AN Historical Vindication OF THE DIVINE RIGHT OF TITHES, FROM Scripture, Reason, and the Opinion and practise of Jews, Gentiles, and Christians in all Ages.  
DESIGNED To Supply the Omissions, Answer the Objections, and rectify the Mistakes of Mr. Selden's History of Tithes.  
By THO. cumber, D.D.  
LONDON, Printed by S. Roycroft, for Robert Clavel at the Peacock in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1682.   

TO THE Right Reverend Father in God, HENRY, Lord Bishop of LONDON, ONE OF THE Lords of His MAJESTIES Most Honourable Privy Council.  
My Lord,  
THough the Sacred Maintenance of Tithes be not so necessary to the Being of a Church, as a true Faith and a right Way of Worship, yet it is so requisite to the Well-being thereof, that after my endeavours to vindicate our excellent Forms of Worship, I hope it is not improper for me to undertake the defence of that Holy Revenue which supports them. For since our Lord chooses Men for his Ambassadors, and doth not feed, cloath, or teach them by Miracle now, these Divine Offices will be but meanly performed, unless such Provisions be made for those that do Administer them, as may keep them from necessity, ignorance, and contempt. And the miserable condition of those Churches which have been unhappily or wickedly stripped of that Inheritance, which God appointed for the honour and defence of Christianity, may teach us both to be thankful for the Prudence and Piety of former Ages in endowing this Church, and to beware of there designs in this Age, who out of Envy or Covetousness would diminish or destroy these just and useful Endowments. It is very sad to consider, that even of Gods ancient Patrimony, Tithes, so much was first alienated by the Pope, and is still detained by such as pretend to hate all Popish Practices and Opinions ( but what tends to their profit) that many Churches cannot afford their poor Incumbents food and raiment; yet instead of restoring, at least a Competency, which the very Law of Nature requires, too many do endeavour by all kind of Artifices to lessen those deuce that are remaining, and are so far from imitating the Charity of former Times in giving any thing to God out of their own, that they will not be so just as to let us quietly enjoy what others have freely given us. Which bold and manifest sacrilege 
Si vero is qui propria vota non reddit infidelis esse convincitur, quanto majoris impietatis reus est, qui ea quae alii voverunt& reddiderunt usurpat. Agobard. de disp. rei Eccles. cap. 11. , I have reason to believe many have been encouraged to commit by that currant and commonly received Error, That Tithes are not due by Divine right, but only by human positive Constitutions. For in the days of our Fathers, while the Divine right was generally maintained and believed, it was thought a matter of Conscience to pay Tithes justly. But now they that are either so cunning to avoid discovery, or so great to despise the punishments of the Law, do without scruple in part, or in whole, subtract or detain their Tithes, and by this false Principle are persuaded it is no Sin that they need to repent of, so that the same Error that encourages them to do this great injury to the Church, causeth them to do a greater to their own Souls. And since this Opinion is as false as it is mischievous, being a Modern invention, which contradicts Scripture and Reason, and the judgement and practise of the best Men in all times and places( all which declare for the Divine right of Tithes) I esteemed myself obliged, as well in duty to the Church as in Charity to the Souls of such as are deceived, to confute that pernicious Error, that Tithes are only due by human right; a Principle too unwarily received by some that are no Enemies to the Church, who do not consider that this was the foundation of all those Petitions made to the late usurping Power for taking away Tithes, viz. That the same Authority which gave them beginning might alter or abolish them when they pleased; which Petitions, if Providence had not prevented their success, had ended in the utter ruin of Religion itself. I am sure the Divine Right of Tithes hath been the Opinion of the best and most learned Men in all Ages, and I see no reason why we should desert so ancient, so universal, so useful, and so well attested a Truth in this Age, when so many are rather desirous than able to disprove it. As for the Libels of the wilder Sects, there is so much noise and so little sense in their railing rather than reasoning against Tithes, that they are not worth confuting: For all that they or any others say against the Divine Right, which looks like Argument, is borrowed from the Learned Mr. Selden( whose industry and parts I must own with respect, while I censure his partiality, and discover his mistakes) His more learned than faithful History of Tithes, hath been, if not the Parent, yet the Nurse of this common and mischievous Error: wherefore I have very strictly examined it, and by filling up the Omissions, removing the Objections, and modestly observing the Mistakes thereof, I have not only vindicated the Opinion of the Divine right of Tithes, but shewed the practise of all Ages and Nations hath been agreeable thereunto, and this with so much brevity, that if my Reader do not compare Mr. Seldens History with this Discourse, he may sometimes complain of some obscurity in the style; but I hope he will find no designed faults in the Matter, which affords a methodical and complete History of Opinion and Fact in the Case of Tithes, from the beginning of the World unto the Times of the Reformation, with many useful accounts of the Original of Parishes, Patronages, Institutions, Exemptions, Appropriations, and infeudations, all which rightly explained serve to clear our Opinion concerning the constant belief of the Divine Original of Tithes.  
I know in such an Age as this, I must expect the censures and displeasure of all such who have upon trust admired my great and eminent Adversary, and also of all whose secular interest engages them to disgust this undoubted Truth: And therefore I have presumed to fly to Your Lordships Patronage and Protection, with great assurance of Your exemplary Zeal in promoting, and Your generous Courage in defending all Pious designs that tend to the honour of Religion, and to the safety of the Church; and if your Lordship will please to accept, and own all that is justifiable in these Pages, I shall esteem myself sufficiently armed against all assaults, by the honesty of my Intentions, the equity of my Cause, and by the Honour of being accounted,  
My Lord, Your Lordships Most faithful Servant, THO. cumber. East-Newton, Octob. 3. 1681.   

THE PREFACE.  
THE great famed of Mr. Selden's Learning hath given such reputation to all his Works, and among the rest to this History of Tithes, that many who never examined the particulars receive it all for infallible Truth: but Socrates hath taught me to prefer no Man before the Truth 
Justin. Martyr. Apol. 1. p. 47. ; and Mr. Selden himself saith, He doth not wish his Book should gain any strength of Truth from his Name alone 
Preface, pag. 11. , yea he bids every one try it with the most censorious Examination 
Ib. p. 22. , adding— & si tibi vera videtur, Dede manus, aut si falsa est accingere contra. Invited by which Admonition, I have diligently examined this History, yet without any censoriousness, and with all due respect to the Authors Learning: and( notwithstanding all his Protestations in the entrance of his Preface) I find very many mistaken and false Quotations, with divers forced and fallacious Interpretations of such places as are truly cited, as also innumerable Omissions of things very material, which seem to be left out by design, because Mr. S. his vast reading, makes it very unlikely he should not meet with obvious things in common Authors. And since my only aim is, to rectify the Errors and supply the defects of this History, I hope this Great mans Friends will not be offended, while he himself saith, If I through ignorance have omitted any thing in the History or Review, which deserved place in either of them, whoever shall admonish me of it, shall have a most willing acknowledgement of his Learning and courtesy 
Ib. p. 12. . I know it is commonly thought the Clergy are no Friends to this History of Tithes; but there is no reason they should dislike it, if his performances had suited that protestation which he makes here, That it was not written to prove, Tithes are not due by the Law of God, or that the Laity may detain them, or still enjoy Appropriations— nor was it written at all against the Maintenance of the Clergy— nor is any end in it to teach any Innovation, by an imperfect pattern had from the musty relics of former times 
Ib. p. 1,& 2. . But he that reads the Book itself will find, that( forgetting these fair professions) he conceals some of the best Proofs for Tithes, rejects others, and questions all that seem to establish the Divine right or Universal practise of Tithes, greedily searching after, and plausibly setting off all that appears to make against it. Yet I am confident, divers have stretched some passages of this Book further than ever Mr. S. intended, and have drawn Conclusions from it, which he( if yet alive) would blushy to see; for since the beginning of our late Sacrilegious Civil War this History hath been the armoury, to which all Sectaries and Covetors of the Church Revenues have resorted, for Instances and Arguments against this Sacred Maintenance of the Clergy: so that it is not only for the good of the Church, but for the vindication of Mr. S. his Memory, to prevent those who would make an evil use of this Book, the ill consequence whereof, when Mr. S. himself foresaw( almost as soon as it was printed) He did repent of writing it; and Jan. 28, 1618, appearing at Lambeth before George Bishop of Canterbury, Lancelot Bishop of Winchester, the Bishops of London and Rochester, and three Knights, Doctors of Civil Law, sitting judicially, He made this submission under his own Hand: My good Lords, I most humbly aclowledge my Error which I have committed in publishing the History of Tithes, and especially in that I have at all by showing any interpretation of Holy Scripture, by meddling with Councils, Fathers, or Canons, or by what else soever occurs in it, offered any occasion of Argument against any right of maintenance Jure Divino, of the Ministers of the Gospel; beseeching Your Lordships to receive this humble and ingenuous acknowledgement, together with the unfeigned Protestation of my Grief, for that through it I have so incurred both His Majesties and Your Lordships displeasure, conceived against me in behalf of the Church of England. This was then taken for a Retractation, and though the licentiousness of the late Times emboldened Men of less knowledge to urge this Book as Authentic in all its conclusions; yet the Learned Author himself did not( that I know of) print any Vindication of it, though it was writ against by divers considerable Men in his own life time, which is( to me) a convincing proof, That he was conscious of many great Mistakes in it. And if any can hardly believe so Learned a Man should commit so many Errors, they do not consider that he was not much above Thirty years of Age when he writ this, and being a Man of business was forced to take many of his numberless Quotations upon trust from others, and particularly from Sir Rob. Cotton, as he partly confesses in the Epistle. Yet after all this it must be granted, there are many ingenious, useful, and choice Observations in this History, by which he hath obliged the World: And if his own Pen did not too often magnify his own performances, as being far beyond all that was done before 
Preface, pag. 13. & Review, Ch. 3. pag, 457.& alibi passim. , and at the same time depress and vilify all that had then writ on this Subject 
Preface, pag. 4. &c. , he would have deserved, and should have received more Thanks for his pains herein; but I shall not imitate, that which I censure in this, otherwise, great Man, nor will I opprobriously insult over any of his Mistakes, but impartially trying all, I will endeavour to confirm what is true, commend what is praise-worthy, and content myself barely to intimate what is false, and fill up whatever is yet wanting to make the History of Tithes complete: A Subject of that great importance, large extent, and grateful variety, that it will deserve and invite the strictest observation, because it leads us into the Laws, Rites, and Customs of all Countries and all Ages; and yet it is a Question of so much difficulty as might have discouraged me from attempting it, but that I am greatly assisted, sometimes by Mr. Selden himself, and very often by the Famous Dr. montague, Dr. Teldesly, Mr. Nettle, and some others who formerly answered this History of Tithes, but their Books are now so very scarce, and all of them so large, that few have opportunity to get them, or leisure to red them: wherefore I judge it will be a very useful undertaking to examine and collect all their Remarks upon this History, and( omitting whatever was less weighty or petinent) to put into a clear method their closest Instances and Arguments, adding all along variety of my own Observations for a full discovery of the Truth in this point of Tithes, so that whatever is material either for it or against it, may be seen at one view: and if it may seem to any to be too large, they will easily discern it is not my fault( who have studied all possible brevity) but the copiousness of the Argument that occasioned it; but I must not make it longer by Apologies, and therefore having given this account of my own design, I will only make some few Remarks on Mr. S. his Preface, and so pass to the Question itself.  
Pag. 1. He tells us, his Book is but a mere Narration and the History of Tithes, yet p. 2. he saith, Antiquity is not related in it barely to show what hath been, but to give light to the practise and doubts of the present Age; and p. 11. he confesses he hath drawn both Conclusions and Conjectures from his premises, which is somewhat more than a mere Narration; and indeed his partial arguing all along for his private Opinion, shows him rather a Disputant for one side, than a Relator of Matter of Fact.  
Pag. 2. Where he is commending his own accurateness, and despising others, he cites Isidore Peleusiota wrong, both as to the place and the sense too, for Isidore makes not Habit and Beard the ensigns of dissembled Ignorance( as Mr. S. mistakes) but of dissembled Piety: and the place is( not lib. 1. Ep. 92. as in his first Edition, nor Ep. 29. as in his second; but) lib. 1. Ep. 220. p. 64.  
Pag. 4. Those scoffing Censures of all that had writ about Tithes before Mr. S. look very oddly from a young Man of 33 years of Age, when we consider that the Reverend Bishop Andrews, the Learned Bishop Carleton, Dr. Sclater, Sir James Sempil, and divers others had not long before writ on that Subject. And the Sectaries and Sacrilegious Arguers against Tithes, who cites all that Mr. S. says on Trust, and having little in them, but what they steal from him and from one another, do much more deserve, to be compared to the later Poets licking up Homers vomit, and to be reflected on by that Proverb of Sardi venales, which signifies( not, worse and worse, as Mr. S. saith, but) a tedious row of the same thing over and over again, than those Great and Eminent defenders of the Divine right of Tithes before name.  
Pag. 5. But the main thing observable in this Preface is, that he saith, It is a common, but most deceiving Argument among them( who writ of Tithes before Mr. S.) affirmatively to conclude fact or practise of Tithing, from what they see ordained for Tithes in any old Canon of the Church. Now if this be so deceiving an Argument, why doth Mr. S. himself use it 
Review of 4. Chap. p. 463. , when he concludes, fasting the last day of Lent till Cocks crow, must needs have followed, if the Constitution appointing it had been extant; which is the same kind of arguing that he here condemns. But for my own part, I doubt not but this way of Arguing is fair and good; for when we inquire of Fact or practise, we do not examine what are the Acts of the Impious and Profane, who despise the Laws of God and Man; but we inquire what is done by orderly and good Men, and surely their practise may be concluded in point of Tithes, from what the Fathers preached in their Sermons and decreed in their Synods: for how slightly soever these are now esteemed by some, the Emperor Justinian saith, They that keep the holy Canons, shall have the blessing of God; and those who disobey them, expose themselves to damnation 
Justin. Novel. 123. : And, All that is decreed in the holy Councils of Bishops, ought to be ascribed to the Divine Direction, saith Constantine 
Epist. ad absent. Episc. in acts council. Nicaen. , and the practise of Good men was generally conformable to them. And since the makers of these Canons were the most Learned and eminent men in every Age, they show at least what was the Opinion of those Times, what the best did, and what the wisest Persons thought all ought to do. Perhaps Mr. S. may find some Ill men in all Times who did not obey either the Laws of God or Man; but doth it therefore follow we must not city the Canons, which were rules to good Men, and ought to have been so to all? We can bring Examples in every Age, of Facts contrary to the Decalogue, and to the justest Laws of the best Princes, yet still we city these Laws, to show what was the rule and the practise of the better sort. But while Mr. S. condemns this sort of Arguing, he frequently falls into one far worse and more deceiving, for he argues from a few Examples of some mens practise, that such Acts were right, and that all the Laws made against such practices were little observed; yea, if he can but find a Canon or a Decretal Epistle blaming any Fact as wicked, and forbidding it, presently he concludes the Laity had a challenged right to do those Acts, and upon this foundation are very many of his Notions built: but we can much easier prove Facts rightly done followed upon Canons duly made, than he can prove that the prohibition of any Fact shows the party prohibited had right to do the thing forbidden; for we have History and Examples to back all our old Canons with, which undeniably shows they were observed. 'tis true, some of the later encroaching Popes Decretals were sometimes not allowed to be obeied by wary Princes; but these Decretals are seldom cited by the Writers of Tithes before Mr. S. who hath more of these Quotations in one Chapter, than all the English Writers before him had in all their Books. And when he tells us, he will give Instances of Canons upon which no Fact followed, he instances chiefly in some Decretals: As that of Alexander the Third to the Bishop of Lisieux, An. 1160. about repairing Churches, which being to a private foreign Bishop, no wonder if it was not obeied here 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 48. cap. 4. . His next instance is false cited; but in another place there is such a Decretal, forbidding Clergy-men to bequeath their Chattels 
Ibid. Tit. 26. c. 7. ; but this unjust Decree was contrary to the old Canons 
apostle. Can. 40. council. Antiochen. can. 34. , as well as to reason, and therefore no wonder if it were not obeied here. And yet we might bring as many Civil Laws of our own Country, which in that Age were over-ruled by the Canons of the Church, as he can produce Canons over-ruled by Civil Laws and Customs, of which exorbitant power of the Canons our own Historians often complain; but this is not to our purpose, for we lay most weight upon the Ancient and Primitive Canons in the devouter Ages, and I hope we may conclude that practise followed them, whatever become of these Decretals. But he urges the 12th Canon of Chalcedon, which only forbids private Bishops to seek the setting up of New Metropolitans, but doth not prohibit the Emperor from making such; and the like is to be said of the 38th Canon in Trullo; and the 55th Canon there was designed to impose an Eastern Custom on the Western Church, and so was not like to be observed. As for the 15th Canon of Chalcedon, Balsamon saith not, it was never practised, but that it was grown out of use in his time, nigh 800 years after. And the 28th Canon of that Council did hold in the East( where it was made) for a long time, and was at last run down by the Popes power, not the Secular Law: and that of Bagadius( not Gabadius) in the Council of Carthage, is only a Canon of one Council dispensed with by another, not repealed by Secular Law. So that in this heap of Marginal Quotations there is not one pertinent Instance, and after all we may well conclude from Ancient Canons never repealed in any other Synod, and confirmed by many Secular Laws that practise followed, and this is all we shall desire in the case of Tithes. The rest of his Preface being answered in the Book, or nothing to the Question, I shall wave when I have noted, that pag. 21. he brings in an unjust Complaint in the Diet at Norimberg, An. 1522, which had no effect, as if it were a Law that prevailed against the Canons of the Church, but the contrary may be seen in Wolfius 
Gravam.( not 45, but) 61. ap. Wolf. Memor. lect. T. 2. p. 220. ; this will give the Reader a Taste of Mr. S. his way of citing Authors, of which there are innumerable Instances in the following Discourse.  
To which we had immediately proceeded, but only that there is lately Printed a New piece of Beneficiary Matters, translated( as is said) out of Italian, and pretended to be writ by Father Paul; but the Translator brings no proof it is his Work, and the Author of F. Paul's Life, reciting all his Works saith, These are the Works of F. Paul, that are seen abroad in Manuscript or Print, under his only Name, or that are certainly reputed his 
Life of F. Paul, at the end of Council of Trent, pag. 48. ; but this Piece is not once name there, and so perhaps may be none of his: yet if it be, the Venetians Quarrel with the Pope about the privileges and Revenues of Ecclesiastics, might oblige that Great man to put some Notes hastily together in favour of the States pretences, and being a friar, he may well be supposed no Friend to the Divine Right of Tithes; but whoever was the Author, he was no doubt provoked by the notorious Abuse of the Ecclesiastical Revenues in the Church of Rome, against which most of this discourse is leveled: but whoever be the Writer, there are many mistakes and gross Errors in it, which, because they are fully confuted in the following Discourse, I will only name here, and doubt not but the Reader will be satisfied by the following Pages, that this Charge is very just.  
Pag. 3. He affirms untruly, That the custom of Christians having all things common, went no further than Jerusalem, and lasted not long there.  
P. 4. His Arguments about popular electing of Bishops, are answered and disproved in Dr. Stillingfleet's last Vindication, and Beveridge's Councils, Tom. II. 
Not. in Can. 4. council. Nicaen. p. 47,& 48.   
P. 5. That Christians had Houses and Lands belonging to the Church in times of Persecution, may be seen in Eusebius 
Vit. Constant. l. 2. cap. 39. .  
P. 7. That S. Augustine did receive Inheritances given to the Church when no kindred were wronged, and counted it a sin to revoke such Donations, appears by his Life 
Possidon. vit. Augustin. cap. 23, 24. .  
P. 13, and 14. That the Opinion of Tithes being due to the Church, began in France about the year 800, is notoriously untrue; as also  
P. 15. That S. Augustines Sermons treating of Tithes were forged in after Times, and that Tithes were never paid in Africa.  
P. 17. It is false also, That the Custom of paying Tithes in Italy, began after the year 800.  
P. 23. That there is no proof in the New Testament for establishing Tithes, and that they are only due by the Ceremonial or Judicial Law, are great mistakes.  
P. 24. As also that the Levites had no Land at all; and that the Jews paid no other but Predial Tithes.  
P. 25. That Tithes are due to the Clergy only Jure humano, because the distribution of portions of them into distinct benefice was instituted Jure humano. And that Lay Patrons have direct Dominion over the Churches Goods, are gross Errors: with very many more, too tedious to be recited, yet all of them fully confuted in the following Discourses, whereby I hope it will be evident to all sober and impartial Men, how weak the Arguments, and how base the Designs of those are, who go about to destroy that provision which God hath made for the support of those that attend his Service. For we have here shewed, that the competent Maintenance due to the Clergy by the Law of Nature, ought to be fixed in the Proportion of a Tenth part, because The Tenth was chosen by God himself at first, revealed to the patriarches, and commanded to the Jews in the Old Testament; the Tenth is not repealed, but established in the New. This Part was generally paid by patriarches, Gentiles, Jews, and Christians, in all Ages and places. This Part is believed by the Fathers and best Authors to be due to the Gospel Ministers by the Law of God, and to them it hath been paid in obedience, as well to Divine as human Laws in most Christian Countries, from their first Conversion. And here in England Tithes were freely paid from the beginning of Christianity, and above 800 years ago solemnly given by the whole Nation to God and the Church, by an irrevocable Vow recorded in a Public Law, and confirmed since by innumerable Civil and Ecclesiastical Constitutions; they have been all along enjoyed by the Clergy, and disposed of by their consent, and are now settled on them by firm Laws, by long Prescription, ancient Custom, and general practise: so that they cannot be taken from them without the highest Injustice and sacrilege 
Si vero is qui propria vota non reddit, infidelis esse convincitur— quanto majoris impietatis reus est, qui ea quae alii voverunt& reddiderunt usurpat. Agobardus de disp. cap. 12. pag. 279. . All this I hope is clearly made out, and if Secular Interest did not blind mens Judgments, and the commonness and frequency of doing evil make them less sensible, I should not doubt but all would readily confess Tithes are due to the Clergy both by Divine and human right, and that their practise would be agreeable thereunto.   

THE CONTENTS Of the several CHAPTERS and SECTIONS.  

Chap. I. Of Tithes before the Law. 

