. 736.
• (h)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 119.
• (i)

  Append. ad Concil. Later. p. 13. cap. 3. Bin. T. 3. p. 2. p. 598.
• (k)

  Alex. Ha∣lens. p. 3. qu 5. n. 6. art. 2.
• (l)

  Pet. Cluniac. l. 1. ep. 28.
• (m)

  Chart. Hu∣gonis de Ver. Monasticon. T. 1. p. 1021.
• (n)

  Monast. ib.
• (o)

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 108.
• (p)

  Lib. de zelo Vet. Princip. German. Bibl. patrum, T. 15. p. 736.
• (q)

  Lamb. Sbaf∣naburg. ap. Bin. Tom. 3. p. 2. pag. 252.
• Hist. Tithes, Ca. 6. p. 111.
• (r)

  P. Damian. l. 4. Ep. 12.
• (s)

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 112.
• (t)

  Krantz. Me∣trop. l. 1. c. 2.
• (u)

  Seld. Re∣view, p. 474.
• (w)

  Krantz. Saxon. l. 6. c. 52.
• (x)

  Bin. T. 3. p. 2. p. 400.
• (y)

  Decret. l. 3. Tit. 30. c. 19. pag. 1335.
• (z)

  Hoveden, Annal. p. 2. pag. 335.
• (a)

  Hist. lib. 3. cap. 3.
• (b)

  Halens. qu. 51. m. 6. art. 1.
• (c)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 115.
• (d)

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 117.
• (e)

  Extravag. l. 6. tit. De De∣cimis, cap. 2. §. San••.
• (f)

  Innocen 3. Epist. l. 3. p. 447.
• (g)

  Idem. ibid. pag. 482.
• (h)

  Krantz. Wandal. l. 4. c, 38, 39.
• (i)

  Decret. l. 3. Tit. 30. c. 17. pag. 1333.
• (k)

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 119.
• (l)

  Concil. Ca∣bilon. can. 19. Bin. T. 3. p. 1. §. 2. p. 193.
• (m)

  Decretal. l. 3. Tit. 30. c. 2. pag. 1325.
• (n)

  Idem ibid. c. 10. p. 1330.
• (o)

  Sarisb. de nugis Curial. l. 7. c. 21. pag. 452.
• (p)

  Pet. Blesens. ep. 82.
• (q)

  Pet. Clun. l. 1. ep. 33, 34.
• (r)

  Quercetan. not. ad Bibl. Cluniac. p. 115.
• (g)

  Concil. Trecens. can. 66. An. 1127. Bin. Tom. 3. p. 2. pag. 476.
• (h)

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 122.
• (i)

  Ibid. p. 123.
• (k)

  Rodulph. Glaber. l. 2. c. 11.
• (l)

  Concil. Mo∣gunt. cap. 38. An. 813. Bin. T. 3. p. 1. §. 2. pag. 201.
• (m)

  Concil. 4. Arelat. can. 9. ibid. p. 188.
• (n)

  Concil. Cabil. can. 18. ib. 193.
• (o)

  Concil. Rhem. can. 38. ib. 204.
• (p)

  Concil. Aquens. A. 837. c. 18. Metens. An. 890. c. 2. Tribur. An. 895. c. 13.
• (q)

  Capitul. l. 2. cap. 38. Et lib. 4. cap. 40. Et lib. 5. cap. 46. & 89, &c.
• (r)

  Vid. Bin. T. 3. p. 1. §. 2. p. 325.
• (s)

  Paschas. in Math. l. 10. An. 820.
• (t)

  Agobard. de dispens. rei Ec∣cles. p. 277. An. 828.
• (u)

  Walafrid. Strab. de reb. Eccles. cap. 27. An. 480.
• (w)

  Rab. Maur. in Num. l. 2. c. 23.
• (x)

  Hincmar. Rhemens. de stat. Eccles p. 653 An. 850.
• (y)

  Idem, ep. 7. cap. 35.
• (z)

  Idem in Hincmar. Laud. cap. 35.
• (a)

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 125.
• (b)

  Ivo Carnot. Ep. 207.
• (c)

  Idem. Ep. 192.
• (d)

  Decret. l. 3. Tit. 10. c. 7. p. 1195.
• (e)

  Concil. Ti∣cin. ap. Bin. T. 3. p. 1. §. 2. pag. 400.
• (f)

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 127.
• (g)

  Gloss. ad c. 25. qu. 1. sunt quidam.
• (h)

  Pet. Blesenj. ep. 82.
• (i)

  Joh. Sarisb. de nugis Cu∣rial. l. 7. c. 21.
• (k)

  Extrav. de Decim. c. 15. ad haec. Ap∣pend. ad Con∣cil. Lateran. par. 4. c. 1. To which add, Alex. 3. in Con∣cil. Turon. An. 1163.
• (l)

  Hector Boet. hist. Scot. l. 9.
• (m)

  Idem hist. Scot. l. 10.
• (n)

  Hector hist. Scot. l. 12. Spelm. Concil. Tom. 1. p. 571.
• (o)

  Capitul. lib. 5. c. 106, 123. lib. 6. Cap. 29, 41. Addit. 3. c. 51. Addit. 4. c. 73.
• (p)

  Capit. lib. 1. cap. 155. item Cap. 152, 153, 154. ibid.
• (q)

  Cap lib. 5. cap. 46. cited in Seld. p. 79.
• (r)

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 132.
• (s)

  Baron. Tom. 10. An. 845, 846.
• (t)

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 134.
• (u)

  Capit. l. 7. cap. 377.
• (w)

  Const. 16. qu. 1. c. 45.
• (x)

  Luitprand. vit. Leon. 4.
• (y)

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 136.
• (z)

  Rod. Sanct. histor. Hispan. lib. 1. cap. 11.
• (a)

  Ep. Greg. 7. Registr. lib. 9. ep. 14. apud Bin. Tom 3. par. 2. p. 372.
• (b)

  Krantz. Danic. l 4. & Suec. l. 5. c. 10.
• (c)

  Registr. Greg. 7. l. 8. ep. Bin. ib. p. 361.
• (d)

  Alex. 3. Epist. 19.
• (e)

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 137.
• (f)

  Synod. Rom. sub Greg. 7. ap. Bin. T. 3. p. 2. pag. 400.
• (g)

  Concil. Lateran, An. 1119. Bin. Tom. 3. p. 2. pag. 465.
• (h)

  Conc. Lat. An. 1130. ap. Bin. ib. p. 487.
• (i)

  Concil. La∣ter. An. 1180, Can. 9. ap. Bin. ibid. pag. 557.
• (k)

  Seld. Re∣view, pag. 467, 468.
• (l)

  Decret. l. 3. tit. 30. cap. 31. pag. 1347.
• (m)

  Decret. l. 3. tit. 10. cap. 7. pag. 1194.
• (n)

  Seld. Re∣view, p. 469.
• (o)

  Decret. l. 3. Tit. 30. cap. 31.
• (p)

  Decret. l. 2. tit. 26. cap. 6. pag. 933. &c. 8. p. 934.
• (q)

  Decret. l. 2. tit. 26. cap. 7.
• (r)

  Ibid. c. 17. pag. 498.
• (s)

  Seld. Re∣view, p. 470.
• (t)

  Seld. Re∣view, p. 472.