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. IX. Of Parishes.

§. I. IF the discourse of Lay Consecrations had imme∣diately followed these Laws to the contrary, it would have appeared too incredible even for an easie Faith; and therefore to amuse the Reader, and divert his thoughts from these Constitutions, Mr. S. once more steps back into the Primitive Times, to enquire about the Original of Parishes, which disquisition doth not necessarily belong to the payment of Tithes, because we have proved, Tithes were paid in the Primitive Church, when the whole Bishopric was one great Parish as to the matter of Revenue,

Chap. VI. §. 3. Wherefore if the Britons had only such Pa∣rishes among them, yet they might pay Tithes to their Bishop, to be by him distributed among the Clergy, as it was done of old in other parts of Christendom; and Mr. S. saith, It is not likely that in those times this Island should differ therein, from what was uniformly received through those parts of Christendom whereof we have best Testimony re∣maining(f) 1.1. And if we consider France alone, the near∣est Christian Country to the Britons, and that with which they most conversed, it will be evident from the Council of Mascon, that Tithes had been paid there long before, An. 586; yea it is plain from the Testament of S. Remigius, An. 470, that there were Parish Churches in France with Tithes belonging to them, called there Ecclesias cum decimis & appenditiis(g) 1.2; and therefore there is no reason for Mr. S. to reckon it so unlikely that the Britons should have Parish Churches endowed, An. 490, as the Manuscript of Landaff (cited by him, pag. 250) saith, they had; for be∣fore this S. Germanus and Lupus came out of France into Britain, and taught them, as Giraldus Cambrensis shews, To pay their Tithes partly to the Bishop, and partly to their Bap∣tismal Church(h) 1.3; and surely those old and ruinated Churches which Augustine found in decay at his coming, and got leave to repair (as Bede shews(i) 1.4) were built by the Britons, and used before the Saxons came (An. 460) but by these Pagan Saxons suffered to fall to ruine. In other Countries Mr. S. grants there were Churches from the beginning of Christianity, and he proves it by 1 Cor. xi. 22. and by Isidore Peleusiota his mention of Churches adorn∣ed with Marble in his time(k) 1.5, and why not in Britain also? He tells us, Bede mentions a Church built here in the time of the Romans(l) 1.6, and that Gildas, An. 580, saith, The British Priests had Churches, which they went to for filthy lucres sake; wherefore doubtless they had Churches endow∣ed then, or else how could their Avarice have expected such satisfaction from thence? Fleta (cited before) assures us, the Cyric-sceat, or First-fruits of Threshed Corn, was paid to the Churches in the Britons time; and since other

Testimony declares they paid Tithes, either this quantity of Seed was paid in the proportion of a Tenth, or was paid beside Tithes, as it was among the Saxons afterwards, and though the paucity of Writers of the British Church make it difficult fully to determine this, yet here is Evi∣dence enough, the Britons had Parish Churches endowed, which is the thing Mr. S. would have denied.

§. II. For the Age of the Saxons, it cannot be expected that Augustine, when he came first to preach to Pagans, should require more than voluntary Oblations, and there∣fore he and his Clergy for a while lived in common; but afterward King Ethelbert and he built and repaired many Churches(m) 1.7, Which (Mr. S. saith) doubtless had some kind of limits of adjoyning Villages or Towns(n) 1.8. And if so, there were Parochial Churches even in Augustines time, and that Tithes were then paid also (especially in Ethelberts King∣dom) is made very probable before, Chap. VIII. §. 1. And that there were Parish Churches endowed with Tithes in other parts of England soon after, seems very plain, from that relation in Beda, concerning Putta Bishop of Rochester, An. 677, who was driven from his Bishopric and forced to retire into Mercia, Where Sexwulf the Bishop gave him the possession of a certain Church, and a little Field beside, whereon he subsisted as long as he lived(o) 1.9. Malmsbury calls it, Ec∣clesiam campestrem & agellum(p) 1.10; by which we see there were Country Churches then in Mercia, with Possessions belonging to them, besides Fields, i. e. endowed with Glebe and Tithes, and this was not Twenty year after the Conver∣sion of Mercia to the Faith, and about Fifty years after Au∣gustines death. And if there were no Country Churches then seperately endowed, but the whole Revenue of the Diocess was paid to the Bishop, whose Clergy lived with him on this Common stock, as Mr. S. affirms, how could this Country Church have any such Possession? and why did not Sexwulf retain this Reverend Confessor with him, and give him allowance out of the Common stock? And if there were Parish Churches endowed so early, then those