§. I. THat some part of our Estate is due to God by the Law of Nature, pag. 1  
§. II. The patriarches were taught by Revelation that the Tenth was that part, p. 2  
§. III. Of Abraham's paying Tithes to Sem, the Chief Priest of that time, p. 4.  
§. IV. That he paid Tithes of all his Estate, and probably annually, p. 6  
§. V. Of Jacob's paying Tithes of all his Estate also, p. 11    
Chap. II. Of Tithes under the Law. 

§. I. That Tithes were supposed due before Moses Law enjoined them, p. 15  
§. II. An account of the Jewish manner of paying First-fruits and Tithes, p. 17  
§. III. That the Poor had every third year a third Tithe, beside the first or Levites Tithe, and the second Tithe for feasts, p. 19  
§. IV. The Jews ordinarily paid above a fifth part in First-fruits and Tithes, p. 20  
§. V. Of their Tithing cattle, p. 22  
§. VI. &c. Of their paying small Tithes, and how long the Jewish Tithing continued p. 23  
§. IX. How far the Levitical Law strengtheners our claim to Tithes under the Gospel, p. 24    
Chap. III. Of Tithes among the Gentiles. 

§. I. That the Phoenicians, grecians, and Asiatics, generally and annually paid Tithes of all, to some or other of their Gods, p. 29  
§. II. That the Romans and other Heathen Nations did so also, p. 35  
§. III. Mr. Selden's Objection against the universality and constancy of the Gentiles paying Tithes, answered, p 41    
Of Tithes under the Gospel. 

Chap. IV. Of Tithes from Christ's coming till An. 400. 

§. I. Tithes are due by Christs Ordinance to the Ministers of the Gospel, because never expressly repealed, and plainly enough required by divers Texts of the New Testament, and the Objections made against this fully answered, p. 45  
§. II. That Tithes were the least proportion paid by the Primitive Christians during the first 400 years, and the practise of that time, p. 58  
§. III. The Opinion of the Fathers, viz. Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Epiphanius, S Chrysostom, and S. Ambrose, all in this Period, was, That a Tenth part at least was due by the Law of God, p. 63  
§ IV. The Canons made in the Synods of this Age suppose Tithes were paid well, and direct how they are to be distributed, p. 71    
Chap. 5. Of Tithes from An. 400 to An. 800. 

§. I. The Opinion of the Fathers of this Period, viz. S. Hierom, S. Augustine, Isidore of Pelusiam, Cassian, Prosper, Sidonius Apollinaris, S. Severine, Caesarius Arelatensis, and others produced to prove they believed Tithes were due to the Gospel Ministers Jure divino, p. 75  
§. II. The practise of assigning Tithes to particular Churches and Monasteries by the Bishops consent in this Period, p 85  
§. III. That Charles Martel did take away Tithes from divers Churches in France, that had been endowed with them before An 742, p. 87  
§. IV. The Councils of Mascon, Hispalis, Toledo, Friuli, &c. declare Tithes to be due Jure Divino, and expressly enjoin them to be paid, p. 91  
§. V. Mr. Selden's Objections against these Canons, and the other Proofs in this Period fully answered, p. 97    
Chap. VI. Of Tithes from An. 800 till An. 1200. 

§. I. practise of paying Tithes in this Period sufficiently clear, and freely confessed by Mr. Selden, p. 102  
§. II. That no Lay-men did then give Tithes to any Monastery, without the Bishops consent; and all Mr. S. his pretended evidences of arbitrary Lay-Consecrations in this Period, particularly disproved, p. 104  
§. III. Of the Original of Lay-Patronages, and that no Lay-Patron had any interest in the Profits of the Church, nor could he put in his Clerk, or make any Appropriation of a Church, but by the Bishops Grant and consent, p. 112  
§. IV. That all infeudations of Tithes came from the Church at first, p. 130  
§. V. That all Exemptions from Tithes came from the Popes exorbitant Power, p. 134  
§. VI. The Councils and Fathers of this Age are clear for the Divine right of Tithes, and no allowed practise of that time doth either contradict or oppose that Opinion, p. 136  
§. VII. The Secular Laws of Princes in this Period enjoin payment of Tithes under strict penalties, and were obeied and put in full execution, p. 140  
§. VIII. The Clergies consent to endow Monasteries with Parochial Tithes, doth not prove they thought them not due Jure Divino, p. 146    
Chap. VII. Of Tithes since the Year 1200. 

§. I. That the right of Parochial Tithes was settled long before the beginning of this Period, p. 150  
§. II. The Canonists were of Opinion Tithes were due by Divine right, p. 153  
§. III, IV, V. The Reasons why the later Schoolmen and some others opposed this Opinion, p. 154  
§. VI, VII. An account why the modern Secular Laws of some Countries do permit some Practices, that agree not with the ancient and true Opinion of the Divine right of Tithes, p. 160    
Chap. VIII. Of the English Laws for Tithes. 

§. I. Tithes believed due, and paid by the Saxons, and some Laws made for them, from the beginning of their Conversion unto An. 750. p. 165  
§. II. The famous Canon of the Council of Calcuth, An. 787, p. 169  
§. III. The Donation of Tithes, and the general Law for them by King Ethelwolph, ibid.  
§. IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII. The Laws of King Alfred, Edward the Elder, Athelstan, edmond, Edgar, Ethelred, Canutus, and Edward the Confessor, for Tithes before the Conquest, p. 171  
From§. XIV. to§. XXXI. The Laws and Canons for Tithes made in the time of William the Conqueror, William Rufus, Henry the First, K. Stephen, Henry 2. Richard 1. K. John, Henry 3. Edward 1, 2,& 3. Richard 2. King Henry 8. and Edward the Sixth, p. 175    
Chap. IX. Of Parishes in England. 

§. I. Of Parish Churches, and their endowment among the Britons, p. 182  
§. II, III. Of the beginning of building and endowing Parish Churches among the Saxons, and the division of Parishes by Honorius Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 184  
§. IV. Of the increase of Parishes, and the settling of Parochial right long before the days of King Edgar, p. 186    
Chap. X. Of the practise of Tithing here. 

§. I. Some Saxons paid Tithes before their Conversion, p. 189  
§. II. That the Britons, Saxons, Danes, and Normans, did generally pay Tithes according to the Laws, and all Mr. Seldens Objections to make it seem doubtful, answered: together with a refutation of that Common Error, that Men might arbitrarily give their Tithes to what Church they pleased before the Council of Lateran, p. 191    
Chap. XI. Of Arbitrary Consecrations from An. 1000 till An. 1200. 

§. I. That all Assignations of Parochial Tithes in England to the Monasteries, were made by the Bishops leave, and every one of Mr. S. his pretended Examples of arbitrary Lay-Consecration, particularly disproved, by express Charters of Bishops, and other good Proofs of Episcopal Consent out of the Monasticon and other Authentic Records, p. 200  
§. II, III,& IV. Divers Objections of Mr. S. against the prevalency of Parochial right, taken from collating Incumbents, liberty of building New Churches, Tithes of the Kings Forrests, &c. answered, p. 222    
Chap. XII. Of Appropriations in England. 

§. I. All Appropriations of Tithes here, were first made by the consent of the Bishops, and the manner of making a Church appropriate, p. 227  
§. II. Mr. S. his pretended Instances of Lay-mens appropriating Churches, disproved, p. 230  
§. III, IV,& V. That the Patrons could not dispose of the Profits of their Churches, in part or in whole, without the Bishops concurrence, p. 235    
Chap. XIII. Of infeudations and Exemptions. 

§. I. That there were anciently no infeudations of Tithes here, p. 240  
§. II. That all Exemptions in England originally came from the Pope, and whether Conscience do not oblige such as do now enjoy them, to make some Compensation, p. 241    
Chap. XIV. Of the Jurisdiction of Tithes. 

§. I: That the Jurisdiction of Tithes regularly belongs to the Bishops Courts, p. 243  
§. II. That anciently these Causes were tried there, ibid.  
§. III. Concerning the Antiquity and the practise of Prohibitions, p. 245  
§. IV, V,& VI. Of some special Processes relating to the Tithes of the Kings demesnes: and the Conclusion, p. 246        

Errata, to be amended.  
PAg 22. l. 37. red commanded, p. 23. l. 13. r. liked this payment, p. 33. l. 29. r. Estates and he means, p. 35. l. 32. r. Decima, p. 38. Marg. l. 23. r. Militis, p. 52. l. 34. r. of this place, p. 65. Marg. r, homil. XI. p. 69. l. ult, r. &c. be paid: and it is. p. 78. l. 36. r. to this, p. ib. Marg. l. ult. r. cap. 15.(& pag. 85) p. 82. l. 22. r. too clear, p. 86. l. 2. r. to some, l. 12. r. of Ourt, p. 105. l. 36. r. would have been the, p. 106. l. 11. r. to destroy it, p. 115. l. ult. r. condemn this, p. 133. l. 13. r. cites p. 116. p. 136. l. 10. r. against them, p. 138. Marg. l. 18. r. An. 840. p. 146. l. 21. r. use the words, p. 147. l. 2. r. falsely pretends, p. 154. l. 13. r. that do, p. 155. l. 27. mean no, p. 165. l. 2. r. and He the Father, p. 172. l. 1. r. King edmond, p. 181. l. 6. r. Edward the Sixth, p. 186. l. 12. r. falsely applied, l. 33. r. later Addition, p. 196. l. 11. r. Book of Redding, p. 220. l 21. r. And yet he, p. 223. l. 33. r. is clearly this, p. 224. l. 6. r. to except, p. 227. l. 7. r. never limited, p. 230. l. 29. r. Robert Dene, p. 235. l. 12. r. Chartularies: Pensions therefore, p. 243. l. 21. r. for Mr. S. to say.   


CHAP. I. Of Tithes before the Law.  
§. I. ALmighty God, the Creator and the giver of all good things we enjoy, doth so communicate his Blessings to us, that though we have the use, he still retains his right to them all 
{αβγδ} Philo lib. de Cherub. , for the Earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof 
Psal. xxiv. 1. . And in this sense when we dedicate any thing to him, we do but give him his own 
1 Chron. xxix. 14. . But though all that we have be his with respect to this general right, yet he doth not require we should actually give him all, provided we own his bounty and aclowledge his right by offering some part to his honour, which being as a Quit-rent tendered to the Supreme Lord of the World, gives us right to enjoy the rest: A duty so evident in itself, that all Nations have learned from the Light of Nature to make some such real oblation to their Gods, and some have thought Cain and Abel had no other guide to direct them in that first Offering we red of Gen. iv. 3. 
Rab. Levi. Chrysost.& Grot. in loc.  Though because there seems to have been a sacrifice of Beasts( which natural reason alone could not teach men to offer to God) and because Abel is said to offer by Faith 
Hebr. xi. 4. ( which must be grounded upon some declaration of Gods Will) therefore most Authors conclude that God himself first taught Adam this way of acknowledging him, and he from that Revelation taught it unto his Sons, who did annually at a certain and solemn time make this oblation, as Aben Ezra gathers from that phrase In process of time, ver. 3. 
Hebr. in fine dierum: hoc est, revoluto anno. Ab. Ezra& Fagius in loc.  As for the Offering itself, the Ancients frequently call it First-Fruits 
{αβγδ} Philo de Sacrif. Cain& Abel. Chrysost. hom. in loc.& D. Ambros. , and though the proportion is not recorded in Scripture, yet that dividing or separating Gods part from the rest of their Possessions( mentioned in the LXX. Translation, where Cain is blamed for not rightly dividing 
{αβγδ} LXX. Gen. iv. 7. ) seems to imply, there was some certain proportion to be offered; and though Mr. Selden, pag. 7. calls this a mis-translation, and out of those Ancients that used it, would prove there is no quantity noted here. Yet the Translation was used generally by the Apostles and primitive Christians for nigh 400 years; and St. Paul plainly saith, Abel offered( {αβγδ}) a larger quantity in sacrifice than Cain, and some have expressly said the proportion was a Tenth 
Hugo de S. Victor. annot. elucid. in loc. Peter. Comestor histor. Schol. Gen. 26. , and the general obtaining of that part afterwards makes it probable enough: However at present we shall only take this for an instance of giving God some part of his Gifts back again as an acknowledgement that all comes from him, which is not only a principle of the Law of Nature, but a positive Command of Scripture also where we are enjoined to honour the Lord with our substance, Prov. iii. 9. for, to Honour, signifies to give some gift, especially to our superiors, or to those we would show respect 
Honor donum intelligitur, Hieron. in Math. xv. & ita ipse Christus explicat Honora patrem, &c. Math. xv. 4, 5, 6. Vide Numb. xxii. 17, 18. Acts xxviii. 10, &c. ; and though the proportion of this honorary gift be not name here, yet the next words— and with the First-fruits of all thy increase, as also the promise of filling our barns with plenty, ver. 10. so usually made to paying of Tithes, Malach. iii. 10, &c. hath persuaded many, both Jewish and Christian Interpreters, to expound this place of Tithes 
Rab. Salom. Rab. Levi ben Gershom. Antioch. homil. 120. Cornel. à Lapide, Mercer, &c. . Though we are content also to take this for a general precept of giving some part to God, and how Mankind came to fix upon the Tenth for that part, we shall proceed to inquire.  
§. II. Though there were no written Law for a Tenth before the Levitical Precepts, yet 'tis most certain the fixing of that proportion for Gods part, had not its original from thence, because we have express Testimony that Holy Men had used to dedicate that part before, and that God had approved of that proportion, the Scripture instances in Abraham and Jacob; and the Jewish Doctors out of their ancient Traditions affirm, that the rest of the patriarches also gave Tithes: Nachmunides speaks generally, The patriarches liberally gave their Tithes to the Lords Priests, viz. to Shem and Heber 
R. Nachman in Gen. xxvi. 5. . R. Bechai saith, Our Doctors affirm, Isaac therefore measured the fruit of his Land that he might pay a just Tithe 
R. Bechai. in Gen. xxvi. 12. . And that Job,( who lived before Moses Law) paid Tithes also, is attested by Authors of greatest credit among the Jews 
R. Salom. in Job. xxxi. 8. Chald. par. in Job. xxiv. 19. Talm. tract. Mas. Shabad. c. 2. fol. 32. . So that since the first is so certain, and probably was so frequent, it may be very fit to inquire, whence these patriarches learned, that this and no other was the part properly belonging to God: it seems most likely to have proceeded from Divine Revelation at first, for How could man know( saith a Judicious Writer) that he must give the Tenth, rather than the Ninth, the Eighth, or any other part of his goods, if he had not been taught it at first by God? 
Hugo de S. Victor. erud. Theol. de Sacram, l. 1. par. 11. c. 4.  If it be objected, That they pitched on this part by chance or fancy: I reply, Chance and fancy are uncertain and various, and rarely the original of any constant and regular practise. If Abraham had thus chosen this part, others would have liked some other proportion, and there would have been variety; but since this and no other part is recorded to have been given, no doubt it came from a steadier and higher principle; besides it is certain, that God lid like and approve this Part, by his Care to record it for our imitation; by his not altering, but confirming this part in his written Law, and by his Blessing Jacob so liberally upon his vowing this part to him; all which may convince us, that he himself had directed the choice of this part at first, since he is not usually pleased with human inventions in matters so nearly relating to his Worship, nor is he wont to take mens fancies for his pattern in Establishments of this kind, wherefore he approved the Tenth part afterward, because he had directed it at first; which will be still more probable when we consider that these patriarches were very holy and religious Persons, inspired by the Spirit of God, and guided by the immediate direction thereof in all their solemn actions, and therefore 'tis likely in this also: they had then no written Law to walk by, and the History of this period is so short, that very few of those immediate Commands which they received from God are left on record, or appear otherwise than that the actions grounded on such commands are set down as pleasing to God: from hence we may conclude, these patriarches had a command from Gods Spirit to give this proportion, though it be not written in Genesis. We red that Abraham obeied Gods voice, and kept his Charge, his Commandements, his Statutes, and his Laws 
Gen. 26.25. ; but there are not so many recorded Orders of so different kinds from God to him as will answer to each of those words; unless we grant there were many unwritten Revelations, among which might be this of Tithes: The Law of putting an Adulteress to death, upon which Judah proceeded 
Gen. 38.24.  is not on record before that practise, yet no doubt it was a Divine Revelation conveyed by Tradition since God confirmed it in the Law of Moses 
Lev. 20.10. : Yea, those famous Seven Precepts of the Sons of Noah are generally believed to be such unwritten Traditions derived from Revelation at first: Yea, the most remarkable rite of Sacrificing was practised before there was a written command for it, and yet that is generally believed to have been established by Divine Revelation; so that by parity of reason we may conclude, that God himself did choose this proportion of a Tenth, and teach it either to Adam, who conveyed it down by Tradition, or else to Abraham, who is the first that is expressly recorded to have practised it; and this is sufficient to deduce it from a Divine original, and to prove that it was derived from an unwritten Law of God at first, and that even in Abrahams time Tithes were due Jure Divino.  
§. III. From the Institution we pass now to the practise of Tithing, of which there are two famous instances in Scripture during this period: The first is Genes. xiv. where Abraham returning from his Victory over the four Kings, was met at Shaveh, or the Kings Dale, by Melchisedec King of Salem, who brought forth Bread and Wine, and he was the Priest of the most high God: And he blessed him and said, Blessed be Abraham of the most High God, possessor of Heaven and Earth, and blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine Enemies into thine hand, And he gave him Tithes of all, ver. 18, 19, 20. and to show this related to Gospel times, St. Paul largely Paraphrases this History, and applies it to our Saviours Priesthood, Hebr. vii. Here therefore we will first inquire who this Melchisedec was, and secondly what these Tithes were which he received: First, the Scripture saith, He was King of Salem( not that which was near Scythopolis, but) that which was after called Jerusalem, very nigh unto which is that Shaveh, or the Kings Dale, where they are said to meet 
2 Sam. xviii. 18. Vallis regia duobu● tantum stadiis distat à Jerusalem. Joseph. Antiq. l 7. c 9.& Adricom. descrip. Terrae S. pag. 174. , and indeed Jerusalem was Abrahams direct way to Hebron in his return from Hobah, and the fittest place for him to meet the King of Sodom, and though S. Hierom was  told by a Jew, that he was King of the other Salem, yet he there confesses all Christians took it to be Jerusalem 
Salem omnes nostri Jerusalem arbitrantur. ad Evag. Tom. 3. pag. 62. , and so doth he himself elsewhere 
Quest. in Genes. Tom. 3. p. 328. ; of this opinion also are all the famous Jewish Writers 
Joseph. Ant. lib. 1. cap. 11. Targum in Gen. xiv. Midras Tehil. Psal. 56.2. Ab. Ezra& R. D. Kimki in Gen. xiv.& R. Levi Ben. Gersh. in Jos. x. 1. confer Jesai. l. 21. , and Mr. Selden takes this to be the truer opinion 
Selden Review, p. 452. . Secondly, the Holy Ghost saith He was the Priest of the most High God: the great High Priest of the Greatest God( saith Philo:) we red also, that he did the office of a Priest in blessing Abraham, and blessing God for his Victory; and though this were an extraordinary occasion, yet we may justly believe, that such a Priest( the type of Christ and of the Gospel Priesthood) was not negligent at other times, but ordinarily and constantly did his office among those Canaanites and Phoenicians, as a just reward whereof it is probable he did ordinarily receive Tithes from those under his charge, as the early payment of Tithes among those Phoenicians( of which more presently) may persuade us: And whereas we red not of any Ceremonial Worship that he performed, it is plain his Office consisted in those Eternal and Evangelical duties of Praying for his People and Praising God, to which we may add his bringing out Bread and Wine, which the Fathers make the Type of the great Gospel Sacrament 
{αβγδ} Isid. Peleus. li. 1. Epist. 431. ita Hieron. qu. in Gen. Tom. 3. p. 328.& Chron. Alexandrin. , and therefore the Ancients doubted not to affirm, that the Gospel Ministers were of the same Order with Melchisedec 
Hieron. ut supra Epiphan. contr. Haeres. 55. l. 2. Tom. 1. p. 209. Steph. Tornacens. Ep. 171. Isidor. Hispal. Glos. in Genes. . They have the same work to do, and deserve the same reward, viz. Tithes, which we see are not( as some ignorant persons fancy) appropriate to a Ceremonial Priesthood, but were paid to Melchisedec, whom St. Paul makes to be of a quiter different Order from that of the Levitical Priesthood, whose Pedigree was to be proved and their descent to be on record; but Melchisedec's genealogy is not written 
Hebr vii. 3. Paraph. Syriac. Cujus nec pater nec matter scripti sunt in genealogiis. ita Epiphan. contr. haer. 55. lib. 1. Tom. ●. , his Tribe is not recorded, nor his Family or Successor mentioned, yet he had Tithes whose Priesthood was no more tied to any one Tribe than ours is under the Gospel; and as we derive our Priesthood from this Order, so we may also prove our right to Tithes from the payment of them unto the first Priest of this Order: 'tis true, he was also a type of Christ, and( though not Christ himself, as some fancy 
Pet. Cunaeus de Repub. Heb. l. 3. c. 3.  yet) so like him, that the Fathers expound Abraham's having seen Christ's day, John viii. 56. of this his meeting with his type Melchisedec: but his being a type of Christ's Priesthood,( in all points but that of offering a bloody Sacrifice) doth not hinder him from being a type of the Evangelical Priesthood also, which is in all things( except his offering himself on the across) the same with Christ's Priesthood, as he declares in his Commission to those Apostles( whose Successors ordained us,) As my Father sent me, even so sand I you 
Joh. xx. 21. ; wherefore we conclude, that the first receiver of Tithes upon record was a Priest, not of the same Order with Levi, but of the same Order with the Evangelical Priesthood, and since they do the same Duties they have a good Title to the same Reward.  
§. IV. The next enquiry is, what Melchisedec did receive: The Scripture saith it was Tithes of all 
Gen. xiv. 20. , and a Tenth part of all 
Heb. vli. 2.  But Mr. S. cannot conceive it is meant of any thing but Spoils 
Selden. hist. pag. 2. , though he tell us, that Rab. Salomon and both the Syriac and Arabic Paraphrase( on Hebr. vii.) explain it by Tithes of all that he had: and Eucherius, Of all his Substance; to whom I add Tostatus and Mercer, who have de omnibus rebus suis: The Chaldee Paraphrase also with Junius and Tremelius, the LXX. and Vulgar, all speak generally, He gave him Tithe of all things 
De omnibus rebus, C. P. Onk.& Jun. Trem. {αβγδ}, LXX. ex omnibus Vulg. ; wherefore there is no reason why Mr. S. should restrain it to Tithe of Spoils only: Josephus indeed 
Antiq. l. 1. cap 11.  and divers other Authors cited in the Review 
Selden's Review. p. 450.  do say, he paid Tithe of Spoils, but not any of them say it was only Tithe of Spoils, and Eucherius, who first speaks of Tithe of the Prey, and then of Tithe of his Substance, seems to intimate that Abraham paid Tithe of more than Spoils alone: And though Mr. S. would persuade us that St. Paul, Hebr. vii. 4. explains Tithes of all by( {αβγδ}) Tithe of Spoils; yet if we consult the place we shall find St. Paul adds, Tithes of Spoils, as a special instance unto the general phrase used before Tithes of all: For the Apostle was to prove Melchisedec's Priesthood greater than Levi's, yea in this point of Tithing also, and therefore when he had said ver. 2. that Melchisedec had Tithes of all; lest it should be alleged, that Levi also had Tithes of all, i.e. of all ordinary gain, he adds as a special prerogative of Melchisedec, ver. 4. {αβγδ}. To whom also the Patriarch Abraham gave Tithe of the Spoils; that is, he gave this over and above the Tithe of his own estate, ver. 2. and herein Melchisedec's Tithing exceeded Levi's, who had not also Tithe of Spoils. And indeed Mr. S. feared to city this Text aright, and left out the Particle[ {αβγδ}] also, which shows that this was somewhat more than the Apostle had spoken of before. But further, there is no Scripture word used in this History except {αβγδ}, Heb. vii. 4. which can be interpnted Spoils, and( whatever Mr. S. doth pretend) this word {αβγδ} doth neither usually nor principally signify, Spoils: The Etymology of it shows it originally signifies the Tops of heaps, which commonly being the best, made the Vulgar here translate it very properly De praecipuis; and because First-fruits were taken off from the Top of the heaps, and were of the first and best, thence {αβγδ} comes to signify First-fruits, as the Syriac Translator turns it here, and the Arabic to the same sense( not Tithe and Alms as Mr. Selden mistakes 
See Mr. Nettle against Selden, pag. 24. , but) Tithe and choice Treasures: Nor did those Eastern Translations misread this Text so much as Mr. S. only they make the word[ {αβγδ}] which Mr. S. wholly omits, to be very Emphatical, {αβγδ}— to whom beside the Tithe the Patriarch gave of the First-fruits or choice Treasures, which confirms what we noted before: But to return to {αβγδ}, all the Glossories assure us, that Tops of heaps and First-fruits, are the primary and usual signification thereof. Phavorinus gives no other sense of it, nor the Etymologicon Magnum, Hesychius makes this to be the first sense, and only as a secondary sense saith it also signifies Prey or Spoils: And Suidas saith it properly signifies First-fruits of Fruits, or of merchandise, and they say also( so he brings in the other sense) of things taken in war: which shows how little reason Mr. S. had to city Hesychius and Suidas for Witnesses, that {αβγδ} chiefly signified Spoils, but finally he produces only one Greek Proverb wherein it is used for Spoils, and then adds— indeed it elsewhere rarely occurs in this sense, pag. 3. whereas in the sense of First-fruits it occurs very often, and especially in the Christian Authors 
S. Chrysost. hom. 22. in Math xv. Tom. 5.189. Clem. Alexand. Protrep. p. 32. . Wherefore St. Paul's saying, Abraham gave Tithe, {αβγδ}, doth not certainly note he gave Tithe of Spoils, for it may properly be explained( that as he gave a Tenth part of all, v. 2. to note the quantity, so) he gave Tithe also of the best parts, to note the quality of his gift: Or if we do expound it here to signify Tithe of Spoils, yet nothing either in the Text or in any good Author can warrant us with Mr. S. to say it was only Spoils, which is a limiting that general word twice used by the Holy Ghost, Tithes of all. If it be objected, That Abraham had not his whole Estate there to give Tithes out of at that time? I Answer, The Scripture saith not he gave it then, but speaks indefinitely, He gave him Tithe of all, which may well enough be expounded, He then dedicated the Tithe of all his Estate by solemn Promise, and paid part of it then, and the rest afterward; nor is it unusual in Scripture or common Speech to say, We give, when we promise to give: so Abraham is said to have given Isaac all that he had 
Gen. xxiv. 36.  not by actual dispossessing himself, but by promise, or as Rab. Salomon thinks, by a dead in writing( declaring Isaac his heir, and) put into the Stewards hands to show to the Friends of Rebecca, whom he was going to woe for his Masters Son, so that he expounds ver. 10. All the goods of his Master were in his hand, to signify a dead containing his gift of all: So also our Ancestors are said to have given Tithes( not when they paid every years profits, but) when they made the solemn Promise: and thus Abraham might then give Melchisedec Tithes of all his Estate by Promise, for it was not only the present Spoils which were of Gods gift, but all the rest of his estate also, all that he had was bestowed freely on him by this most High God the Possessor of Heaven and Earth, as Melchisedec intimated to him. And therefore if Abraham did give no more but Tithe of Spoils,( or as Ben Uziel speaks, Of all that he brought back) now upon this extraordinary occasion, yet it is very probable he did ordinarily at other times give Melchisedec Tithes of all that came by Gods ordinary blessing. To prove which let it be considered, that Melchisedec is generally held to be Sem, as Mr. S. proves by the Testimonies of S. Hierom, Eucherius, the Samaritan Version, R. Salomon, Galatinus, &c. 
Selden's Review, p. 450.  to whom we may add S. Ambrose 
Ambros. come. in Hebr. vii. ita Lyra, Tostatus, &c. , and S. Augustine, who cites it as an old Tradition, that Canaan fell to the share of Sem, and that he lived there 
Aug. de temp ser. 105. . Supposing therefore( as the Jews and the generality of Christians affirm) that Melchisedec was Sem, who according to the Hebrew account lived till after Jacob was born. He was at this time the eldest person living of Abrahams Family, and according to the custom of that Age( wherein the eldest Sons had the Priesthood) 
Selden, hist. pag. 5.& Review, pag. 452. , he was the Chief Priest at that time. Mr. S. indeed questions whether he were Noah's eldest Son or no; but the rabbis( who he saith hold the contrary) do many of them expressly affirm he was the Eldest 
Talm. tract. Sanhedrin, c. 8. fol. 69. R. D. Kim. in 1 Chron. I. , and R. Salomon is doubtful 
R. Salom. Jarchi, in Gen. X. ver. 20. ; however Sem being always reckoned first, either he had the Primogeniture by nature, or it was transferred to him, and with it the Priesthood: And when the great High Priest and Ancestor of Abraham lived so nigh to him, we need not doubt but Abraham and he had correspondence before this victory, which is also plain from his so readily coming out, not only to refresh him and his men, and to rejoice with them in their return, but to offer up ( as Abrahams Priest) a Sacrifice of Praise to the most High that gave them this Victory: And when we consider that Mamre, where Abraham dwelled, is( according to S. Hierom) but 22 Roman miles from Jerusalem, or about seven German miles by the Scale in Adricomius's maps 
Descrip. terrae S p. 341. , so that a late Traveller saith, He went out in the Morning, viewed Hebron and all places of note thereabouts, and came back to Jerusalem at night 
Bellonii observe. l. 2. c. 87. . We have good reason to judge, that Abraham did frequently partake of Melchisedec's Ministry, and ordinarily received his Prayers and his Blessing, and 'tis likely did annually pay him Tithes, though none but this extraordinary payment be mentioned in the short history of Genesis. 'tis certain the rabbis had a Tradition, that Sem( who with them is Melchisedec) was the Priest in ordinary of Abraham's Family; for when Rebecca was with Child of Twins, and went to inquire of the Lord, they say, She went to inquire of the Lord by Sem 
called. Par. Jonath. in Gen. 25.22.& Rab. Salom. in loc. , or( as Lyra out of them relates it) by Melchisedec 
Lyra in Gen. xxv. 22. ; they say also, that Jacob was educated in the Tents of Sem and Heber 
R. Salom.& R. Bechai in Gen. xxv. 27. , and, that he taught Joseph what he had learned of Sem and Heber 
R. Salom. in Gen. xxxvii. 3. . All which makes it highly probable, that so Pious a man as Abraham was, did ordinarily and regularly pay his Tithes to Melchisedec, and though it be recorded but once, yet we can no more infer from thence, that he only paid Tithes once, than we can that Melchisedec never blessed God but once, because it is mentioned but once in Scripture: Nor is it likely that Jacob should learn to dedicate the Tenth of all that he had, from Abrahams once only giving Tithe of Spoils, much less can we think the same of one single Act could have spread itself so generally over all the gentle World( as shall be shewed in the Third Chapter,) wherefore we conclude, that Abraham did frequently pay Tithes to Melchisedec: and because some do inquire, whether Abraham did offer these Tithes as a free gift, or paid them as a Due, I shall observe, that Melchisedec was the Priest and the Representative of the Most high God, to whom the Tenth was peculiarly due, and therefore it may properly be said, he paid Tithes to Melchisedec as Gods due: and S. Paul doubts not to call this Act a paying of Tithes, Heb. vii. 9. Levi paid Tithes in Abraham, and ver. 6. he saith, {αβγδ}, Melchisedec Tithed Abraham, or took Tithes of him( which implies a due,) again ver. 2. where we red, He gave him the Tenth of all, the Greek is {αβγδ}, signifying, he divided, separated and set forth a Tenth part( the very way of paying Tithes now:) And though in Genesis it be said, He gave him Tithes of all, yet the phrase of Giving is often used in the holy Books, for the discharging a just due, so Psal. xxix. 2. Give the Lord honour due to his Name; and the People are to Give Tithes 
2 Chron. xxxi. 4.  when they were due by a written Law; so to Give Tribute 
Math. xxii. 17.& xvii. 27.  is, to Pay Tribute, and to give a Servant his Hire 
Deut. xxiv. 15.  is, to pay him his Wages; therefore we cannot infer that Tithes were not paid as a due, because Moses saith He gave them, only if we critically inquire into the difference of these Phrases, we may note, S. Paul uses the word {αβγδ}, but once, viz. ver. 4. concerning Spoils, which intimates that Abraham paid Tithes in ordinary of all his usual increase, but freely gave out of extraordinary Devotion the Tithe of Spoils upon this Victory: This I thought fit to remark upon this memorable Example( which Mr. S. so slightly passes over) and I infer from hence, That when an inspired Patriarch was blessed by a Priest, who was the Type of Christ, and of the same Order that Gospel Ministers are now: He gave him a Tenth part of all that he had, having learned from Tradition or divine Revelation, that the Tenth was that part which God had appointed should be given to him in acknowledgement of his bounty, and this Institution and the practise which followed it, do thus far prove Tithes to be due Jure Divine.  
§. V. It hugely confirms our former Assertion, that Abraham paid Tithes of all frequently, because we find Jacob, who had been brought up according to the religious Rites of Abrahams Family, solemnly Vowing to give God the Tenth of all, which intimates that he had seen frequent dedications in that Proportion. God had appeared to him just now, and fixed all the Promises made to Abraham upon him and his Posterity, Gen. xxviii. 13, 14, &c. whereupon as he was now the heir of Abrahams blessings, he thought himself obliged to exercise Abrahams Piety, the sum of which is contained in the three branches of this Vow of Jacobs, viz. First, his Faith, ver. 21. Then shall the Lord be my God: Secondly, his Devotion, ver. 22. And this ston which I have set for a Pillar shall be Gods House: Thirdly, his Gratitude, And of all that thou shalt give me, I will surely give the Tenth to thee. As the owning of the true God, and the dedicating a solemn place to his Worship, were derived from the known practise of Abraham, so was the consecrating the Tenth of all; and it is evidently grounded on the same reason, Abraham gave his Tenth to aclowledge, that God was the possessor of Heaven and Earth, and Jacob gives his, because God is the giver of all that he hath; and this reason is not at all ceremonial or proper to the Jewish people, but moral and equally obliging to all that know God, if they have any estate by his bounty: And if the proportion had been arbitrary, 'tis likely Jacob would have varied and either given more or less; but his fixing on the same part, shows the Tenth part was determined before to belong to God. And since his present circumstances made him need and desire above all things to choose such a part as would be most pleasing and acceptable to God, no doubt he well knew that this was the proportion which was agreeable to Gods will, either by the special direction of the Spirit then, as Mr. Calvin thinks 
Non quod suo arbitrio Deum coluerit( scil. Dando decimas) nam directio Spipitûs 'vice legis fuit. Calvin. in loc. , or rather by the practise and Tradition of his pious Ancestors, grounded upon a divine Revelation at first; but however he learned it, 'tis sure he knew this Part would please God, because he consecrates it on purpose to engage him to perform his Promises; and the Almighty abundantly proved Jacob was not mistaken, since he fully and liberally performed all that the good Man desired, and by giving him great plenty God did demonstrate to him and to all Mankind, that he liked and approved of the dedicating a Tenth part to his honour. And when God had thus enabled Jocob, upon his return we need not question but he performed this Vow, and though the Scripture be silent, yet his Piety and the testimony of good Authors may assure us it was done. He paid it at his return by offering the Tithe of all his goods, saith Josephus 
Joseph. Ant. l. 1. c. 18. . He performed it in Bethel, and gave the Tithe of his substance for the honour of God, unto him that was in that Age to receive it, as Aben Ezra 
Ab. Ezra in Gen. 35.& Lyra, Tostatus, &c. ibid. . Who was the Chief Priest then is not certain, but Mr. S. thinks it very probable it was Isaac, who( as he truly affirms) was the Chiefest Priest at that time 
Histor. p. 5. ; and for any thing appears in the Text, Jacob paid Tithes yearly after his return: for since God gave him not the increase of one year only, but of every year, and he had vowed to give God the Tenth of all that he should give him, therefore he who had every year new gifts, was obliged to aclowledge it by a new Tithing; and the Phrase in the Hebrew, ver. 22. Tithing, I will Tithe it to thee( which we translate, I will surely give the Tenth to thee) doth import frequency and exactness too in making of this Payment. Thus therefore we have a second Instance of another inspired Patriarch fixing on the Tenth part as fit to be offered and certainly pleasing God, and Gods own approbation of this Part, together with the payment of it to a Priest as God's Receiver, and great probabilities of constant and regular Tithing long before the Law of Moses. But here the jesuits, and Jesuited Sectaries object, That Jacobs Vow of Tithes was conditional, if God preserved him in his Journey, and gave him food and raiment, and brought him back in peace; which shows, that offering Tithes was no necessary duty, nor would he have been obliged to it, if he had not bound himself thereto by Vow 
Bellarm. Tom. 1. controv. 5. l. 1. c. 25. . To which I answer, that the conditions are absolutely necessary to the performance of the duty that he vowed, for unless his life were preserved, and unless God gave him some Estate, how was it possible he should pay Tithes; so that these conditions imply no more, then that if he lived and had any thing, though never so small, though it were but Necessaries, out of that, whatever it were, more or less, he would give the Tenth to God: and the adding of such a condition, without which the duty vowed cannot possibly be performed, doth not prove the thing Vowed was no necessary duty before: Especially since it is very usual to Vow necessary duties, as when Holy Men vow to watch over their words, and to keep Gods Laws 
Psal. xxxix. 1.& cxix. 106. Nehem. x. 29. Jer. xxxiv. 8. . Thus Hannah vowed her first-born Son to the Lord( due to him before by Express Law, Exod. xiii.) and upon such a condition as is mentioned in Jacobs vowing Tithes, viz. if the Lord would give her a Son 
1 Sam. I. 11. . S. Augustine doth highly commend our tying ourselves to necessary duties by special Vow 
Quid debemus vovere, credere in illum, sperare ab illo vitam aeternam, been vivere, &c. August. Enar. Psal. 75. Tom. 8. , and so do all practical Divines, and why then should it be strange that Jacob did so? But that which utterly baffles this Cavil is, that Jacob vows the Lord shall be his God, upon the same Conditions upon which he vows to give Tithes; and dare any say, It was no necessary duty before this Vow was made for Jacob to have the Lord for his God? If it were a necessary duty before this conditional Vow, then so might Tithes be also: And S. Chrysostom explains these conditions to be rather manifestations of his Faith, than any limitations of his Vow, for God had just now promised to be with him, &c. and though he had not yet actually performed them, yet Jacob was so assured of Gods truth, that out of a Heroic Trust in the Divine promises he presently engages himself to those Duties which were the just acknowledgements of such Mercies, and dedicates his Tithes before-hand, declaring thereby how much he loved and relied on God 
Chrysost. in Gen. hom. 54. Tom. 1. edit. Savil, p. 425. . We conclude therefore, that the patriarches thought it a necessary duty to pay Tithes, and that their practise with the principles on which they proceeded are evident proof, that they believed the Tenth part was due to God, by sufficient manifestations of his Will, and therefore they paid it as due Jure Divino.   