Priests of the several Churches, who ought to teach the People, mentioned in the Council of Calcuth, An. 786, were Cu∣rates residing at these Churches, and were ordained with a Title to them, as the Sixth Canon of that Council speaks(q) 1.11; and Mr. S. hath confessed Tithes were ordinarily paid here, by the Testimony of Boniface Bishop of Mentz, An. 750(r) 1.12, and also that Lay-men had built Churches on their Land for Priests to reside at, An. 700(s) 1.13; and there∣fore what reason is there for him to doubt of Curates resident on Country Churches endowed, An. 786? But he tells us out of Beda, That when a Priest or Monk came into a Village, the People presently used to flock about him, to beg his Blessing, and to hear the Word of God(t) 1.14, and hence he infers there were no Curates then resident; but the fallacy lies in Mr. S. his concealing the Country, and the Time of which Bede speaks, he saith this of Northumberland, in the time of Colman Bishop of Lindisfarn, and in S. Cuthberts youth, viz. about the year 650, that is, within Thirty year after the Conversion of Northumberland, and it is no won∣der if at that time Parochial Cures endowed, were but few in that Country; though they were setled long before in other parts of the Island, yet Bede in that Colmans time speaks of Churches in Northumberland, to which the Peo∣ple resorted on Sundays, and he expresly saith, the Villages which S. Cuthbert visited, where the People had this Custom, were Villages placed on steep and rough Mountains afar off, places which terrified others but to look on at a distance(u) 1.15. And now, what wonder is it, that in such remote and inaccessi∣ble Villages the presence of a Priest was rare? will it fol∣low hence, there were no Churches built and Priests resi∣dent in the more habitable parts? The truth is, this is meer Sophistry designed to discredit the Antiquity of Parish Churches; but they are only thin Conjectures against plain proof: so that we conclude, though on the first Conversion of any Kingdom of the Saxons, things could not instantly be setled, yet within Twenty year after each Countries Conversion, there were some residing Priests at endowed Parochial Churches.

§. III. That Honorius, Bishop of Canterbury, first divided all the Regions of his Province into Parishes, that so he might allot the several Flocks to several Ministers to take care of them(w) 1.16, is affirmed not only by Mr. Joscelin, but by our great Antiquary Mr. Cambden(x) 1.17, and before him by the Arch∣bishop Parker, as also by Bishop Godwin; and as Mr. S. con∣fesses, by some (yea by many) of our greatest and best learned Writers(y) 1.18. And Mr. S. hath no way to disprove this An∣cient and well attested Opinion, but by suggesting these great and Learned Writers did not understand the word Parochias, which being of old used for a Bishopric, he thinks, they fully applied it to denote the limits of a Coun∣try Church, and therefore he would have us believe, that since two new Bishops were made in the Province of Can∣terbury in Honorius his time (where there were three Bi∣shoprics before) therefore it was said, Honorius primus Provinciam suam in Parochias divisit; that is, He first divi∣ded it into Bishoprics. But how could the erecting two New Bishopricks, in two newly converted Countries, be called a dividing his whole Province into Bishoprics? or what probability is there, so many Learned Authors should be so grosly mistaken? they must have small Opinion of either their learning or diligence, who will quit their plain sense for so harsh a gloss as this of Mr. S. who indeed hath nothing against this Tradition, but meer guesses, and therefore we will (till better proof appear against it) take it for granted, That Honorius divided his Province into Pa∣rishes in the modern sense, An. 630.

§. IV. As for the increase of Parishes afterward, by the building of many New Churches, our ancient Historians will inform us, that Bishops were the first builders of Country Churches, as Mr. S. out of Bede testifies concern∣ing Byrinus, who was Bishop of Dorchester, An. 635, That he built and dedicated many Churches(z) 1.19, (which was in Honorius his time) and therefore it is not likely that Pa∣rishes had their Original from Lay-foundations; and since Mr. S. grants, that the restraining such a Portion of the

Profits from the common Treasury of the Diocess, and annexing them to a Priest resident at a Country Church, was by the con∣sent of the Bishop (who for the better edifying of the Peo∣ple willingly diminished his own income,) it follows from thence, that though Lay-men did build the Churches, yet Bishops set out the Parishes at the dedication(a) 1.20; at which time, by the old Canons the endowment of the Church was to be setled by the Bishop, who though he might be guided in the assigning the limits of a New Parish by the extent of a Lay-founders Land, yet the Bishop made these limits: And least any Lay-men should pretend to do this without the Bishop, it was commanded afterward by a Canon, That the Bishop of the Diocess should alwaies consecrate New built Churches, An. 816(b) 1.21; and the same Synod in the 10th Canon declares, there were then divers Parish Churches in one Bishopric, and Priests ordinarily resident in them. And that there were Endowments long before setled on these Country Churches, appears by what is noted before, §. II. to which we may now add, that King Canutus saith, It was due by an ancient Law for Men to pay their Cyric-sceat to the Church in whose Parish they lived(c) 1.22, referring no doubt to the Laws of King Ina, An. 692, where this Cyric-sceat is commanded to be paid out of that House where a man lives, at Christmas(d) 1.23. Afterwards the proofs for Parishes are still plainer, That old Synod in Ireland commanding, That no man should depart from his own Church(e) 1.24, being cited in the Statuta Synodorum, collected An. 900, must needs have been held long before that time; and if Parishes were li∣mited so early in Ireland, to be sure they were far elder in England, and if they had not been limited before An. 900, it had been impertinent in the Collector of Statuta Synodo∣rum, to have put it in for a Law here; wherefore it is strange Mr. S. (who confesses all this) should say, The first express limitation of Profits to be given to this or that Church, is in the Laws of King Edgar, An. 970. (related before Chap. 8. §. 9.) for the instance of Putta's Country Church and others before shew the contrary; but these Laws of King Edgar do clearly declare, Profits were limited of a