CHAP. II. Of Tithes under the Law.  
§. I. THe consideration of what hath been said concerning 〈◇〉 patriarches paying Tithes, makes it probable that the Jews( who then newly sprung from the loins of these Tithe-givers, and understood that their divinely inspired Ancestors had used thus to aclowledge Gods bounty) would have payed Tithes in imitation of their Fore-fathers, if there had been no Law to enjoin them so to do; for if the patriarches practise had such an influence upon the gentle World( as shall be shewed in the next Chapter) it could not but have a greater effect upon their own Children and immediate Posterity: Yea, God himself seems to suppose this, because in Moses Law the first places that mention Tithes rather reckon them a known due, than enjoin them to be paid. The Hebrew Text Exod. xxii. 29. Thou shalt not delay to offer thy fullness or abundance, is by the Vulgar rendered, Thou shalt not delay thy Tithes and First-fruits, and the Jewish Doctors expound it of Tithes 
R. R. ap Hottinger. Juris Hebraeor. Leg. 78. pag. 98. , to which also the Christian Fathers do apply it. Now this Text evidently supposes they knew these to be due to God, so that the only thing to be done was to order them to pay them in due time and order. Again, when Moses is speaking of things Devoted to God already, so that they may not be alienated from him, nor redeemed without adding a fifth part to the Value, Levit. xxvii. 27. he adds, ver. 30. All the Tithe of the Land, whether of the Seed of the Land, or of the Fruit of the three, is the Lords; intimating that Tithe was then to be reckoned a devoted thing and due to God, before any Law had yet enjoined the payment; and some think Jacobs Vow had so included his posterity, as to make Tithe a devoted thing to them; indeed God promised to give him the Land which he gave to his posterity, and therefore his Vow might probably enough include not only what God gave him in his own person, but in his posterity also. However, 'tis certain that here Tithes are claimed as Gods due by a most ancient Custom, of which no beginning appears, saith Grotius on the place; for indeed they had from the beginning of the World been reckoned as Gods part, and this claim was made soon after the coming out of Egypt, and( as some do compute) 
Roberts Reven. of Gospel Ministers, p. 11.  28 years before the assignation of Tithe to the Levites, Numb. xviii. 28. yet there also God supposes his right to the Tenth part to have been well known, and saith, I have given the Children of Levi all the Tenth in Israel: He assigns his right, but doth not command the payment in all that Chapter. And when the Ceremonial directions( which were still later) were made, they rather prescribe the way and manner of paying Tithes under that Dispensation than enjoin the thing itself, which shows there is no reason to account the Tenth to be originally a Ceremonial Institution. 'tis true, while that Law continued, both the ancient Tithe which was assigned to the Levites, and the other two Tithes, were all due by Gods express written Law, as all do confess; there being therefore no doubt of that, we will under this period consider, 1. What was the method and order of Jewish Tithing; 2. How long this Law for it was observed; 3. How far the Jews Law or practise may concern Christians.  
First, For the Jewish manner of Tithing, Mr. S. saith, It was never fully taught by any Christian before his time, no not by the noble and learned Scaliger, though he undertook it in a single Treatise 
Seld. Review, chap. 2. p. 452. . Yet whoever shall compare that Treatise of Scaliger 
Extat. ap. Critic. sacr. Tom. 1. p. 1322.  with this Chapter of Mr. S. will find, he hath done little more than transcribe him, and when we have fully Examined his own performances, it is not impossible the Reader may think Mr. S. himself is one of those many of no small Name, who grossly slip in reckoning and dividing the kinds of their Tithes 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 2.§. 4. p. 17. , as his own words are. We begin with First-fruits, which were of two sorts, Bicurim and Therumah: the first called Bicurim Mr. S. saith were paid in Ears of Wheat, barley, Figs, Grapes, Olives, pomegranates and Dates, and of those seven only; and for this he cites three Texts, Exod. xxiii. 19. which mentions nothing of paying it in Ears; secondly Numb. xv. 20. which calls this very sort of First-fruits the Heave-offering of the Threshing floor; thirdly, Levit. xxiii. 10. where there is mention of an Omer, with which( R. Salomon observes) they measured this sort of First-fruit, implying it was threshed before it was paid: so that though the Bicurim were paid in Ears, these Texts do not prove it. Again, the Talmud saith, They set forth of First-fruits more the seven kinds 
Talm. tract Bicurim, cap. 3. fol. 8. , and 2 Chron. xxxi. 5. it is said expressly, they brought in the First-fruits of Corn, Wine, Oil and Hony, and of all the increase of the Field. Deut. xxvi. 2. 'tis called the first of all the fruit of the Earth, and Nehem. x. 35. the First-fruit of all fruits of all Trees, is added to the former particulars, so that he hath not accurately enough taught us out of what sorts the Bicurim were paid. Secondly, The Therumah or Heave-offering, Deut. xviii. 4. was paid next to the Bicurim, and this he truly notes( out of Scaliger) ought to be a 40th, 50th, or a 60th part, and he that offered no more than the sixtieth part was said to have an evil Eye, a Phrase which S. Matthew( Chap. xx. 15.) had not out of the Talmud, but out of the Old Testament 
Prov. xxii 9.& xxiii. 6. ; but we need not further inquire into the manner of paying these, because they were not Tithes, only it suffices to note that both these sorts of First-fruits were paid before the Tithing.  
§. II. The Jewish Tithe Mr. S. divides into two sorts, as Scaliger had done before; but whereas Scaliger makes the Poor mans Tithe of the third year the same with the first Tithe, Mr. S. makes it the same with the second, or Tithe of Feasts; but it was truly a different kind from them both, and their Tithing is best divided into the first, second, and third Tithes. The first Tithe was taken out, after the First-fruits offered to the Priests, and paid to the Levites, but not always at Jerusalem( as Mr. S. mistakes) for Ab. Ezra saith, The Levites received their first Tithe in the Country 
Ab. Ezra in Deut. 14.27. . Nor is this Tithe appointed to be brought to Jerusalem, Nehem. x. 37. but to be brought to the Levites, that they might have Tithes in all their Cities of Tillage; and since they took them in the Country, ver. 38. one of the Priests is ordered to be with the Levites when they took Tithes, and the Levites were to carry up the Tithe of this first Tithe to Jerusalem; so that R. Salomon on this place saith, The Levites take Tithes in all the Cities of Israel. R. Nachman also affirms, that the Country Levites had Tithes in the Country 
R. Nachman in Deut. xii. , and Calvin makes no doubt but the Levites in their several Countries did gather Tithes 
Calvin. come. in Deut. xiv. , and by this means, both the Country-man was freed from the vast charge of carrying this first and largest Tithe to Jerusalem, and the Levites eased of the charge of sending back the remainder to their Families at home in the Country, where they needed these Tithes most, for while their course was in the Temple, the second Tithe, and the Sacrifices, &c. maintained them plentifully. As for that place Deut. xii. 5. where there is mention of carrying Tithes to Gods house; R. Salomon there tells us, it is meant of the second Tithe for Feasts. Out of this first or Levites Tithe Mr. S. rightly observes they paid the Tenth unto the Priests; but since all the Twenty-four courses of Priests had their share in these Tithes, it was not properly from this Payment of the Levites to the Priests in general, that the Clergies paying Tenths to the Pope sprung; but from an erroneous conceit which Alex. of Hales, and also Lyra, Tostatus, &c. have entertained out of Numb. xviii. 28. as if the Levites had paid the Tenth of their Tithes to the High Priest only, which false pretence served the Popes Avarice and helped to back out his claim; but it could not justify it any more then that Tithe, which some of the Jewish Kings, and particularly( they say) Solomon had of the people over and above the Levites Tithe 
Baal Hatzurim in Deut. xviii. 1. R. D. Kimki in 1 Sam. viii.  can justify that Tenth which our Kings at this day receive of all their Clergy. But to return to the History, after the First Tithe was taken out, the remaining Nine parts were not yet accounted profane( as Mr. S. mistakes) because the Second Tithe was yet to be taken out, and carried up, either in kind, or in money( with a fifth part added) to be spent in Feasts at Jerusalem, and this is the Tithe spoken of Deut. xii. 5,& 6. and Chap. xiv. 23. and that which Josephus calls Tithe for Feasts 
Joseph. Antiq. lib. 4. cap. 7.( not lib. 41. as in Mr. S.) , and of this there is no dispute, only let it be noted that the turning Tithe into money with a fifth part added, was not a peculiar property of this second Tithe, for the Scripture 
Lev. xxvii. 30, 31. , and the rabbis expressly say 
Ab. Ezra, Abarbanel, Lyra,& Calvin. in loc.  that this privilege belonged to the first Tithe as well as the second.  
§. III. The great difficulty is concerning the Third Tithe, which Mr. S. makes to be the same with the second Tithe, only what was spent at Feasts in Jerusalem two years, on the third year was spent on the poor in the Country, and that year no second Tithe was sent to Jerusalem at all: But I affirm this Third Tithe for the Poor was paid over and above the two former every third year, and therefore that year is called the year of Tithing 
Deut. xxvi. 12. , because there was a Tithe extraordinary paid then more than was paid in other years, as Moses Gerundensis expressly saith: Nor could this poor Mans Tithe have properly born the name of the Third Tithe, if the second had now ceased, yet by that name it is often called 
{αβγδ} Tobit. I. 7. Ab. Ezra in Deut. xiv. 28. Jun.& Tremel. ibid. ; but Josephus is very plain, who brings in Moses himself, saying, Besides the two Tithes which I have already commanded you to pay every year, one to the Levites, and the other to the holy Feasts; there is a third Tithe to be paid every third year, for the Poor, the Widow, and the Fatherless 
Joseph. Antiq. l. 4. c. 8. . Mr. S. indeed cites some rabbis, who thought the second Tithe ceased every third year; but we have besides Gerundensis and Josephus, R. Hiskuni, and R. Bechai on our side, saying positively the third year is called the year of Tithing, because a new sort of Tithes above and beside the other 
R. Hiskun. in Deut. xiv. 28. R. Bechai. in Deut. xxvi. 12. , and Mr. S. is mistaken to call the private Comment of Rab. Salomon the common gloss of the Jews; yea R. Salomons fancy there about the year of One Tithe is rejected by Ab. Ezra, so that we have better Authority for our opinion. As for the Septuagint Translation, Deut. xxvi. 12. {αβγδ}, it makes very much for us, for {αβγδ} signifies the second superadded Tithe, for the Levites Tithe may be fitly called {αβγδ}, the Tithe for Feasts {αβγδ}, and the poor mans Tithe {αβγδ}. And though Mr. S. pag. 19. charge S. Chrysostom with gross ignorance in this matter, yet we affirm he explains there way of Tithing better than either Scaliger or Mr. S. for he says they gave Tithes and First-fruits, Second Tithes, and again other Tithes, and again other Thirtieth part 
Chrysost. Ser. 103. {αβγδ}, T. 6. p. 897. ; for here are reckoned up the Levites Tithes, the Bicurim, the Tithe of Feasts, and the Poor mans Tithe, beside the Therumah, which among the stricter Jews was a Thirtieth part; the enumeration( we see) is full, though being in a popular discourse the order be not exact, and Epiphanius( whom also Mr. S. taxes for ignorance) tells us the Pharisees gave Tithes and First-fruits, Thirtieth and Fiftieth parts, that is, their Therumah was a Thirtieth part, and their Bicurim a Fiftieth, as much more as the ordinary Jews paid. I shall add no more but S. Hierom, who lived nearer the times of Jewish Tithing than most of the rabbis now extant, and conversed with divers Jews then, and he reckons the Poor mans Tithe a distinct Tithe from the Tithe of Feasts 
Hieron. in Ezek. xlv. Tom. 4. p. 1071. , which Opinion is confirmed by this considerable reason, That if no Tithe for Feasts had been paid the third year, then either Gods Service must have been neglected, or there would have been no provision for such as did attend it; and considering the next third year was the sixth upon which the seventh year followed, in which there was no Tithe at all paid of any kind, it would follow that there was no provision for the Levites at the Temple for two years together; wherefore we conclude, that the Poor mans Tithe paid the third year, was not instead of any other Tithe, but was paid over and beside the two former.  
§. IV. We come now to consider the Computation which Mr. S. hath taken out of Scaliger, in which are these Errors; First, The Bicurim or first ripe Fruits,( which may be estimated at the hundredth part at the least) these are wholly omitted. Secondly, So also is the Corner of the Field to be left unreaped every year 
Lev. xix. 9. Deut. xxiv. ver. 19, 20. , of which the Levite had a share also 
R. Sal. on Deut. xxiv.& Maimon. come. in Mas. Therum. c. 1. , and this some say was the Sixtieth part 
R. David de Pomis Lex. verb. Peah. , other reckon it to be the Fortieth 
Baal Hatturim in Levit. xix. . Thirdly, The Therumah was to be reckoned the Fiftieth part, which is the middle number between Sixty and Forty. Fourthly, He hath omitted the Poor mans Tithe every third year. Not to mention another First-fruit paid out of the doughty, spoken of both in Scripture and elsewhere 
Numb. xv. 20, 21. Philo de Sacrif. Cain& Abel p. 148. Aug. quest. in number. xviii. , so that after all the pretended exactness of these two great critics, they both fall short of the true account which we will here subjoin, to show how much more the Jews paid to their Priesthood, than the Christians do now to theirs.  

The account of an Ordinary year, of Jewish Tithing.  An entire Crop, supposed to yield Ephahs 6000 Sum total 6000 Deduct 1. The Corner unreaped a sixtieth part, viz. 100 2. The Bicurim and hundredth part, viz. 59 3. The Therumah, a fiftieth part, viz. 116 These deducted, rests to be Tithed 5725 Deduct. 1. The Levites Tithe 572 2. The Tithe for Feasts 515 The deduction for Tithe 1087 Which deducted out of 5725, remains only 4638 And out of that to be deducted every third year the Poor mans Tithe, beside the former 463 So that the third year the Husbandman had for his own use out of 6000 Ephahs, only 4175  
By this account it is plain, that a Jew paid much above the fifth part in an Ordinary year, viz. 1362 Ephahs out of 6000; and much above a fourth part in the Third year, that is, 1825 Ephahs out of 6000: Whereas a Christian would not pay out of this for Tithe more than 600.  
§. V. For the Tithe of Cattle it is generally believed( as Mr. S. also says) that the Tenth was paid to the Levites, and the First-born paid to the Priests, or money to redeem it; but the Jewish Lawyers( out of whom Mr. S. pretends to take his measures) contradict this, and generally say that the Tithe of Cattle was neither paid to Priests or Levites; but either the cattle if clean, or the price if otherwise, were to be offered at Jerusalem for Sacrifices and Peace-offerings 
R. Salom. in Lev. xxvii. 34. R. Bechai& Abarbanel, ibid. R. Salom. in Deut. xii. 6. R. Nachman in Numb. xv. 10. David de Pomis, verb. Corban. Maimonid. Massec. Becoroth, c. 9. fol. 35 , which though it be all one to the Country-man, who payed them fully however; yet I mention it, because it is a strange thing that one so very conversant in these rabbis, as Mr. S. pretends to be, should miss so obvious an Opinion: But it is not certain these rabbis are always right in the accounts of Tithing, for they unanimously affirm( contrary to Mr. S. again) that no First-born of any unclean Beast was either to be paid or redeemed, except the firstling of an ass, which was not to be redeemed with money, but with a Lamb 
R. Salom. in Exod. xiii. 13.& in cap. xxxiv. 19, 20. R. Bechai, ibid. Maimon. Mass. Becoroth, c. 1. ; hence they expound Numb. xviii. 15. of the ass alone, and that Levit. xxvii. 27. where unclean Beasts are mentioned, they explain of Beasts with blemish. But it seems to me the Scripture plainly confutes the rabbis in this matter, Numb. xviii. 15. and Philo( in whose time Tithes were legally paid, and) who knew better than any of them, he saith, not only the First-born of Asses, but of Horses, Camels, and such like were to be redeemed 
{αβγδ} Philo de Sacerd. praem. p. 831. , and this I judge to be the truer account.  
§. VI, VII, VIII. The next thing properly to be inquired of here, is concerning Small Tithes( though Mr. S. have put it back into his 7th Section) Our Saviour tells us the Pharisees tithed Mint, anise, and Cummin, Math. xxiii. 23. and {αβγδ}, Luke xi. 40. all manner of Herbs, which Mr. S. says was never commended in Scripture, nor by their Canon Law requisite, p. 20. yet he grants the rabbis expound the word Increase, Deut. xxvi. 12. to signify all fruits of the Earth that is for Mans meat 
R. D. Kimchi in Mich.& R. Nachman in Exod. xxii. , and {αβγδ} doth not signify( as he pretends) every Herb, but only the Herbs used for Mans meat 
{αβγδ}. Thophrastus, ita Rom. xiv. 2.& Olus, Latinis. , so that the rabbis do grant {αβγδ}, every Herb for meat is by Gods Law tithable, and the expressions of Holy Scripture are so general, viz. All the Tithe of the Land 
Lev. xxvii. 30. , all the Tenth in Israel 
Num. xviii. 21. , the Tithe of all thy increase 
Deut. xxvi. 12. , that we may justly affirm they comprehend these small things also, only in regard the value of them was inconsiderable perhaps the Priests did not require, nor the ordinary Jews pay them, only the Pharisees who would strictly keep the Law, these paid even these small Tithes exactly, and Mr. S. at last grants, that they were of the truer side, because Christ tithed this payment, and said, they ought not to omit it 
Math. xxiii. 23. . After this account of the quantity and kinds of Tithes, the continuance of the Payment is next to be shewed, for understanding whereof Mr. S. hath well noted the use which Scripture mentions, and the care of the Sanhedrin to enjoin the payment under the second Temple; and I add, that Tobit is an example of just Tithing about that time, and the Pharisees in our Saviours age, S. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews 
Heb. vii. 9. , is a good evidence they were usually and duly paid after our Saviours Ascension, and Mr. S. hath a good proof of such payment in Nero's time out of Josephus 
Joseph. Ant. l. 6. c. 20. , who together with Philo are sufficient to assure us they were paid as long as their Temple stood, and till the City was destroyed, which is all we need inquire after, because this was as long as they were due to that Priesthood 
Suarez. de leg. l. 9. c. 19. , and God hath now assigned them to another and a better Priesthood, as the Jews, against their Wills, seem to aclowledge, in that, since they are expelled out of their own land, they do not think they are obliged by the Law to pay Tithes 
Maimon. ap. Hottinger Jur. Heb. p. 99.& alii RR. ibid. lo Modena, cap. 12. p. 44. ; excepting only those who live in Aram or Syria( whatever Mr. S. pretend) or in any other place in, or near Judea, are thought to be obliged still, He that hath land in Syria( saith the Talmud) of his own must pay Tithes, and if he buy the fruits before tithing, he must answer the Tithe 
Talm. tract. Megnaish, c. 5.& R. Sal. ibid. ; yea, Maimonides reckons Syria a part of the Land of Israel 
Maim. tract. Dem. c. 6. . But for other Jews dispersed, the more Religious of them do at this day instead of Tithes pay an Alms out of all gains, viz. Ten Crowns out of an hundred 
Selden out of ●irk. Ab. cap. 3. & notis ibid. , which payment is a full Tenth part, and though it be far short of all the Mosaic Law requires, yet it answers the first or Levites Tithe, and is the same Tithe which the patriarches of old and the Christians now do pay; that is, it is Tithe stripped of all the Ceremonial appendices added under the Law, intimating, that this Tithe ever was, and ever will be due even where the Ceremonial Law is not in force. And let it be here remembered, that this first or Levites Tithe was not tied to be paid at Jerusalem( as was proved before) and therefore the place which Mr. S. produces out of Eusebius 
Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. l. 1. c. 1. ap. Seld. p. 13. , which argues Tithes are ceased, because Jerusalem, the place where they should be paid, is destroyed, must be meant of Tithes paid after the Levitical manner, and peculiarly of the second Tithe superinduced by that Law: for the Tenth part was paid before that Law, and ever will be due to that Priesthood to which God assigns them; and that Jews confession to Scaliger, that they have no lawful Priesthood left among them now, ought to convince the very Jews, that God hath now chosen another Priesthood, to whom his Tenth part is due.  
§. IX. Mr. S. promised in his Preface, p. 2. that he would consider Antiquity, not barely to show what hath been, but to give other Light to the practise and doubts of the present Age. But he hath not performed it in this Part, to supply which defect we will here add two Observations; First, that Christian Tithes are not demanded by virtue of the Levitical Law, and yet, Secondly, many things may be learned from that Law to strengthen the claim of Christian Ministers to Tithes as now paid. For the First, It is plain we do not claim Tithes now by virtue of the Levitical Law, for then they should be paid in the quantities and kinds prescribed in that Law, and with all the Ceremonies annexed; but the Evangelical Tithes are no more but a just Tenth part paid before the Law, continued under it, and then called the First or Levites Tithe; so that to Mr. S. question, Why not the second as well as the first 
Seld. Review, p. 456. , we reply, That this first Tithe was in being before the Law, and distinguished in the Law from all the rest, for it is called an Inheritance 
Num. xviii. 21, 26. , on which phrase the Talmud saith, The Scripture likens the first Tithe to an Inheritance, because as an Inheritance ceaseth not, so this first Tithe ceaseth not 
Talm. roche. Hashan. f. 1. c. 12. , the other Tithes being superinduced by the Law, those only fell with it. And whereas Mr. S. further questions, How the payment of Tithes from the Laity to the Priests of the Gospel, succeeds to the payment from the Levites to the Sons of Aaron 
Seld. Review, p. 456. ; it is answered, It doth not succeed that payment, but the Evangelical Tithes succeed to the payment from the Laity to the Levites, out of which also the Priests had a share. These first and ancient Tithes were paid generally to the ministering Clergy then; but what shares the Levites, and what the Priests should have, was ordered by God suitably to that dispensation, wherein the Levites who had most liesure were the gatherers of these Tithes, and had the biggest share, because the Priests were otherwise well provided for while Sacrificing was in use; but these Levites also were reckoned among( the {αβγδ}) the Clergy, and are accounted Members of that Priesthood: so that the Levitical Priesthood had them by such a distribution as God saw fit to make, and therefore the best Authors make no scruple to say, that Tithes were then paid to the Priests. S. Paul himself saith, The Sons of Levi, which receive the Priesthood, have a commandment to take Tithes of the People according to the Law 
Hebr. vii. 5. ; where he must call the Levites, Priests, because the Priests, properly so called, took no Tithes of the People; and hence the rabbis tell us, that the Priests are twenty four times called Levites in Scripture 
R. Levi in Numb. xviii. R. D. Kimchi in 2 Chron. iv. 5. , and again the Levites are called Priests 
Malach. iii. 3. In f●liis autem ●evi sacerdotalem intellige dignitatem. Hieron. in loc. Tom. 5. p. 637. . Wherefore Hecataeus in Josephus saith, The Priests of the Jews, who receive the Tithe of all Increase are very numerous; and Josephus saith, Moses commanded the People to pay Tithe to the Levites and Priests 
Joseph. Ant. l. 4. c. 4. . This Question therefore of Mr. S. was a mere knot in a Bulrush, and only designed to blunder, for the Priesthood had these Tithes both then and now also; and as the Gospel Priesthood succeeds the Levitical in the performance of Divine Service, so also in its right to Tithes, the different manner of distribution of them after they are paid, suited to the several dispensations, making no real difference in the Succession; but sure none but Mr. S. ever dreamed, that Evangelical Tithes succeeded the mere ceremonial division of them, and that part only which then was the Priests share, for this division began with the Law, and ended when that was abrogated. I am the larger upon this distinction between the First and original Tenth part, and the other additional Ceremonies or Manners of tithing superadded by Moses Law, because it fully reconciles Origen, S. Hierom, and those other Fathers who expressly say Tithes were not Ceremonial, nor abrogated, to Eusebius and Epiphanius, who are produced by Mr. S. to prove Tithes were Ceremonial; for Eusebius is plainly speaking of the second Tithe for Feasts paid at Jerusalem, which indeed is now ceased, and was purely Ceremonial, as was shewed before: and Epiphanius 
See Seld. Review, p. 461.  is arguing against the Quarto decimani, or those who( though agreeing with the Christians in all other things) would needs keep Easter on the 14th day of the Month, as the Levitical Law prescribes, on pretence they should incur the Curse of the Law, if they did not observe it at that time: against which he urges, That Moses in Deuteroromy sets down all the Curses which concern not only the Passeover, but Circumcision, Tithing and Offerings; therefore if they would avoid one Curse, they fell into many, for they are found accursed there, who are not Circumcised, who do not Tithe, and do not offer at Jerusalem 
Epiph. haeres. 50. . That is, if once they maintained that Levitical Curse still in force, then they must not only keep the Paschal Feast at the Jewish time, but in the Jewish manner also, with a Lamb, &c. and not only observe one duty in the Ceremonial manner, but all others, viz. circumcision, Tithing, and Offering at Jerusalem: but indeed that Curse is not in force, and so they are not bound to do any of those duties after the Ceremonial and Jewish manner; it is not therefore the Thing itself about which Epiphanius is discoursing, but the Ceremonial manner of doing it; for Epiphanius and they agreed, that a Paschal Feast was to be kept, but not at the Jewish time, nor in the Ceremonial manner; they agreed they were to offer, but not at Jerusalem, so also they agreed Tithes were to be paid, but the Father only argues, that they were not bound to it by that Levitical Curse, and consequently not to Tithe in the Ceremonial manner: and since he saith, they agreed with the Church in all things else but the time of keeping Easter, we shall show the Church then did receive Tithes, and therefore there was no difference about that, nor doth Epiphanius at all reckon Tithes as paid to Gospel Ministers among things abrogated.  
But, Secondly, though we do not claim Tithes by virtue of the Levitical Law, yet we learn many things from it which strengthen our right to Tithes now. First, This Law, and the practise upon it, declares Gods approbation of the patriarches choice of a Tenth part to be dedicated to his service, and testifies that his Ministers ought to be his Receivers; and the continuance of this payment during this Period, makes good the Clergies prescription against all others for near 2000 years together. Secondly, This provision for the Levitical Priesthood, was a pattern for Christ in providing for Gospel Ministers; for S. Paul tells us, As God the Father had appointed the Priests and Levites should live of Tithes and Offerings, even so hath the Lord ordained, that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel 
1 Cor. ix. 13, 14. ; intimating that our Lord followed that pattern, so that as theirs was a fixed certain honourable maintenance chiefly in the proportion of a Tenth, so was ours to be also; and though not the same in all the Ceremonial and superadded circumstances, yet it was to be like it in the main, which it could not be if their maintenance were certain and determined, and ours uncertain, arbitrary and precarious; and thence also it would follow, that more care was taken of the old Priesthood than of the new, which serves to a better Covenant. Thirdly, This Law was also a Guide to the Primitive Christians, and taught them not to give less than a Tenth to their Ministers, not by any direct obligatory power believed to be in this Law, but per vim ejus exemplarem( as the Schoolmen speak) by analogy and parity of reason: for if a meaner Priesthood had Tithes for its provision, surely a better Priesthood ought not to have less; hence the Fathers say, We that have a better hope ought cheerfully to give rather more than less 
Irenaeus advers. haer. l. 4. cap. 34. , and that we must at least come up to the Jewish bounty 
Hieron. in Mal. 3. , and give as much as the Jews, who were young beginners in Religion, not less however than a Tenth part 
Chrysost. hom. 43. in 1 Cor. ; for Christ expects our Righteousness( even in point of bounty to his Service) should exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, or else we shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven 
Origen in Numb. hom. xii. . And this is the true reason why the Ancients frequently city the Precepts, Promises and threatenings of the Old Testament concerning Tithes, and apply them to Christians; not( as Mr. S. often suggests) that they believe the Levitical Precepts obligatory directly to us, but that we are by parity of reason obliged not to give less; and if we be as bountiful as they were, we may expect the blessings promised to them, if not, we deserve to suffer severe punishments for our covetousness and impiety. Fourthly, We learn from the Levitical Law, that Christians received great ease by the coming of Christ even in this point also, though the full Tenth part be paid still, because Christ hath abrogated all that was brought in by the Ceremonial Law, and reduced us to the Original proportion used among the patriarches, whereas the Jews paid some years thrice as much as we do. We are now free from the second and third Tithe, from the reserved Corner, the offering of First-fruits, redeeming our First-born of Man and Beast, and from many other payments to which they were bound; and yet they discharged all these deuce freely( as Philo and S. Chrysostom tell us) 
Philo de Sacerd. praem. ap. Seld. review p. 53. Chrysost. Serm. 103. Tom. 6. p. 897. , never repining or envying at the riches of their Clergy, who lived( on this maintenance of Gods own designing) almost in the state of Princes, so that if any now do murmur to give not half so much to a better Ministry, under which they have better Ordinances and more useful Means of Grace, they discover a sordid Mind, and a great contempt of the holy Gospel. Finally, The Institution of a Tenth part coming from God at first, and being practised by inspired and holy patriarches before the Law, being approved by God, established by the Law, and settled by a long prescription under the Jewish dispensation, and there being no declaration, that God intended to repeal this proportion, this alone( if there were no more) is sufficient to oblige Christians to dedicate their Tithes for the maintenance of the Gospel Ministry, nor could they be excused from covetousness and disregard to Gods Service, if they should have given a less proportion.   