long time before; for in those Laws are three sort of Churches, first, The old Minster or Church, which was the Mother of the rest, to which it is there said, the right of Tith∣ing properly belongs. And this was the old Parish Church, built it is likely in the time of Honorius his first division of Parishes, whose Territory being very large, the Bishops and Lay-Owners (by their consent) erected some new Churches and Chappels within that precinct; and if the Bishop (who only could limit Profits) gave this Church right of Sepulture, then the Lord might (with the Bi∣shops allowance) give to this new Erection some part of his Tithe, formerly due to the Mother Church; but if it had no right of Sepulture, it remained to be a Chappel, and the Lord could not give any of the old Churches Tithes to it; but if he would have a Curate there, he must maintain him out of his own Nine parts, and pay his Tithe to the Mother Church beside. Which Law is so far from disproving the Antiquity of Parish Churches, with set Limits and certain Profits, that it shews Parochial right of Tithes was then so very firmly setled in the old Parish Church, and had been so long owned, that no new erected Church could deprive it of all its right, nor of any part of it, but by the Bishops consent. Which is also an evident proof, there could then be no Arbitrary Consecrations made by the Laity. 'Tis true, many of these new Churches which had right of Burial, afterward became Parish Churches, yet in many places still the right of the old Parish Church is preserved, as in my own Church, which receives two parts of the Tithe of divers Lands lying in another Parish (as it is now accounted;) and that Church, in whose Parish now the Land is reckoned to lie, hath but the third part of the Tithe; which shews, that my Church anciently was the Elder Minster, and this but a new Ere∣ction by the Bishops consent: But for the Churches without right of Burial, they were and still are only Chappels, and this in after-times was reckoned the distinction between a Parochial Church and Chappel, that the one had right of Burial, and the other had not. As for the Original of some

Parishes after the Conquest, it is rather an alteration of the old division of Parishes than any new Division; and since Mr. S. grants it was made by Ecclesiastical consent, that shews the Bishops first divided Parishes, his first instance is clear, viz. of a command from the Pope to the Arch∣bishop of York, to erect a New Parish within one that was too large(f) 1.25; and his second instance only shews, that the Bishops did desire the King to consent to the put∣ting two Parishes together, but still the uniting these Churches (though done by the Kings Licence, who it is likely was Patron of the Church to be united to that Hos∣pital Church) was the Bishops Act, as is most evident from a Patent of King Edward the Third, for such another U∣nion where the King gives License—ut ille ad quem per∣tinet, annectere & unire posset(g) 1.26; that is, that the Bishop may unite two Parishes. Wherefore by all this it is plain, both that the division of Parishes is very ancient, and that the Bishop always did limit them, and assign the Pro∣fits to them; and this may suffice for Parochial Limits.

Notes

• (f) 1.1

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 9. p. 249.
• (g) 1.2

  Flodoard. hist. Rhemens. lib. 1. cap. 18.
• (h) 1.3

  Girald. Cambr. descrip. Camb. cap. 18:
• (i) 1.4

  Bed. hist. l. 1. c. 26. p. 30.
• (k) 1.5

  Isid. Peleus. l. 2. Ep. 246.
• (l) 1.6

  Bed. hist. l. 1. c. 26.
• (m) 1.7

  Bed. hist. l. 1. c. 26.
• (n) 1.8

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 9. p. 252.
• (o) 1.9

  Bed. hist. l. 4. c. 12. p. 163.
• (p) 1.10

  Malmsb. gest. Pontif. l. 2. p. 132.
• (q) 1.11

  Concil. Calcuth. Spelm. T. 1. 293, 295.
• (r) 1.12

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 5. p. 66.
• (s) 1.13

  Ib. Chap. 9. p. 261.
• (t) 1.14

  Beda lib. 3. cap. 26. & l. 4. c. 27.
• (u) 1.15

  Beda ib. l. 4. c. 27.
• (w) 1.16

  Godwin. Vitâ Honorii. p. 59.
• (x) 1.17

  Cambden's Britan. p. 104.
• (y) 1.18

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 9. p. 256.
• (z) 1.19

  Beda hist. l. 3. c. 7. p. 99.
• (a) 1.20

  Bed. ib. l. 5. c. 4, & 5.
• (b) 1.21

  Concil. ap Spelm. T. 1. p. 330.
• (c) 1.22

  Malmsb. gest. reg. l. 2. c. 11. p. 42.
• (d) 1.23

  Spelm. T. 1. pag. 185.
• (e) 1.24

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 9. p. 264.
• (f) 1.25

  Hist. Tithes, Ch. 9. p. 267.
• (g) 1.26

  Monast. Tom. 1. p. 493. & pag 494.