CHAP. III. Of Tithes among the Gentiles.  
§. I. OF the early beginning of Tithes, and the long continuance of them where the Law of God was known we have thus far treated, we proceed now to observe the vast extent of this practise into most parts of the World among the Gentiles, whose general agreement in dedicating Tithes, and frequent usage thereof, could spring from no other Principles than the natural equity of this proportion, and the practise of some of the earliest patriarches believed to have been taught of God. In the relation of this Custom Mr. S. hath indeed observed many Instances, but yet he shows great partiality in striving to make it seem as narrow as he can; and besides his mistakes in the passages he cites, he omits very many particulars, both which shall here be rectified and supplied. We begin with the Phoenicians, among whom Melchisedec was both a Prince and a Priest, and used to receive Tithes, so that we may be sure Tithing was very ancient there, for the Carthaginians( who were a Colony of Phoenicians transplanted into Africa about 900 years after the death of Sem, A. M. 3075) brought with them this Custom from Tyre, to which City they used to sand their Tithe by one clothed in Purple and Priestly Robes 
Justin. histor. l. 18. p. 186. ; and Diodorus Siculus more fully saith, that being in great favourits in their Wars they feared Hercules of Tyre was angry with them, in that being descended thence, they had used in the times before to sand to that God the Tithe of all their Profits, but becoming rich they neglected this, till their misery made them repent and sand it as before 
Diodor. Sic. hist. l. 5. ; this ancient Phoenician Custom therefore was not to pay Tithe of Spoils only( as Mr. S. pretends, pag. 33.) but of all their profits. The Grecians also( who had many Rites from the Phoenicians) used to consecrate their Tithes to the Gods: Harpocration saith, They were wont to Tithe their Spoils of War to the Gods; and Didymus more fully, It was a graecian custom to consecrate the Tithe of their gains to the Gods 
{αβγδ} Harpoc. {αβγδ} Dydim. . But Mr. S. strives to contract these full expressions of the Ancients, and would persuade us, that the Grecians paid Tithes but sometimes, and of some things, and to some Gods, by special Vow: whereas his own Instances do show the payment was general and very frequent, and those we shall add will make it still clearer. He grants pag. 29, &c. that they consecrated their Tithes so often to Apollo, that he was called {αβγδ}, which we may translate the Tithe-taker; but the Verse he cites out of Clemens Alexandrinus was not taken out of any Inscription at Delphi( as Mr. S. mistakes) but out of an old Poem( now not extant) called Europia, from whence Clemens brings there two Verses to prove there were no Statues of old at Delphi, but only Holy Pillars on which it seems they use to hang up their Tithes, before the making of Images was invented( which must needs be very ancient) 
{αβγδ}. ap. Clem. Alex. storm.( not 5, but) lib. 1. . The Hymn he cites out of Calimachus, pag. 30. shows, that First-fruits in the proportion of a Tenth were every year sent to Delos unto the same God; but Mr. S. hath omitted the two next Verses, which expressly say these were the Tithes of Corn 
{αβγδ}. Callim. ibid. . And we may well suppose he had Tithes of all profits when so infamous a gain, as that of Rhodope afforded a Consecration to him 
Herodot. Euterp. l. 2. p. 160. , and that this was usual may be gathered from that other courtesan in the old Poem, who vows to offer the Tenth of all her gains to Venus( which Mr. S. omits) 
Antholog. l. 6. . The Siphnians paid a yearly Tithe of their Mines 
Herodot. l. 3. p. 210. , and it was doubtless paid as a due, because upon their omitting it, they lost their Mines by the justice of the Gods 
Pausan. histor. Graec. . But because Wars are the subject of most Histories, thence it come to pass, that( though other Tithes were paid, yet) there is most frequent testimonies of Tithe of Spoils. The Crotonians vowed such a Tenth before their War against the Locrians 
Justin. histor. l. 20. p. 193. . The Phocians made( not only two as Mr. S. mistakes, but) four Statues of the Tithe of the money gotten at their victory over the Thessalians 
Herodot. Uran. l. 8. p. 548. . Xenophon also relates, that Agesilaus made so profitable a War in the lesser Asia, that in two years time he sent to the God at Delphos a Tithe worth more than 100 Talents 
Xenoph. Orat. de Agesilao, pag. 519. ; by which it seems the paying this Tithe was so usual, that the whole value of the Spoils were to be known thereby. The same Agesilaus, after a Victory over the Thebans, went to Delphos, and there out of his Spoils consecrated a Tithe to the God not less than a 100 Talents 
Idem hist. Graec. l. 4. p. 406. . So likewise Agis, another General of the Lacedemonians, after the War with the Eleans, went and offered his Tithe at Delphos 
Idem ibid. l. 3. p. 384. ; these I have more particularly remarked, because Mr. S. slightly passes them over: But to go on, Cymon the Athenian General being Conqueror at Eurymedon, took out the Tenth of the Spoils and dedicated them to the God 
Diodor. Sic. l. 11. p. 270. , that is, to Apollo, who is also meant in the same Diodorus, where he relates how the Argives having subdued the Mycenians, consecrated a Tenth out of their goods to the God 
Idem ibid. pag. 276. . Maximus Tyrius also mentions Lysanders offering the Tithes of his gains in War to the Gods 
Max. Tyr. dissert. 14. p. 142. ,( which Mr. S. hath omitted) He speaks generally, because,( as Mr. S. confesses) it was not Apollo only to whom these Tithes of Spoils, or rather gains were offered, for others sometimes were joined with him. Pausanias, after his Victory over Mardonius, out of the Tithes of that Prey presented a Tripos of Gold to Apollo at Delphos, and two brazen Statues, one to Jupiter Olympus, another to the Istmian Neptune 
Herodot. Calliope l. 9. p. 633. Diod. Sic. l. 11. pag. 259. . But most memorable is that account in Xenophon, how he himself and every graecian Captain after that Asian Expedition consecrated the Tithe of their gains to Apollo and Diana of Ephesus; and Xenophon having first given Apollo his part, with Diana's part purchased a Field, and built a Temple and Altar to the Goddess, and after that he consecrated the Tithe of the Fruits of the Fields for Sacrifices, and instituted a Feast, wherein Diana out of this Land and these Tithes furnished all that came to it with Meal, Bread, Wine, Junkets and money, as also with her Part of the cattle fed in the sacred Pastures, or taken in Hunting 
Xenoph. exped. Cyr. l. 5. pag. 274. . So that here was a Temple endowed with Tithes among the very Heathens; but whether Apollo, Diana, or Jupiter 
Pausan. hist. Graec. in El. 1.& Phocens.  had these Tithes in this or that particular place, it is plain that to some Gods or other the Tenth was usually paid, because that was looked on to be the part competent to a Deity, as appears by Cypselus his respect thereto, when he vowed all the Citizens goods if he could get the City 
Aristot. Oecon. l. 2. . And doubtless it was a very ancient and known Custom in those parts of the World, because when Cyrus had conquered Croesus, and was about to spoil Sardis, Croesus desirous to save the goods of his Citizens, admonished Cyrus( not Cyrus admonished Croesus, as Mr S. grossly mistakes, pag. 31.) that if he would publish among his Souldiers, and put them in mind, That the Tithe of the City must necessary be given to Jupiter, they would not dare to touch any thing, no not in the heat of their Victory; and Croesus hoped, being thus put off at present, the Citizens might give liberal gifts to the Souldiers in cool blood, which was much better than for them to be rifled 
Herodot. Clio. l. 1. p. 43. , this happened An. Mun. 3046; and it is a fair proof that the opinion of the Sacredness of Tithes was well rooted in Mens minds then, since it had such influence on the Persian Souldiers minds as to stay their hands from pillaging a rich and noble City. In other places Juno had the Tithe, for the Merchants of Samos dedicated to her a Tithe of their gains, and out of it made( not as Mr. S. calls it, a Cup, but) a Laver or Kettle so great, that six Talents( which is above 1100 l.) were bestowed on it, and the three Statues supporting it were seven Cubits high in a kneeling posture 
Herodot. Melpom. l. 4. p. 314. . The Athenians often dedicated their Tithe to Pallas, to whom out of the Tithe of what they got for redemption of Captives they presented a rich Chariot 
Herodot. Terp. l. 5. p. 365. ; that Goddess also had the Tithe of all confiscated goods there 
Xenoph. hist. Graec. l. 1. p. 350. , but it was not that sort of Tithe only( as Mr. S. pretends,) but all other Tithe, which the Atticks called {αβγδ}, as Harprocration tells us. And surely Tithing must be very ancient in Greece, since Mars himself is recorded to have dedicated his Tithe to one of the Genii that first taught him to be a soldier 
Lucian. de Saltatione, p. 506. ; to this we add that dedication advised by Moxus, of the Tenth of all the Lydians goods to the Gods 
Suidas ver. {αβγδ}, p. 600. , and that out of Thucidydes where the Athenians vow the Tenth part of Lesbos to the Gods 
Thucyd. ; but it is no wonder if the Men of Athens dedicated the Tenth of their foreign acquisitions, since they usually paid Tithe of all their goods at home, which when some former Princes had seized to their own use, Pisistratus tells Solon, he had restored to the use of the Gods for public Festivals 
Diog. Laert: vit. Sol. p. 36. ; a full proof of which Tithing all gains at Athens we have in that jeering Comedy of Aristophanes, where he represents clear complaining of Agoracutus( a great Statesman, but there comically described as a seller of Tripes) for detaining the Tithe of his Tripes belonging to the Gods: where the Scholiast notes, that the Comedian satirically puts, Tripes, for Estates and Means, that he did not give the Tenth part of his Estate to the Gods 
Scholiast. in Aristop. {αβγδ}. . So that this is no proof that Cooks alone paid the Tithe of their Meat killed at Athens, but that all others paid the Tithe of their whole Estate: indeed the Scholiast there says, The Cooks used to give the Tenth of what they killed to the Magistrates: which was wont, as all other Tithes, to be spent in the Festivals of the Gods, as we may gather from Pisistratus Letter cited before; yea, Demosthenes calls it sacrilege in Androtion and Timocrates, to detain the Tenths due to Pallas, and the fiftieth parts of the other Gods 
Demosth. orat. in Androt. ; and it seems by Cleon's threatening in Aristophanes, that men might be complained of to the Civil Magistrate, and punished for not paying Tithes. For it was a very ancient Attic Law, {αβγδ}, to honour the Gods with their Fruits, which Porphyry explains by {αβγδ}( his word for giving Tithes) and cites Hermippus and Xenocrates to prove it was a Law of Triptolemus( contemporary with Moses) and renewed by Draco to be an everlasting Decree never to be repealed, That all the Inhabitants of Attica should worship the Gods according to their Estates, with First-fruits and offering of Wine every year 
Porphyr. de abstin. l. 4.§. ult. p. 179. . The same Author also relates out of Hesiod( one of the oldest Poets) that the Gods had utterly destroyed an Atheistical and irreligious People called Thoes, because they paid no First-fruits, as they ought to have done 
Idem ibid. l. 2.§. 8. p. 56. , which Divine judgement must have been long before Hesiod's time, and even then it seems it was so unusual an impiety, that the destruction of that People was believed to proceed from that Cause; yet Judgments are not wont to be sent upon whole Nations for omitting arbitrary and accidental acts of extraordinary devotion: 'tis plain therefore this was a constant, ancient, and just payment in all graecian Countries, which gave occasion to that common Proverb of describing a very wicked person by this phrase, One that eats of that which had not been sanctified, viz. by first separating the Gods part out of it 
{αβγδ} Prov. . And this general practise caused the word {αβγδ}, to Tithe, to be put for {αβγδ}, to Consecrate, because all Consecrations were wont to be in the proportion of a Tenth. And Mr. S. doth falsely pretend, that the word {αβγδ} only signifies a special consecration of young Maids at Athens to Diana, as his own Authors fully show, who tell us, that the usual and proper sense of {αβγδ} was to Consecrate in general, and that this particular consecration of young Maids was a private and rare sense of the word 
Harpocr. in verb. {αβγδ},& ibid. Didymus. Hesychius verb. {αβγδ} Etymologus eodem verbo, apud Mountag. pag. 516. ; yea Didymus in Harpocration( in the place cited by Mr. S.) saith, though Lysias use it for that Consecration of young Maids, yet {αβγδ} properly signifies to Consecrate, because it was the graecian custom to Consecrate the Tithe of their gains to the Gods: which evidently proves it a general Custom over all Greece, which had given occasion to this phrase or speech, and not a particular local custom of some one City, like offering at Weddings in England, to which Mr. S. unjustly likens this general practise; the Custom of one City cannot be called an English Custom, nor if some men only, and at some times, and of some things, and in some places only had paid Tithes, could it properly be said paying Tithes was a graecian Custom; wherefore Mr. S. unjustly saith, Those old Grammarians deceive, and are deceived, if they mean that all paid their Tithes in Greece, and that of every kind of their spoils or abundance 
Seld. hist. pag. 32. . For they must needs know the use of Greece better than He, and besides his own Instances with those we have added, do prove it was a constant and general practise established by Law, expected by the Gods, and performed annually of things yearly increasing, and extraordinarily of extraordinary gains, such as Spoils in War. We have proved they have tithed Spoils, Corn, Wine, and all mens substance, merchandise, and all Profits, and counted it wicked to neglect it, and what can be expected more( at this distance of time) to prove a general graecian Custom? It is not likely or possible that all particular Acts should be recorded, but here is evidence sufficient that some Gods or other always had the Tenth part of all their gains, and that the proportion of Tenth was so constantly used in all these payments, that in common speech it was all one to say I Tithe, or I Consecrate.  
§. II. From the Grecians we pass to the Romans, of whom there is a Testimony as general, as that of Didymus for Greece; for Festus in P. Diaconus saith, Decimae quaeque veteres Diis suis offerebant, The ancient( Romans) offered every sort of Tithe to their Gods 
Festus ver. Decimae, ap P. Diacon. p. 47. . Scaliger and Selden indeed do both accuse Paulus Diaconus for falsifying this Passage, but neither of them ever saw Festus his Original, which Paulus doth contract; and the ground of both their quarrels is, because it suits not their private Opinion, and thence it is that they differ in their exceptions, and each would mend it to comply with his own Opinion: Scaliger will not have it to the Gods in general, because they only did it( he says) to Hercules 
Scalig. castigat. in Fest. pag. 55. verbo Decima. ; but Mr. S. by many Instances of the Romans paying Tithes to other Gods shows, that Scaliger did ill to tax Paulus Diaconus for this word [ Diis], and yet while he proves Scaliger was mistaken, he absurdly saith, p. 29. Paulus is well taxed for it by the Divine Scaliger: but the truth is he is unjustly taxed by them both, for Mr. S. also( merely by guess, and because it confutes his false Opinion) he quarrels with Decima quaeque, every sort of Tithe, and would persuade us the Romans did not pay Tithe of every thing, only some did it, at some times, and of some things 
Seld. hist. pag. 28. . But first surely, Paulus Diaconus, who saw Festus and many Authors now lost, and lived nearer the time of this practise, must needs know the Roman Customs better than Mr. S. who grants Paulus was a Man of great knowledge and reading for the Age he lived in 
Review, pag. 457. ; and though he scornfully say he ignorantly abridged Festus, and is often guilty of gross mistakes, as great a Critic as Mr. S. hath fully vindicated Paulus from every part of this charge 
montague against Selden, p. 422. , which being remote to our Question we may omit, especially since the Instances which Mr. S. himself brings, with those we shall add as we go along, will abundantly prove Paulus is in the right, and that the Romans did usually offer all sorts of Tithes to their Gods. We begin with the Contents of Mr. S. his Third Chapter, where he saith they gave Tithes of Spoils, of merchandise, and of their Estates; and truly Haec tria sunt omnia, there can nothing be Tithable which comes not under one of these heads: but we proceed to particulars; He relates out of Plutarch, that the rich Romans used to Tithe their Estates to Hercules 
Plut. in quaest. Roman. , yet designing to lessen every thing, he pretends this was a special devotion of some of the Sons of Fortune, whereas Plutarch speaks not of any Special devotion, nor doth he say that the Poor did it not; and Diodorus Siculus expressly saith, Many of the Romans, not only of meaner Estates, but of the very rich men, consecrated their Tithe to Hercules, for Lucullus the richest Roman of his time, taking an account of his Estate, offered all the Tithe to the Gods, making frequent and costly Feasts 
Diodor. Sic.( non libro 5. ut ap. S. said) l. 4. . So likewise Sylla offering the Tenth of his Estate to Hercules, made sumptuous Feasts to the People 
Plutar. vit. Syllae. ,( which Mr. S. hath omitted) as also that of Cassius, whose Estate being computed before his Parthian Expedition to be 7100 Talents, the Tithe to Hercules is mentioned as a usual charge 
Idem vit. Crassi. . 'tis true, Historians take most notice of the Tithes of the Rich, because they were most public and remarkable; but it is like all did it, since Varro says, Our Forefathers used to vow the Tithe to Hercules, nor did Ten days pass without such a Consecration, by which the People were feasted on free-cost, and sent home with laurel Crowns 
Varro ap. Macrob. Satur. l. 3. cap. 11. , wherefore it must needs be very frequent; and the next Instance shows it was very ancient, for old Cassius in Aurelius Victor reports, that in Evanders days( An. Mun. 2710, not much above 200 years after the Israelites were settled in Canaan) one Reccaranus of Greek extraction, a Shepherd of great bulk and strength, called Hercules, because he excelled others in shapes and power; this Reccaranus having found his Oxen that were stolen from him, dedicated an Altar under the Aventine Mount Inventori Patri( that is, probably to Jupiter) calling it the Greatest, and teaching them to consecrate their Tithes there, for it seemed more fit to him that the Gods should receive that honour, than their Kings( to whom 'tis likely Tithes had been paid before) whence it came to pass, after this Hercules was Deified, Ut Herculi decimam profanari mos esset, as Victor observes 
Cassius ap. Aurel. Victor, orig. Gent. Rom. . This is the true account of that History which Mr. S. grossly mistakes, saying, that Reccaranus taught them to offer Tithes to Hercules, when as indeed Reccaranus was Hercules himself; and again Mr. S. rashly blames Dion. Halicarn. as if he falsely reported, that Hercules himself first spent the Tithe of what he took from Cacus, in a Feast with Evander 
Seld. Review, p. 458. , when as that Author exactly follows old Cassius, and Mr. S. himself is in the mistake, both in the story itself and in his inferencs from it, as if Tithes were but sometimes paid at that Altar, for Victors words of Mos esset show it was a Custom; and Halicarnass. saith, Tithes were frequently offered there according to Vows 
Halicar. Rom. Antiq. l. 1. , Diodorus Siculus affirms also, that Hercules did foretell that after his Canonization, whosoever consecrated Tithe to him should be prosperous, whence the Custom continued( he saith) unto his time 
Diodor. Sic. l. 4. , which was to the days of Julius Caesar. So that it was a Custom which began early and continued long; and though Mr. S. confidently asserts, This payment was not required by their Pontifical Law, yet( the Books of that Law now being lost) he cannot be sure of the truth of what he saith, and Camillus his advising with the most learned of the Priests about performing a Vow of Tithes 
Plutar. vit. Camilli& Liv. libr. 5. , implies, there were Precepts in the Pontifical Law concerning it, and those Phrases of Moribus antiquis 
L. Mummius Seld, p. 26. , Fieri oportet 
Cato de re rustica, c. 132. , Jovi aliquod ex praedâ debeatur 
Servius, Aen l. 3. come. 21. , do confirm that Supposition, especially since there were Laws in Greece for Tithing, whence the Custom seems to be derived; and there was a Law for it in Arabia also, who had learned this Rite from the Phoenicians, as the Greeks also did 
Plin. nat. hist l. 12. c. 14. . But if there were no written Law for it, yet an ancient Custom derived from unwritten Tradition uses to be observed for a Law 
Ulpian, ita Justin. Inst. l. 1. Tit 2.§. 9. , saith Ulpian, and Tertullian tells us, Custom in Civil matters, where Laws are silent, passes for a Law 
Tertul. de Coron. militi, cap. 4. p. 103. . But to proceed, Merchants also used to Tithe their gains to Hercules, as appears from the Example of Hersennius, who having got by Merchandizing, dedicated a Tithe of his gains to Hercules, and( which Mr. S. omits, Review p. 458.) having done it again, as he was going to Sea, he was set on by Pirates, but fought valiantly and came off a Conqueror 
Servius, ad Aen. 8. come. 30. ; yea, 'tis very likely there was a known Law or Custom equivalent to it, that Hercules should have the Tenth of all wears sold, since he in Plautus saith, He had need sell as dear as was possible, that he might give Hercules the Tenth part 
Plautus in Sticho. , for the dearer he sold, it seems the greater was the Tithe, and surely it was very common when pars Herculana, Hercules his part is put for the Tithe; and because it was given liberally and of the best, thence edecumata came to signify the choicest things, and fluctus decumanus, the biggest Waves, which occasioned Tertullian also to reckon the Herculean Tithes among the Instances of the Roman prodigality 
Tertul. Apolog. c. 39. , and we may judge that all sorts of Men offered these Tithes of their gains, since it was thought next to impossible for a Prodigal to spend Hercules gains thereby 
Plaut. Mostel. Act. 4. . Yet all these Instances are of Tithes of Mens Estates dedicated and paid to Hercules in peace, only L. Mummius is brought by Mr. S. as an Example of dedicating Spoils of War to the same God, under the name of Sanco Semipatri 
Putabant hunc esse Sancum à Sabinâ linguâ& Herculem à Graecâ. Varro de linguâ Latinâ, l. 4. ; but the Inscription in which that dedication is recorded, saith it was done Moribus antiquis, according to the ancient Custom, which shows it had been usually done by others long before and very frequently; and that other phrase, that he gave Hercules, Decumam verae rationis, plainly shows they computed exactly in order to paying his Tithe justly. And now if it be inquired, why Hercules is most frequently mentioned as the receiver of Tithes among the Romans? I reply, because he was one of there chiefest and ancientest Deities, his Rites( saith Livy) were first of any taken into use by Romulus 
Liv. hist. l. 1. , and scarce any Region or part of Italy can be found where this God is not worshipped, saith another Historian 
Dion Halicarn. l. 1. , for which cause Virgil calls him the great Son of Amphytrio, For( saith Servius there) every one thinks the God he worships to be the Greatest: So that if any one God in any Country had Tithes paid him before any others, it is because he was the chief God of that place. So in Arabia( whether the use of Tithing came from Melchisedec and the Phoenicians) there was a Law that( not the Merchant, as Mr. S. mistakes, but) the Owner should pay Tithe of his frankincense to the God Sabis, whose Priests received it by measure, not by weight, before the Owner might sell it 
Plin. nat. hist. l. 12. c. 14. pag. 252. . The like Law was in Aethiopia of paying Tithe of Cinnamon to their God Assabinus, the Priest taking the Gods part out before the Merchant might buy 
Id. lib. 12. c. 19. p. 254. . This Sabis and Assabinus doubtless was the same God, and probably had his name from the Hebrew, Sebaoth, the Title of the Lord of Hosts, though the Greek Authors take it for a name of Bacchus 
Hesych. ver. {αβγδ}, Scholi Aristoph. , however this was the chief God of these Countries. But to return to the Romans, though Hercules had Tithes most frequently among them, yet not only he, for the Pelasgi, who traded by Sea, gave the Tenth of their gain by merchandise to Apollo at Delphos 
Dionis. Halicarn. l. 1. . And that other branch of the same People seated in Umbria, being punished with a barren year for the neglect of this duty removed the judgement by Vowing {αβγδ}, the Tenth of all Profits to the Gods they worshipped, viz. Jupiter, Apollo, and the Cabiri 
Idem ibid. . Camillus paid the Tenth of his Spoils to Apollo, as both Livy and Plutarch report. tarqvinius Priscus( which Mr. S. omits) upon the taking of Suessa, paid a Tithe to the Gods of at least 400 Talents of Silver 
Idem l. 4. , where we see it was paid to the Gods in general. As also the Tithe of Spoils, whith Posthumius the dictatory spent on Sacrifices and Prayers to the honour of the Gods, and in building a Temple to Ceres, Bacchus, and Proserpina 
Idem l. 6. ; the same Author also notes that M. Coriolanus did not distribute his Spoils to the Souldiers,, till he had first deducted that which was Sacred to the Gods: So likewise M. Horatius, after his Victory over the Sabines, first separated whatsoever he was to consecrate to the Gods 
Idem Fragment. l. 11. , and though it be not always recorded, yet we may conclude this was always done, For it was( saith Servius) a Roman Custom when they made War, to promise some of the Spoils to the Gods, and therefore there was a Temple at Rome dedicated Jovi praedatori, not that presided over the Spoils, but because some of the prey was due to him 
serve. in Aen. 3. come. 21.— Divos ipsumque vocamus In praedam partemque Jovem— . Nor need we doubt whether the Tenth was the proportion, having so many express testimonies of that part, and not one by name of any other part. And as the Souldiers had their Deities, so had Travellers and tradesman also their proper Gods to whom they paid yearly Tithes, as appears by that Inscription in Scaliger, mentioning Caesius a Merchants Tithes yearly vowed to Fortune, Apollo, and the Deities of the way 
Seld. hist. pag. 28. , and also by the Feasts made to Orestes, to whom those Feasts lately made on the account of Tithes were a great honour, saith Cicero 
Cicer. office. l. 2. . All which put together, shows that among the Romans, Rich and Poor, Souldiers, Merchants, Travellers, and all sorts of Men did constantly pay their Tithes to some Gods or other, which fully justifies the former Testimony of P. Diaconus.  
§. III. But Mr. S. objects, First, this Tithing was not yearly, p. 25. and only sometimes, p. 28. To which I answer, we have proved it was yearly among the Phoenicians and grecians, whence the Romans learned it, and the Inscription of Coesius Tithes, pag. 28. begins, Omnibus hic annis, votorum more svorum: which plainly shows a yearly custom; to which we may add, that the great plenty of these Tithes shows they were paid yearly, nor can it be made out how so many Priests belonging to so many Gods as the Romans had, could live in such great abundance out of offerings, generally made in the proportion of a Tenth, if Tithes were not yearly paid. Tertullian tells us, what prodigal Feasts the Salii( a sort of Roman Priests) were wont to make 
Tertul. Apol. cap. 39. , and it was not arbitrary Consecrations would support that expense; 'tis true, the Spoils and extraordinary gains could only be tithed when they happened, but what renewed yearly it is likely was yearly paid. Secondly, Mr. S. pretends that the Romans Tithes were given by special Vow, and therefore not yearly, nor as a due: But his own Instance( just now repeated) of Coesius shows, that Vows were renewed every year; so Aulus Posthumius Vowed Sacrifices every year 
Dion. Halicarn. l. 6.  The Vow for the Emperours safety was made anew every year, and thence Pliny wishes he may every year vow for it, and yearly pay that Vow 
Plin. ad Trajan. , and Tertullian calls it, Annua votorum nuncupatio; and such were the Votivae noctes in Isis, her annual Festival 
Propert. l. 2.& 8. : so that we see the Gentiles often Vowed things that were antecedent duties, and did yearly renew those Vows; yet withal observe that the dedications by Vow are chiefly of extraordinary Tithes, as of Spoils of War, or the like; but we see by the words debetur, oportet, &c. that even when they Vowed them, they did first believe them due to the Gods. Thirdly, He objects Tithes were paid but of some things only, viz. of extraordinary gains. To which I Answer, There are words so general, and so many particulars recited in the forementioned Instances, as well of Greeks as Romans, as do utterly confute that limitation of Mr. S. his own devising, we have seen express Testimony of the Romans paying Tithes of their whole Estate; of the Lydians in Suidas, giving Tithes of all; of the Carthaginians, sending Tithe of all their profits to Tyre. We have had particular instances of Tithes, of Tithes of Fruits, which Reccaranus taught the men of Italy to offer to the Gods; of Tithes of Corn dedicated to Apollo at Delos: the Pelasgians Tithe of all that should increase, as also Tithe of Mines paid yearly, and Tithes of merchandise both among Greeks and Romans; Tithes of Frankincense and Cinnamon among the Arabians and Ethiopians, which sufficiently prove Tithe was paid of all ordinary profits; and if either Tithes were paid of as many kinds as First-fruits were, or if First-fruits( as Mr. S. saith, pag. 30.) were paid in the proportion of a Tenth, so that the words be used promiscuously, then we have still clearer proof, for porphyry names First-fruits of Wheat, barley, Wine, Hony, Oil, and all other things 
Porph. de abstin. l. 2.§. 6,& 7. . Maximus Tyrius mentions the Husbandmans First-fruits of Corn offered to the Gods that gave them 
Max. Tyr. dissert. 14. p. 142. ; Pliny also( who calls the Tithes sent to Delphos First fruits 
Plin. nat. hist. l. 4. c. 12. ) saith, the Romans never tasted their new Fruits or Wines till the Priests had taken the First-fruits of them 
Idem l. 18. c. 2. p. 367. ; and Festus in the word Pollucere( which Scaliger saith, signifies the paying Hercules Tithes, and offering First-fruits to the Gods 
Scaliger castigat. in Festum, p. 137. , reckons among the First-fruits offered to the Gods Bread-Corn, Pulse, Wine, Leavend bread, pressed Figs, Pork, Beef, Lamb, Cheese, Mutton, Frumenty, Indian Corn, Oil, and divers sorts of Fish; and to Hercules( saith he) all that was for meat and drink they did Pollucere; that is( according to Scaliger) pay Tithes out of 
Festus verb. Polluceo, p. 168. ; we conclude therefore they paid Tithes of all, even of ordinary gains. Lastly, Mr. S. objects, Tithes were paid to some Gods only: But I reply, It is no matter what Gods they paid to, since they always paid it to some or other; they had so many Gods, that one Man could not pay to all, wherefore they choose one or more Deities, as their fancy, circumstances, or the custom of the place directed, and to them they paid Tithes, though we see sometimes they were paid to the Gods in general, to whom they believed the Tenth part to be due. Having thus fully shewed the Heathens use of Tithing, before I conclude, let me here produce some reasons to prove, that this Custom was derived from some of the first patriarches, and not from the Jews. First▪ The Antiquity and extent of Tithes among them, which was a Law in Greece, almost as soon as Moses made it so to the Jews, and spread itself over Europe, Asia, and Africa, yea even to the barbarous Northern Nations, who had no knowledge of the Jews 
Seld. hist. cap. 10.§. 1. p. 269. ; and wherever the Gentiles paid them, they did it only in One Tenth part, as the Patriachs did of old, and the Christians do now, not with any of the Ceremonial appendages. Secondly, The Gentiles also generally paid Tithe of Spoils, which the Jews never did, and that shows their practise was derived from Abraham and Melchisedec, not from the Law of Moses, which will still be plainer if we note( what is not commonly observed, viz.) Thirdly, The Gentiles often paid Tithes to their Kings or Chief Magistrate, a custom that is plainly derived from Melchisedec, who was( as all Kings of old were) both King and Priest, and while the Professions were united in one person he had Tithes, but when the Professions were separated, the King in some places irregularly took them to himself. So it was in Italy till Evanders time, when Reccaranus took them off from giving Tithes to the King, and bid them give them to the Gods. Thus also Tithes had been paid to the chief Magistrate at Athens before Pisistratus time, as his Letter to Solon shows; and Demosthenes remembers that the State had Tithe of all wears which passed the Hellespont. Xenophon also mentions a like Tribute of a Tenth imposed on the Ships trading in Pontus 
Xenoph. hist. Graec. l 1. 335. , and by an old Law at Babylon, the Prince had a Tenth of all that was imported into the City 
Aristot. Oeconom. l. 2. c. 2. . The Indians had a peculiar Officer, who took the Tithe of all things sold for the King 
Strabo, l. 15. p. 485. . In the Islands of the Arabian Sea, the King had Tithe of all Fruits 
Diodor. Sic. l. 5. p. 220. . The ancient Romans gave the Tenth of their fields, and of the seed of their Tillage for Tribute 
Alex. ab Alexandro genial Dier. l. 4. c. 10. , which he had out of Appian, who saith, the Tithe of Seeds is given instead( not of Rent, as Mr. S. mistakes, but) of Tribute 
Appian. l. 1. ; and this was that Tithe of Wine and small Fruits, which the Senate permitted L. Octavius and Cotta, being Consuls to sell 
Cicero in Verrem, orat. 5. , and hence the Greeks used {αβγδ} for {αβγδ}, to Tithe for to pay Tribute; and the Romans called the Publicans Decumanos Principes, or the Tithe-gatherers 
Idem ibid. . Sometimes on extraordinary occasions the Triumviri exacted the Tenth of every Mans Estate 
Xiphilin. pag. 170. , and by the Papian Law the Tithe of Inheritances was sometimes paid to the State. All which are evident manifestations that Tithes came to be used among the Gentiles from the practise of Abraham and those old patriarches, who( as we have shewed before) had this from God himself. And yet withal 'tis plain that this proportion of a Tenth part of all profits for the use of the Gods was very agreeable to the reason of Mankind. Since this Tradition was spread so far, embraced so universally, and rooted so deeply, this very thing hath made some take it for a Law of Nature, because in every thing, the consent of all People is to be taken for a Natural Law 
Cicero Tusc. quest. l. 1. . And 'tis an argument that is certainly right, which appears so to all 
Seneca, Ep. 117. . However it must be granted, that whoever reproaches or condemns this proportion, he arraigns the wisdom of all Mankind, and it is both infamous and impious for any Christian to give less to the Priests than the Heathens did, or to think that part too much which they thought was too little, and therefore added many voluntary Oblations besides; and it is now made evident that if we neglect to pay Tithes, we are so far from exceeding the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, that we fall short of the righteousness of the Heathens, who were never obliged by Moses Law, and yet esteemed themselves bound to pay Tithes, which were first instituted by God, and then propagated by tradition to all the World, where it was so generally observed when Christ came, that there seems to be no need of any express Law in the Gospel for the proportion, because Jews and Gentiles both agreed in that already, and both believed that God had a right to that proportion.   

CHAP. IV. Of Tithes under the Gospel; From the coming of Christ till the year 400.  
§. 1. THough Mr. S. hath wholly omitted all that is said in the New Testament that may have respect to Tithes, yet because great light may be had from thence as to the grounds upon which the Primitive Christians paid Tithes, we shall account it no digression to examine into the Sense of Christ and his Apostles in this matter. Leaving Mr. S. therefore for a while, we observe that when the Ceremonial Law ceased, the Priesthood( as S. Paul informs us) was not ended, but changed 
Hebrews vii. 12.  for a better; the Blessed Jesus instituted his Apostles Ministers of the New Testament, and gave them power and directions to constitute others to succeed them to the end of the World: And since this Ministry was to be managed by Men who would need a Maintenance, we cannot doubt but our Lord would provide for them; which also the greatest Enemies of Tithes grant, and confess that Christ hath in the Gospel established a Maintenance in general for this Ministry, so that a competency for their subsistence is due to them Jure Divino. The only Question is, Whether the old Proportion of a Tenth be now due to the Gospel Ministry by the Law of God? We think it is, and that for these Reasons.  
First, Because there is no express repeal of Tithes in the New Testament, and they were due by Gods Law before, therefore they must continue to be due so still, unless some evident repeal can be produced. And there is more reason to expect an express repeal of this Tenth part by name than by any other thing, because that proportion was fixed so early and had stood so long; it began by Divine direction, continued by Gods approbation and positive Command, it was consented to and practised all the World over, so that the Blessed Jesus might expect that both Jews and Gentiles, upon their conversion, would certainly give this old, known, and customary Proportion to the Gospel Ministry, unless he forbid it in express terms, which he would certainly have done if he intended Tithes should have ceased. Though all that was Ceremonial be ceased, yet who could think that a bare Number, that is no type of any thing to come, that was in use before the Ceremonial Law, and a proportion paid to that very Priesthood of which Christ was, that this number should be either Ceremonial or ceased. There is an express repeal of all Ceremonial things done by the patriarches, bloody Sacrifices and Circumcision are abrogated by name in the Gospel, but so are not Tithes, and therefore they are not Ceremonial. 'tis true, all Levitical Ceremonies are not repealed by name, but divers are, and the rest are such as were so appropriate to the Temple and Jewish Priesthood, that the destruction of the Temple and changing that Priesthood rendered them unpracticable, and made them cease of themselves; but paying of a Tenth to the Ministry is as practicable now as ever. The Ceremonial appendages indeed appropriate to that Priesthood and Worship ceased with them without any repeal; but the more ancient and Universal proportion of a Tenth that had suited Melchisedecs Priesthood as well as Aarons, and was needed and deserved by the Gospel Ministers now, this could not cease without an express repeal, and since there is no repeal express, we may conclude Christ intended it should stand. We Christians are sure God directed and approved it before the Law, and enjoined it under the Law; we know he once liked this part, and therefore unless we have as plain proof he doth not like it now, we ought to give this Part still, nothing but an express repeal being sufficient to assure us that God hath changed his mind in this particular. But though there be such reason to expect a positive Text to repeal this Tenth part, the opposers of Evangelical Tithes can produce nothing but that place of S. Paul, Hebr. vii. 12. For the Priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law; and this they would have( against all sense and reason) to imply a change of the Law for paying Tithes. But the scope of the Apostles discourse in that Chapter, and the Contexts also do utterly confute that forced and false Interpretation: for the Apostle is there showing, that Tithes belonged to Melchisedecs Priesthood, of which Order Christ himself is; yea, he proves Melchisedec was a Priest by his receiving Tithes, and his Order better than Aarons, because his Tithing was more excellent. Now since all this tends to prove Christs Priesthood better than Aarons, would it not be very strange if in that very Chapter S. Paul should say, the Gospel Priesthood had no Tithes at all, might not the Jews have  told him that he( who before argued Melchisedecs Order to be better than Aarons from the Tithing annexed) now proved this new Priesthood either not to be of Melchisedecs Order, or not to be so good as that of Aaron, being wholly stripped of Tithes; but if we look at the Verses before and after, we shall see S. Paul is not speaking of any change of the Levitical Law in the point of Tithes, but in the point of Succession; he only speaks here of the repeal of that branch of the Law which confined the Priesthood to the Tribe of Levi. He had shewed, that God intended to change the Priesthood for a better, and had spoken in the Psalms of another Priest to arise after the Order of Melchisedec, which Priest S. Paul affirms was the Blessed Jesus, who indeed was not of Aarons Order, nor descended of that Tribe; but that was no hindrance to his being a Priest to this new Order, in regard it was plain God intended to abrogate that old Order of confining the Priesthood to the Tribe of Levi, ver. 11. For if that Levitical Priesthood had been perfect, and to endure for ever, why should not David have spoken of a new Priest of the Order of Aaron? why doth he say, he shall be of the Order of Melchisedec?( whose descent is not reckoned as the Levitical Priests were.) This shows the Priesthood was not to be confined to the Tribe of Levi any longer; and though the Law of Moses had so appointed, yet Gods choosing a New Priest of another Order, shows that branch of the Law is abrogated,( and then comes in these words) For there being a change of the Priesthood, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law, ver. 12. that is, in the point of fixing the Priesthood to one Family, ver. 13. For he of whom these things are spoken( that is, Christ Jesus) pertaineth to another Tribe of which no Man gave attendance at the Altar. Ver. 14. For it is evident our Lord sprung out of Juda, of which Tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the Priesthood. This being the plain words and sense of the Apostle, I appeal to any man that will impartially consider the place, if it be not impudently done to force this Text( which speaks of quiter another matter) to come in as a repeal of Tithes,; if it were( as some have unwarily expounded it) a repeal of the Levitical Law in general, it could only be extended to what was Ceremonial in the Jewish Tithing, but could not at all have touched the ancient Tenth part which had nothing Ceremonial in it. We conclude therefore, that since there is no express repeal of Tithes in the New Testament, it follows that Christ intended they should stand and remain still due by Divine right, as they had always been reputed before.  
Secondly, Besides this Negative Argument there are many probable and positive evidences, that it is our Saviours will Tithes should be paid to Gospel Ministers. Those which make it probable are: First, That when Christ is comparing Moral Duties and Tithes together, he saith, These things ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone 
Math. xxiii. 23. , implying that those great Moral duties are so to be taken care of, that we do not omit to give Tithes, which being contributed to the maintenance of Gods Service it is an act of Righteousness and Piety to pay Tithes strictly even of the least matter; and since Christ said the Pharisees ought to do this act of Righteousness, no doubt we Christians ought to do it also, because our Righteousness must exceed theirs; thus many of the Fathers argue 
Origen in number. hom. 11. Hilar. Expos. in S. Math. p. 355. August. in Psal. 146. Agobardus de disp. rei Eccles. pag. 277. . Secondly, Whereas S. Paul saith, The Presbyters who labour in the Word and Doctrine, are worthy of double honour 
1 Tim. iv. 17. . He clearly alludes to the Elder brothers portion, which was double 
Deut. xxi. 17. . And whereas the Elder brothers were originally the Priests of every Family, and had besides their own share of the Inheritance, the Tithes of all their Brethrens parts annexed to their Primogeniture, which made their Portion to be double; thence we may infer, that the Gospel Ministers succeeding those Elder brothers in their Office, ought to succeed them in the reward also, and are worthy of Tithes, as S. Hierom seems to have understood this place, because he quotes it to prove that Gospel Ministers have a right to Tithes 
Hieron. come. in Mal. 3. Tom. 5. p. 642. . Thirdly, The same Apostle requires the Clergy should be given to Hospitality 
1 Tim. iii. 2. , which doth require a certain and a large Proportion to support it, and yet the Ministers are forbid by Scripture 
2 Tim. iv. 4. , and by the Canons of the Church also 
apostle. Can. vi. lxxxi, lxxiii. council. Chalced. Can. III, &c. , to use any other Trade to get money, and are enjoined to give themselves wholly to their Ministry, and to attend continually upon it 
1 Tim iv. 15. , so that they have neither time nor means allowed to procure wherewithal to be hospitable, and yet God requires they should be given to Hospitality; whence we may infer, that he who lays this injunction on them, hath at least allowed them the old proportion of a Tenth, to enable them to do what he requires of them. Fourthly, The 7th Chapter to the Hebrews hath many intimations that Tithes do belong to Christs Priesthood, and consequently to those that are his Representatives on the Earth: for S. Paul there proves they belonged to the Priesthood of Melchisedec, v. 2. yea he proves him a Priest by this Medium, because he received Tithes, and ver. 8. he uses the phrase of them that receive Tithes, for them that are Priests. He is showing, that here men that die are Priests, but he expresseth it thus, here men that die receive Tithes; to intimate to us, that Tithes are inseparable from a Priesthood, and in that very Verse S. Paul saith, in Abrahams Tithing he received them of whom it is witnessed that he liveth, that is plainly Christ himself( of whom the Psalms witness that he liveth, because they say he was a Priest for ever,) He it was who received Abrahams Tithe; so that as Levi paid Tithes in Abraham, v. 9. so Christ received Tithes in and by his type Melchisedec. Wherefore since Christ himself, by virtue of his Priesthood did actually receive Tithes, no doubt his right to them is assigned to those who succeed him on Earth, that is, the Evangelical Ministry, whose right to Tithes Dr. Reynolds undertakes to prove from this very place 
Reynolds on Psal. cx. 4. pag. 474, &c. . And truly no man can justly call these Patriarchal and Evangelical Tithes, abolished Ceremonies, or count them improper for the Gospel Ministers, since the Priesthood of Melchisedes and Christ, that were neither temporary nor ceremonial, had Tithes annexed to them. But not to insist largely on these probable proofs, we have Two plain Texts which prove, that Jesus Christ hath ordained Tithes shall stand: The first is that place which Origen brings in his Homily on Numbers, to prove that Tithes are still due to the Gospel Ministry, viz. 1 Cor. ix. 13, 14. where S. Paul, though he took no maintenance of the Corinthians, yet he largely proves his right to it, First, by divers parallel cases of a soldier, Vine-dresser, a shepherd, ver. 7. Secondly, By the Moral sense of that Levitical Priesthood, of not muzling the Ox, ver. 8, 9, 10. Thirdly, From the excellency of his work among them, which afforded them things far more worth than the biggest proportion of their worldly Estates, ver. 11. Fourthly, From the practise of other Teachers, who had taken maintenance of them as a due, ver. 12. But the chief Argument of all urged by S. Paul for his right, is the positive Ordinance of God the Father for the Old Testament, and of our Lord Jesus for the New, ver. 13, 14. Do ye not know( saith he) that they which minister about holy things, live of the things of the Temple, and they that wait at the Altar are partakers with the Altar: EVEN SO HATH THE LORD ORDAINED that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel: Where we see he urges God's care of the old Priesthood as a Pattern which Christ had imitated in the New. Then( by God's ordaining) the Levites or Ministers of the Temple lived {αβγδ}, of the Holy portion, or( as we red) of the things of the Temple, that is, of Tithes, and the Priests or Waiters on the Altar did share with the Altar, and had their part of offerings made there: Even so hath Christ ordained in the New Testament, that his Ministers shall live of the rewards given them for preaching the Gospel 
meed Diatrib. on 1 Cor. 9. Tom. 1.226. , of that which belongs to Christ and his Priesthood: The Apostle names not Tithes, that he might not offend the Jewish Priesthood, but by a Trope he intimates that he meant the maintenance formerly due to the Law, but now annexed to the Gospel, and that by Christs own Ordinance. The Blessed Jesus took the old provision for a Pattern, and( {αβγδ}) ordained even such a like maintenanance for his Ministers; not the same in all points( for it differs in the Ceremonies superadded to it in Moses Law,) but very like it in the main, like it in the Authority commanding, the certainty, the proportion, &c. that is, a Tenth part; and if our Lord had left our maintenance precarious, arbitrary, and unsettled, so that the People might have given more or less, something or nothing, as they pleased, how could it be said he had ordained even such a Maintenance as was under the Law, when there would have been no likeness at all between them, no more than is between fixed and albeit, certain and uncertain, or between a good provision and a bad: and it will make the Apostles words to be no sense, if we do not understand him of a likeness between the Evangelical and Legal maintenance. As God ordained a certain fixed liberal provision for the Levitical Priesthood, even so hath Christ ordained, that his Ministers shall live of whatever men will give them; 'tis plain there would be no consequence in that Exposition, wherefore we conclude, that Christ ordained a certain maintenance for his Ministers, and because his Pattern was the Levitical Law, it must be a Tenth part at least. And doubtless the Primitive Christians did believe it was Christs Ordinance they should dedicate Tithes, because as soon and as often as they could they offered Tithes as the just reward of the Gospel, and their practise is the best commentary on this figurative expression; they knew the Tenth had always been reputed Gods part, and every where paid to his Ministers, and hearing Christ had ordained a provision like to that under the Law for his Ministers, they easily understood he meant it of Tithes, and accordingly dedicated them to be the Gospel maintenance, and of this now do we Live according to Christs special Ordinance. But some will ask, Where did Christ ordain this? I reply, We have the Holy Ghosts witness he did ordain it, and therefore though we could not tell where, yet it is sure there was such an Ordinance delivered by Christ, but whether it were some former Order of Christ conveyed to S. Paul by unwritten Tradition( as that Acts xx. 35.) or it was a special revelation to this Apostle now first written down, yet to us it is a Divine Law. And since Christ hath ordained we shall live upon a certain fixed liberal proportion, like unto that which the Levitical Priests had for the main, we conclude that this cannot be less than a Tenth; so much therefore is due to us by Christs own Ordinance, i.e. Jure Divino.  
Secondly, The same Apostle hath another express Law for Ministers maintenance in these words, Let him that is taught in the word, communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things 
Gal. vi. 6. , or as Beza in his notes doth explain it, Ex omnibus bonis suis, Let him give him a part of all his goods or good things, for {αβγδ} both here and elsewhere signifies our Worldly goods 
Luke xii. 19.& Chap. xvi. 25. , and {αβγδ} imports our giving of our goods to others, so as they may have a part and share of them 
Rom. xii. 13. Phil. iv. 15. . The sense of this part therefore is, That Christians must not take and enjoy all their Worldly goods themselves. A Part of them all, a share of every kind of their Worldly goods must be set apart for their Minister, and freely communicated to him, so that he may partake with us in all: So that by the letter of this Law, those Christians who have Corn, Hay, Wool, increase of Flocks and Herds, or any other Worldly goods, are bound to give the Minister a part of all these; and though the Tenth be not name to avoid giving of offence to the Jews, yet no question that Part is meant, because it was so well known, and so universally believed then by Jews and Gentiles to belong to God, and it was superfluous to name it, when it would give offence so to do; since this ever was the Part and no other; this Part God had chosen and approved, and never shewed any dislike of it, nor had he substituted any other in the room of it, this Part had good evidence of Gods liking; and therefore when Good men would give some part( and must fix upon a proportion before they could give) no doubt they would choose that part which they had most assurance would please God, and if so, they must give a Tenth part; and we shall see presently, that when the Primitive Christians came to limit the Apostles indefinite expression by giving in a fixed proportion, They did give Tithes. That proportion was fixed and known, generally used all the World over, and had been from the beginning, before this Law of giving part of all our Goods to the Ministers was made, and therefore that proportion was intended in this Law; and when this Precept was to be reduced to act, this Proportion was the limitation thereof. Only there is by this general expression liberty left to give more( which includes a Tenth) but not to give less; and to encourage us rather to exceed than fall short of this known proportion, S. Paul tells us in the two next Verses, ver. 7, and 8. that to spend all our goods without giving the Priest his part, is to mock God, and provoke him to withhold all Gospel blessings from us; and if we be so wicked as to spend all upon ourselves in providing for the flesh, all that we can expect is that we and our Estates shall perish together, our flesh, and the provision laid out upon it shall turn into corruption; but what we give to the Ministers is sowed to the Spirit, laid out for our Souls good, and for that we so bestow we shall have everlasting life. Which are strong Arguments to engage us to give a large Part to our Ministers, because that part of our goods only is disposed of for the advantage of our Souls here and hereafter: this Precept therefore with the inference upon it is a clearer proof out of the New Testament, that God requires Christians to give at least a Tenth part of all their goods to his Ministers, to whom therefore this part is due Jure divino.  
But that we may do right to those of the contrary Opinion, before we conclude this discourse we will mention their Main Objections, which are Three. First, They say, Neither Christ nor his Apostles received Tithes. To which I Answer, That our Lord Jesus was made under the Law, Gal. iv. 4. and was always obedient to it, since it was in full force during his life. Now the Law had then fixed Tithes upon the Tribe of Levi, to which Tribe our Saviour did not belong, and therefore he had broken the Law if he had claimed or received Tithes then; yet we have proved out of S. Paul, that Tithes did belong to his Priesthood, though the time in which he lived would not permit him to exercise that right. As for the Apostls, their unfixed state of life was such, that neither could Believers pay them regularly, nor they receive them; and besides they were very tender of giving offence to the Jewish Priesthood who yet were in possession of them, nor had they any need to anger the Levites by claiming or receiving them, since they were plentifully provided for other ways, by some Christians selling all, and giving them the money to dispose of, and by the liberal Contributions that others made to them. Yet we see they did declare, they had by Christs Ordinance a right to such a kind of maintenance as the Levites of old had by Gods Law, and that Believers ought to give the Ministers a part of all their goods; but as it was no prejudice to the Levites title, that no Tithes were paid in the Wilderness to Aaron or the rest of that Ministry: so it is no prejudice to our Claim, that Christ and his Apostles in the unsettled state of the Church took no Tithe. Secondly, They object, That Christ hath expressly set down Meat and Drink for the maintenance of his Ministers 
Math. x. 9.& Luke x. 6, 7, 8, 9. , and therefore did not intend they should have Tithes. I reply, If Meat and Drink comprehend all necessary conveniences of human life suitable to a Ministers office, then Tithe may well stand, because that proportion where it is paid seldom affords more. But indeed these Texts are grossly mistaken, for they are special directions given by Christ only with respect to that particular Embassy on which he was then sending his Disciples, not general or standing Laws for the Church afterwards; These Commands( saith S. Chrysostom) were temporary, and not to continue always 
Chrysost. hom. Tom. 6, pag. 896. , which appears in that Shoes are forbidden here, and upper Garments, &c. which yet we see these Apostles used without scruple afterward 
Acts xii. 8.& 2 Tim. iv. 13. ; and if these Commands were still in force, no Minister might have any money in his purse, or two coats on his back, Shoes on his feet, or a Staff in his hand: but indeed these Precepts are now voided, and were as soon as that message was over; and therefore the Apostles took more than bare meat and drink, which they would not have done against their Masters positive Command, if it had not been out of date. Meat and Drink was all they were to take of unconverted persons in this first Message; but we must not think( saith Calvin) there is a standing Law prescribed to all Ministers, while the Lord is commanding the first Preachers of his Doctrine what they were to do for a while, which piece of Ignorance hath so far deceived many, that they would reduce all Ministers without distinction to this Rule 
Calvin. Harm. Evang. in loc. p. 218. . Thirdly, Their great Objection is, That the name of Tithes is not found in any command of the New Testament. To which I reply, That the Articles of our Church say, We are to receive, not only whatever is red in Scripture, but what may be proved thereby 
Art. xxxix. art. 6. ; and when the Arrians objected to the Orthodox Fathers, that the word, {αβγδ}, was not found in Scripture, and upon that pretence denied Christ to be of the same substance with his Father; The Orthodox answered the sense of that word was in Scripture, and might be proved by fair consequences, and therefore the thing was to be believed, though the word was not there; and we say the very same concerning Tithes. And further, we can give good reasons why Tithes were not name in the New Testament, though Christ intended they should stand: First, To avoid giving offence to the Jews, and take from them all occasion of traducing this new Religion, as if the design of it was only to spoil their Priests of their Temporalties. The Apostles were always tender towards the Jews, and lest they should hinder their Conversion, they complied so far as to observe some abolished Ceremonies 
Act. xvi. 3. Chap. xxi. 14. Galat. II. 11, 12, 13. ; and 'tis thought S. Paul conceals his name in the Epistle to the Hebrews, because he was there to prove the Legal Priesthood and Sacrifices were abolished. And this reason alone might cause the Writers of the New Testament to forbear the name of Tithes as due to Gospel Ministers, lest they should exasperate the Jewish Priesthood, which then was in actual possession of them. Secondly, It was needless to name Tithes in the New Testament, because they stood firm enough upon their old foundation, Gods directing this part before the Law, his enjoining it in the Law, and never repealing it, this with the practise of the patriarches, the Jews and Gentiles in all Nations( where the Gospel was to be preached) for above 2000 years, had settled it so well before, that it needed no new establishment, some general intimations, that the Apostles were Gods Ministers, and were to have that part which belonged to God, that part of all our Goods was to be given to them, and that Christ had ordained them a maintenance suitable to that of the Levitical Priesthood, was enough to make all Nations understand that the Tenth was now to be given to Gospel Ministers, and they did actually give it upon these general directions, which they took for express Laws to give Tithes. And thus it was also in the parallel case of the Sabbath, which is a Seventh part of our time dedicated to God, as Tithes are a Tenth of our Estates. All sober Christians do generally believe Christ intended this Seventh part of our time should remain still dedicated to God, as to the main; yet there is no express Law for it in the New Testament, because it was well settled before, by Gods Law and a long practise upon it. There were indeed some Ceremonies superadded under Moses( as also there were in Tithes) to be pared off; but the proportion, the certainty, and end of keeping it were to remain, because the reason of the thing continued, viz. that God was still to be worshipped at one certain time in public, and God had never declared any dislike of the proportion chosen of old; and therefore this stands still, and no doubt by Christ's will and intention, though he made no new Law expressly for it: And so also doth the payment of Tithes, which with the Sabbath being well settled before, our Lord did not think it necessary to make any New express Law for either of them. Thirdly, The naming Tithes might be forborn in the New Testament, because the Christians of that Age could not possibly pay them, nor yet the Apostles receive them, so that there was no occasion to name them then, and Jesus foresaw that enough was said to move Christians to pay them as soon as the Church was settled, which was as soon as there was need of them; and therefore though he intended Tithes should stand in force, yet he might justly forbear express mention of them. Lastly, It was not necessary to name Tithes in the New Testament, because Believers did freely give more than a Tenth to God and his Ministers; Many of them then sold all that they had, and gave the price to the Apostles 
Act. iv,& v. . And the Records of the first Ages show that their bounty was very great, insomuch that the Clergy was maintained nobly, and envied by many for their abundance, as both Heathen and Christian Authors show 
Ammian. Marcellin.& S. Chrysostom, ap. Seld. review pag. 462. ; so that as Mr. S. speaks, It had been to little purpose to have had Tithes of annual increase paid( or name, say I) while that most bountiful devotion of good Christians continued in frequent oblations both of Lands and Goods to such value. Seld. Review, p. 462. To enjoin a Tenth then had been to check the liberality of those pious Ages, and was as needless, as it is to enjoin him to keep the Sabbath, who spends every day wholly in Devotion. The Tenth was then esteemed but the least and lowest measure of Christian Oblations, a pitch to which the Jews arrived; but that Age thought Christians, who had a better Priesthood, better Ordinances, and better Promises, were obliged to give more, and actually did so, so that to command the Tenth expressly was needless, since Jesus foresaw his Devout Proselytes would give more. And this may suffice to show, why Christ did not enjoin Tithes by name in the New Testament, although there be sufficient evidence that he ordained that Proportion should stand, which therefore was believed by the Primitive Christians to be due to Gospel Ministers Jure Divino, as we shall go on to demonstrate.  
§. II. If the Inferences from the forecited Texts seem not so clear to any, the Opinion and practise of the Primitive Church may satisfy them that we have rightly expounded them; for those Ancients who lived so near the Apostles, and had conversed with such as had seen them alive, having also many of their Traditions as yet remaining uncorrupted among them, are most likely to know what their Meaning was in this case. Wherefore we will now inquire into their judgement and practise concerning Tithes, and that we may follow Mr. S. more closely, we shall observe his division of the Time since our Saviour into Four times four hundred years, only where he hath taken off any Testimony from the preceding four hundred years and added it to the next following( as he often doth, to make the Evidence seem less and later than it is) there we shall put them in their true place, and particularly we must reduce the Testimonies of S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, and S. Augustine,( which he throws back into the next Chapter) to this first four hundred years, in which Mr. S. had no mind to have them seen, because he had laid down these false Positions in the entrance to this Chapter, viz. That no use of Tithes occurs till about the end of this 400 years 
Seld. hist. Chap. 4. p. 35. . As also, That there are no Constitutions or Opinion of this time that are of credit 
Idem ibid. . To confute which false Assertions let us first inquire into the practise, and then into the Opinion of this Age. First, As to the practise of the Church, it is not to be expected there should be any regular payment of Tithes till toward the end of this Period, because the Church was under Persecution for nigh 320 of this 400 years, and yet even under the Persecution the Christians did give their Clergy more than a Tenth part, which Mr. S. himself confesses, saying, So liberal in the beginning of Christianity was the Devotion of the Believers, that their bounty to the Evangelical Priesthood far exceeded what the Tenth could have been 
Hist. Tithes, c. 4. p 36. ; and again,— in respect thereof Tenths were a small part 
Idem, p. 39. . So that as he truly says, It had been little to the purpose to have had Tithes of annual increase paid, while that most bountiful Devotion of good Christians continued 
Review of Chap. 4. p. 462. ; that is, as he there grants till the Ninth Persecution, Anno 260. yea until the time of Pope Damasus and S. Chrysostom 
Hist. Chap. 4. p. 40. , which is even to the end of this 400 years: from whence we infer, that if the Christians then gave more than a Tenth part, the Tenth was included in that larger proportion, for Omne majus continet in se minus: nor can it properly be said they did not offer the Tenth, since they offered that and more, believing the bare Tithe( which niggardly Christians in name only, now think too much) was too little for the Evangelical Priesthood; wherefore they judged a Tenth at least to be due to Ministers, and that by Gods Law. At first we red they sold their Possessions and gave the price of them to the Apostles, and had all things common 
Acts iv. 3, 4. ; which Custom did spread further than Jerusalem, and continue longer than Mr. S. is willing to allow, for Justin Martyr tells us, that in his time( An. 160.) Christians brought what they had into a Common stock, and distributed it to every one that had need 
{αβγδ} Apol. 2. p. 61. ; and Irenaeus saith, That Believers consecrated all they had to the Lords use 
Iraen. adv. haeres. l. 4. c. 34. An. 180. . Among us( saith Tertullian) all things are common, but our wives 
Tertul. Apol. c. 39. An. 200. ; yet the same Tertullian mentions Monthly offerings, and Justin Martyr, Weekly contributions, which were made out of the profits of their hand labours, who had given all their Real estate to God before. Upon which ground we may affirm, that even where Christians had sold all their Patrimonies and put them into a Common stock, yet even there frequent and voluntary Oblations were made as God did prosper them in their labours, so that there might be Community at Antioch, notwithstanding their sending Alms to Judea, as also in Galatia and Corinth, though S. Paul do order Weekly collections there, 1 Cor. xvi. 1. But however this is certain, that the Church was plentifully provided for both by Donations of whole Estates, and by Weekly or Monthly contributions, so that it had been ridiculous to enjoin them by Canons to give a Tenth, who freely gave more, and thought all they had too little for God. As for the Distribution of these offerings, the Bishop ordered it, and those Oeconomi Mr. S. mentions 
Hist. Tithes, p. 36, 37.  were Officers, not only under the Bishop( as he grants) 
Ibid. p. 81. , but chosen by him 
Cypr. l. 2. ep. 8. , and were to give up their accounts to him 
Isidor. Peleus. l. 2. ep. 127. , for he was the common Treasurer of the Church. And he it was who ordered those Monthly Distributions 
Cypr. Epist. 84. edit. Pamel.  unto the inferior Clergy, whom Cyprian calls Fratres sportulantes; where by the way we may note the gross and shameful oversight of Mr. S. who( as if he had never seen Cyprians works) saith, He calls the Brethren that cast in their Monthly offerings, Fratres sportulantes; whereas it is clear as the Sun, that Cyprian calls not the Givers, but the Receivers by that name; it is the Clergy that he saith remained In honore sportulantium fratrum 
Cypr. Ep. 66. edit. Pam.( not 266.) , and elsewhere he tells us, He intended to ordain Aurelius and Caelestinus Presbyters, ut& sportulis iisdem cum Presbyteris honorentur 
Id. Ep. 34. . 'tis true Sportulae was used in later-times for the Oblations given to maintain the Ministry; but the word is not so used in either of those two places cited by Mr. S. 
council. Chalced. ap. Binium, T. 2. p. 1. p. 266. Et idem been. T. 3. p. 1. ca. 25. p. 398. , for there it signifies a Bribe, and is taken in an evil sense, which shows he cites places without consulting them: but if any would see where the word is used for Free gifts and Honourable allowances, he may consult Budaeus 
Lib. de Ass. fol. 144, 145. . As for the sense of S. Cyprian; where he saith, The Levites by Gods Ordinance were so provided for, as never to be hindered by Secular affairs from attending on their Ministry, which method and form is now observed in the Clergy, so that they who are promoted in the Church to holy Orders should not be taken off from Divine administration, nor be entangled with secular things, but remaining in the honour of Sportulantes fratres, receiving as it were Tithe of Fruits, might never be taken off from the Altar and Sacrifices, Ep. 34. I cannot see how Mr. S. can conclude from hence, That no payment of Tithes was in use in his time. For if we consider the place, it will appear he saith, the maintenance of the Gospel Clergy was like to that of the Levites, only with this difference, that whereas the Levites had Tithe of Fruits from the People, the Clergy had their Sportulae from the Bishop, which was Tanquam decimas ex fructibus, in lieu of Tithes, and as it were Tithe of Fruits, which implies, that the Bishops did then really receive Decimas ex fructibus, Oblations of Fruits in the proportion of a Tenth( as we shall show more fully presently) out of which they distributed a portion as large as Tithes would have been to the inferior Clergy, which was tanquam Decimas. And unless Mr. S. could prove, that the oblations of Fruits made to the Bishop was not in the proportion of a Tenth; he cannot infer from this place There was no use of Tithes in Cyprians time. It is plain that the proportion was so large as to maintain the Ministry liberally without minding Secular things, and that may convince us that the Oblations were a Tenth at least; and S. Cyprian saith, it was proportionable to the Levites Tithe, only not paid to the inferior Clergy by the People. Again, S. Cyprian commends the bounty of former times, when they sold Houses and Lands, and thence justly blames those of his own time, who did not so much as give Tithes out of their Patrimony 
Domos tunc& fundos venundabant, at nunc patrimonio nec decimas damus, Cypr. de unit Eccles.§. 23. ; which shows he accounted it a fault and blame-worthy, not to give Tithes. But Mr. S. contrary to all Grammar and common Sense, would have Patrimonio decimas damus, to signify, We give the Tenth part of our Land, but then it must have been Decimam partem Patrimonii; and since the words are Decimas Patrimonio, nothing can be plainer than that he means Tithes from, or out of our Estates, and he blames those who( contrary to the example of the first Christians) not only retained their propriety in their Estate, but did not so much as give Tithes out of it, which it seems was then expected from the most worldly sort of Christians. But Cyprian himself, and divers other of the devoutest Christians in that Age did really give Houses and Lands then 
Vit. Cypr. Euseb. lib. X. pag. 289. council. Antioc. Can. 24, 25. , so that whatever Doubts Mr. S. raises( to maintain his false Assertions) it is plain that the Church then had Lands and Tithes also, in such manner as it was capable to receive them, considering the Persecutions. Nor is it any solid Proof there were no Tithes paid An. 380, because Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius then made Laws for paying the Tenth of Mines and Quarries to the Exchequer( as Mr. S. objects) 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 4. p. 39. , for he grants Tithes were paid in Italy in the time of S. Ambrose, who was contemporary with these Emperours 
Ibid. Ch. 5. p. 46. ; yea the making a Law for paying this sort of extraordinary Tithes to the Exchequer implies, that the ordinary Tithes of Fruits were then given to the Church: for it is most certain the Church was so rich then as that it was envied at by some, as appears from what Mr. S. reports both concerning Damasus and S. Chrysostom, who both lived in the end of this 400 years 
Hist. Ch. 4. p. 40. . And though the things given to the Church were called Offerings, yet Mr. S. tells us, the phrase then was to offer Tithes 
Ibid. Ch. 5. p. 46. ; so that it is very likely those oblations were usually in the Proportion of a Tenth at least, and therefore the Church then had Tithes. And when Constantine made a Law, That the Clergy of every City should out of the Tributes thereof have yearly measures of Corn given them, in a proportion suitable rather to his bounty than their need 
Theodoret. l. 1. cap. 11. . We need not question but the Emperour paid a Tithe at least, of that, out of which the People had made oblations before; and Eusebius tells us, that he set his Subjects a good Example, for he gave plentiful Provisions out of his Estate to the Churches of God— and with many dedicated things he cheerfully filled the venerable Treasuries 
Euseb. vit. Constant. l. 1. c. 35. p. 321. . Doubtless those pious and bountiful Emperours would have made express Civil Laws for payment of Tenths, if there had been any need; but there was no occasion since the Christians did all this time give Tenths, and more freely in obedience to the Law of God, which the Fathers taught them required a Tenth part of their Profits at least to be given to the Ministry, as we shall now make out.  
§. III. Secondly, The Opinion of this 400 is very imperfectly related by Mr. S. who mentions none but Origen alone in all this Period, and strives to weaken his Testimony also; but we shall both vindicate him and fill up all Mr. S. his omissions, and thereby clearly show the opinion of this Age in point of Tithes. Irenaeus( who( as S. Basil saith) 
Basil. de Sp. Sanct. c. 25. , 
1. Irenaeus, An. 180.  was very near the time of Apostles) is our first Witness, and he affirms, We ought to offer God the First-fruits of his Creatures 
Advers. haeres. l. 4. c. 34. ; and that in the Proportion of a Tenth at least, for he soon after adds,— the Jews for this cause had their Tenths consecrated, but Christians have dedicated all they have to Gods Service cheerfully and freely, not giving that which is less than the Jews, because they have a better hope. So that it seems he believed none ought to give less than a Tenth to God, and that those who would go to the highest point of duty, ought to dedicate all they had. Yea, he reckons Tithes to be a part of that Moral Law, which Christ came not to abrogate, but enlarge; for where he is speaking of Christs heightening and enlarging things natural and common to all, his Examples are, that instead of Thou shalt not commit adultery, Christ says, Thou shalt not lust after any: instead of Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not be angry, instead of Thou shalt pay Tithes, sell all and give to the Poor, which are not dissolving of the Law, but enlarging it 
Id. ibid. cap. 27. . Wherefore he reckons Tithes a Moral Precept, not abrogated by Christ, but enlarged into a Command of giving more, which will still include a Tenth part. Secondly, Origen is next, 
Origen, An. 200.  who hath other Testimonies besides that which Mr. S. quotes, for he saith, though the Christians did not with Celsus and the Heathens offer their First-fruits to Daemons, yet they did offer them to him who said, Let the Earth bring forth— to him we offer our First-fruits to whom we sand up our Prayers 
{αβγδ} in cells. l. 8. p. 400. . Now we know the Heathens then gave Tithes to their Deities, and often called them First-fruits( as was shewed before) wherefore Origen may well be interpnted of Christians offering First-fruits in the proportion of a Tenth also; especially if we observe his discourse about that proportion elsewhere, The number Ten( saith he) is venerable also in the New Testament— and because one Christ is the Author, Fountain, and Original of all, therefore the People offer Tithes to the Ministers and Priests 
In Genes. hom. 16. . He speaks in the Present Tense as of a thing done in his time, which as it proves the matter of fact, so that large Quotation produced by Mr. S. 
History of Tithes, chap. 4. pag. 40,& 41.  shows it was Origens Opinion, that the Law for Tithes ought still to remain in force; which Testimony, though it be long, yet because it is imperfectly cited by Mr. S. and is full to the purpose, we will city at large. It is fit and profitable to offer First-fruits to the Priests of the Gospel also, for so hath the Lord ordained, that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. 
All included in these marks[] is omitted by Mr. S. [ And as this is just and decent, so on the contrary, I think it, indecent, unworthy, and impious, that he who worships God, and enters his House, who knows the Ministers and Priests wait at the Altar, and serve to the preaching of the Word and the ministries of the Church, should not offer to the Priests the first of those Fruits which God hath given by him making the Sun to shine and the Rain to fall: Such a Soul seems to me to have no remembrance of God, nor to think or believe he gave these Fruits, since he hoards them up as if God had nothing to do with them; for if he believed them Gods gifts, he would know he ought to honour God with his gifts and blessings, in rewarding the Priests.] And that we may be further taught by Gods own words, these things are to be observed according to the letter, let us further note, the Lord saith in the Gospel, Woe to you Scribes, Pharisees, Hypocrites, who give Tithes of Mint, anise, and Cummin, but omit the greater things of the Law; Ye Hypocrites, these things ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone. Mind well how the Word of the Lord would by all means have the greater things of the Law done, but so as these things which are intended to stand according to the letter, be not omitted. But if you say, This is said to the Pharisees, not to his Disciples, hear him again saying to his Disciples, Except your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; what therefore he would have done by the Pharisees, much more abundantly would he have that fulfilled by his Disciples;[ but what he would not have to be done by his Disciples, he would not bid the Pharisees do;] How therefore doth my righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, if they dare not taste of the Fruits of the Earth, before First-fruits are offered to the Priests, and Tithes set apart for the Levites; and I doing neither of these, do so use the Fruits of the Earth that the Priest knows not of them, the Levite is not acquainted with them, and the Altar receives no part from them. On these grounds he thus concludes,— This we say, to prove that the Law of First-fruits of Fruits and cattle, ought to stand according to the letter 
Origen. in number. hom. II. . The Greek of this is not extant, but the Latin Translation here cited is S. Hieroms, whose ability and integrity cannot be doubted; and it is a great proof this is a genuine piece of Origens works, since S. Hierom took it to be such within 150 years after Origens death, so that Mr. S. need not have scrupled this Translation. And because Mr. S. objects against this, as some do also against other Testimonies of this Age, because they mention First-fruits rather than Tithes, I will here once for all answer that Exception: First, by observing that Tithes and First-fruits are much of the same kind, both enjoined by Moses Law, and given to maintain that Priesthood, both paid then with divers Ceremonies annexed, and therefore if The Fathers grant First-fruits must stand, what reason can be given why not Tithes also? 'tis plain Origen thought the connexion so necessary, that he brings a Text for Tithes to prove First-fruits in force, and he here uses the words promiscuously, as believing the establishing of the one confirmed the other also. Secondly, Not only he, but all the Greek Fathers( in imitation of the gentle Learned Writers in that Language) frequently used {αβγδ} for Tithes. So Dion. Halicarnasseus saith the Pelasgi vowed {αβγδ} yet calls the payment of them, Giving of First-fruits 
Dion. Halic. Antiq. l. 1. ; and {αβγδ} in Callimachus, is expounded by Mr. S. First-fruits in Tenths 
Hist. Tithes Chap. 4. p. 30. . Thus Maximus Tyrius calls the Donation of Pausanias and Lysander, {αβγδ}, a Tithe; yet in the next words he saith, it was the First-fruits of War 
{αβγδ}. Max. Tyr. ●issert. 14. p. 142. . Porphyry also, and other Heathen Authors, use the word {αβγδ} for Tithes, and so doth Philo Judaeus( whose Phrases many of the Greek Fathers use) for in him Tithing of cattle is called {αβγδ} 
Philo de congr. quaerend. erud. gratia, p. 437. , and he puts {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, for the same thing 
Ibid. p. 437, 438. . Elsewhere also he expresses Tithing of Corn by {αβγδ} 
Lib. de Charitate, p. 704. , and calls the Tithe of cattle, {αβγδ} 
Idem ibid. ; so that his Translator scruples not to turn {αβγδ} by Exiguntur decimae 
Lib. de Sacerd. honor. p. 832. . The like use of {αβγδ} is often found in S. Chrysostome, who expressly calls those very Tithes which Abraham gave Melchisedec, {αβγδ} 
Chrysost. in Hebr. Hom. 12. Tom. 4. p. 497. . But I need not multiply Examples in so plain a case, these with many more, which others may observe, being sufficient to show the words are used promiscuously, only we may conjecture that the Christian Fathers used the word First-fruits rather than Tithes, because they were generally of the very best 
LXX. 1 Sam. xv 21. James I. 18. ; and because First-fruits were more or less according to devotion of the giver, and since the Christians usually gave more than a Tenth part, it could not so properly be called a Tithe, but First-fruits of the best parts, and in the largest proportion that bounty and devotion did direct. But we proceed.  

Cyprian, An. 250.  S. Cyprian is our next Witness, and he twice expressly names Tithes, and is a good evidence that Christian Oblations in his days were expected to be Tenths at least, as we have proved before, and shall only note, that S. Augustine, who lived in Africa also, nigh to Carthage, of which S. Cyprian was Bishop about 130 years before, saith expressly, Our Fore-fathers abounded in all plenty, because they gave Tithes 
Augustin. homil. 48. ; which if we expound of their Great Grandfathers, it will reach S. Cyprians time, and prove Tithes usually paid in Africa about the middle of this 400 years. And if Mr. S. can find no Canon for this payment of them in the African Councils( as he saith) 
Review, Chap. 4. p. 462. ; the reason is obvious, because they paid them freely, and needed no Law to compel them: yet we find in that collection of old African Canons, which we call the Council of Carthage, mention of the First-fruits of Grapes and Corn, which being writ in Greek may well be interpnted of Tithes 
council. Carthag. Can. 40. beaver. Tom. I. p. 565. Gregory nazianzen, An. 370. . As also may that Phrase of S. Gregory nazianzen, who saith, It is just and pious to consecrate the First-fruits of the Barn-floor and the winepress to God, because both we and all we have proceed from him 
Naz. Ep. 80. ad Aer.& Alip. ; nor can it be unlikely he should judge Tithes fit for Gospel-Ministers, who believes Christ himself first received them, saying, Christ is called Melchisedec, as receiving Tithes frrm the patriarches 
Nazianz. orat. 5. ; upon which place his Commentator notes, That Abraham by this fact taught all Mankind to show themselves grateful to the Priests, and give them Tithes of all Gods gifts 
Elias Cretens. in 5. orat. Hilarius Pictaviensis, An. 360. . To him may be added S. hilary of poitiers, who thinks our Saviour did therefore tell the Pharisees they ought to pay Tithes according to the Law, because it was useful in order to those things which were to be settled afterwards by that pattern 
Hilar. Explan. in Math. Can. 24. , implying, that our Saviour intended to settle Tithes in the Christian Church; but we hasten to more full proofs.  
Epiphanius is next to be considered, 
Epiphanius, An. 375.  who writing in Greek, names not Tithes, but includes them under the Title of First-fruits; and saith, The Divine Scripture saith to the Pastors, because of their continual employment about the People, and their frequent service in Ecclesiastical Administrations: Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock, or who planteth a Vineyard, and partaketh not of the fruit thereof 
1 Cor. ix. 7. ? And again, The husbandman that laboureth ought to be partaker of the First-fruit 
1 Tim. ii. 6. ubi Graec. {αβγδ}. . So that to secure the Bishops and Priests from wanting fit provision, it exhorts the People to give them maintenance out of their just labours, by First-fruits, oblations, and other things 
Panar. l. 3. Tom. 2. haer. 80. p. 476. . And he adds, That Ministers had a right to these First-fruits and Oblations, so that they who needed them not for themselves, took them of the People and gave them to the Poor. By which it is plain First fruits were paid as due by Gods Law in Epiphanius's time; and that he thought them so, appears by his citing Texts out of the New Testament for them. And if we consider the Doctrine of the Fathers, the use of {αβγδ}, and the Devotion of the Age, we shall see cause enough to believe, the proportion of these First-fruits were a Tenth at least; and we have proved before, that Epiphanius did not account Tithes, but the Jewish manner of paying them to be Ceremonial. We shall put Greek Fathers together, and the next is,  

S. Chrysostom An. 390.  S. Chrysostom, who saith, That Abraham in paying Tithes to Melchisedec, is still a Tutor to all, to express much gratitude, and to bring in the First-fruits of what God gives 
In Genes. hom. 35. Tom. I. pag. 286. Versio Lat. ver.— primitias& decimas. . As before he called Abrahams Tithes by the name of First-fruits, so here from his Tithing he infers our paying First-fruits, that is doubtless such First-fruits as Abraham paid in the proportion of a Tenth, for he manifestly uses {αβγδ} here for Tithes. And further, to assure us he would not have us pay that which he calls First-fruits in a less proportion, he saith elsewhere, to one who thought a Tenth was a large quantity to give to the Ministers; Oh what a shane is this! that what was no great matter among the Jews should be pretended to be so among Christians; if it was a dangerous thing to fail of giving Tithes then, to be sure it is more dangerous now 
In Ephes. Serm 4. Tom. 3. p. 784. . He must mean it was dangerous to the Soul not to give Tithes now, because there were no Temporal Laws then to punish the omission, and therefore he thought Tithes due by Gods Law, and that God would punish the neglect, and Men might be ashamed to think Tithes were too much. Both these Mr. S. omits, and the next Testimony he both casts back into the next 400 years, and cites it imperfectly to take off the force of it 
Hist. Tithes, Chap 5. p. 56. ; but the place at large is thus: When the Artificer sells any thing of his Art, let him pay a First-fruit( or Tithe 
Gr. {αβγδ}, Philo's word for Tithing. ) of honorary acknowledgement out of it unto God, let him cast a small part to him, for I require no great matter, but so much as the Jews( who were Infants in Religion, and loaden with many sins) paid, let us that expect Heaven do so much. I speak not this as making a Law, or forbidding to give more; but requiring that less than a Tenth be not consecrated; and not the Seller only, but the Buyer must do this. This Rule they also must observe in their profits, who are possessors of Fields; This must be observed by all that gather any just increase 
Hom. 43. in 1 Cor. Tom. 3. pag. 534. . Where we see he absolutely requires, that Christians shall pay at least a Tenth of all personal and predial Profits, and allows no liberty at all unless it be to give more. So that when he persuades the People to build and endow Churches in the Country, those First-fruits which he advices them to make a dowry for those Churches, were questionless intended to be in the proportion of a Tenth. Is it not( saith he) a small thing out of all thy Fruits to take a part for God? and First fruits in the first place, which will make the Husbandman to be blessed 
Hom. 18. in Act. Ap. Tom. 4. p. 716. . where he alludes to the blessing with all plenty, promised to such as pay Tithes. It is clear by these places, that S. Chrysostoms Opinion was, that Tithes were due by Gods Law, and it is likely he did convince the People thereof, so that they gave Tithes at least, beside other Oblations, or else whence could that great Revenue of the Clergy arise, which made some to envy them, and forced S. Chrysostom to writ that Apology, entitled, That we ought not to reproach the Priests for their plenty, but according to the use of our Forefathers, rather to bring in to them such things as we have 
Hom. 103. Tom. 6. p. 896. S. Ambrose, An. 380. .  
S. Ambrose( whom Mr. S. also casts into the next Chapter) ought to be placed here, because he died before the end of this 400 years: And it is granted by the Tithe Historian, That it may be collected out of his Sermons, that they were offered under the name of Tenths in Italy, in his time 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 5. p. 46. . These Sermons of his therefore are allowed for genuine by Mr. S. And Dr. James in his exact censure of the Fathers, p. 28. doth not reject either of those two, out of which the Testimonies for Tithes are taken, It is not enough that we bear the name, if we do not the works of Christians( saith S. Ambrose) and the Lord hath commanded that our Tithe of all our Fruits, cattle, &c. and it it also written, Give Tithes of all your labours,( so he goes on to city the Texts of Moses, Deut. 14, and 28. with the Blessings promised to this duty in the Old Testament, as if it were the Lord Jesus his command in the New Testament, and also written in the Old besides; and then he goes on) The Nine parts are given you; but if you will not give Tithes, you shall be reduced to a Tenth 
Ambros. Ser. 33. feria 2. post Dom. 1. Quadr. T. 5. pag. 46. . The rest cited by Mr. S. is in another Sermon, viz. Whoso remembers he hath not faithfully paid his Tithes, let him now amend what he omitted. What is it to pay Tithes faithfully, but that you never offer the worst nor the least to God, either of your Corn, Wine, Fruit of Trees, of cattle, or of your Garden, your merchandise, and your hunting. Of all the substance which God hath given a man, he hath reserved a Tenth part to himself, therefore it is not lawful to retain that which God hath reserved to himself—( So far Mr. S. but S. Ambrose proceeds to tell them)— God will take away the Nine parts, if we give him not the Tenth, and he that restores not what he hath unjustly taken from God, that man neither fears God, nor knows what true repentance and confession means 
Ser. 34. far. 3. post Dom. 1. Quadrag. ibid. p. 48. Vide item Ser. de Ascens. Domini, ib. p. 48. . Here a faithful yearly payment of all kind of Tithe is reckoned a Christian work, commanded by God, who will bless the observers, and punish the breakers of this Law; yea, the Tithe is due to God, being reserved to his own use, and the Nine parts only are our own, so that he is unjust, ignorant and wicked, who detains his Tithes. Nothing can be fuller than this proof, which is not to be evaded by that shift of Mr. S. pag. 55. that he takes his whole Doctrine from the Law given to the Israelites; for he first says the Lord commands it, and then brings in the Old Testament Texts as collateral proofs; and yet if S. Ambrose had taken his Doctrine from these Proofs out of Moses Law, it would follow, that he believed these Texts were no part of the Ceremonial Law, but really binding to us still, who have a Priesthood to maintain as well as they; and the reason of the duty continuing( which it doth notwithstanding any Ceremonies abrogated) the duty remains still, and the Texts for it in the Old Testament are yet in force.  
§. IV. Having seen the Opinion of single Fathers for this Period, we need not doubt but( if occasion had been) the Synods( which are the same men met in one body) would have made Canons for payment of these deuce; but since Christians paid them liberally and voluntarily, the Canons of this Age concerning this matter do rather direct the Distribution, than enjoin the payment. Mr. S. begins with the Clementine Constitutions, as most easy to be disproved; but we must give the precedence to the Apostolical Canons, which Mr. S. calls those counterfeit Canons, which some too credulously received, as made by the Apostles 
Hist. Tithes, c. 4. p. 43. . Indeed those who received them as made by the Apostles themselves, were as much too credulous, as they are too confident who call them counterfeit Canons: for these very Canons are declared genuine by the sixth general Council 
council. Constant in Trul. Can. 2. An. 680. , yea they are cited and referred to by S. Basil, Alexander of Alexandria, and Athanasius, by the first general Council at Nice, and many other of the most ancient Fathers, as is fully proved by a late Learned Tract on this subject 
Beverige, Vindic. Can. Primitivae Eccles. l. 1. cap. 3. 4, 5, 6. , wherein it is satisfactorily demonstrated they were the Decrees of those Apostolical Bishops who governed the Church in times of Persecution, made in divers Synods at several times, but collected into one body before the year 300, so that they were the only Canon Law of the Primitive times. Now in these Canons, after the prohibiting of bringing any other fruits to the Altar, except only what was useful for the Sacrament, it is said, All other fruits shall be sent to the Bishops house, as First-fruits for the Bishop and Presbyters; and it is agreed the Bishops and Presbyters must distribute it to the Deacons, and the other Clergy 
apostle. Can. 4. beaver. council. T. 1. pag. 3.  which plainly declares it was a Custom then to offer First-fruits in so large a quantity, that it was sent to the Bishops house in specie, to be laid up as a common stock for him and his Clergy; and since Irenaeus and Origen before cited do both attest this usage, and also declare the quantity of these First-fruits was to be a Tenth at least, we need not doubt but those Primitive Christians did pay Tithes( usually called {αβγδ} in Greek Writings, such as this Canon is) or more than Tithes, and therefore the Canons of that Age do give the Bishop power over them, and direct him so to distribute them as to reserve a liberal maintenance to himself 
apostle. Can. 38, 41. ibid. p. 26, 28. ; but nothing proves this Custom and its antiquity more clearly than one of the first Councils after the settling of the Church, viz. that of Gangra, which condemns the Eustathian heretics, for taking to themselves and their own party, as Saints, the Ecclesiastical tribute of Fruits, which of old time were given to the Church 
council. gangrenes. An. 324. praefat. ap. beaver. Tom. 1. p. 416. , pronouncing an Anathema against all that give or receive them out of the Church, without the consent of the Bishop or his deputed Procurator 
Ibid. Can. 7, 8. . And surely if these First-fruits were said to be given of old time to the Church, in the year 324, we cannot doubt but they were in use from nigh the very Apostles times; and by this time the right was so established, that the alienating them was held a sin deserving Excommunication; and surely the quantity also was a Tenth at least, because the Bishop had a peculiar Officer to receive them. And this is that same Revenue, which the Council of Antioch calls The things of the Church, and The Churches goods, said to consist of the Rents of the Church, and the Fruits of the Fields, that is, of Houses and Land let out for rent, and of Tithes paid in kind 
council. Antiochen. An. 341. Can. 24, 25. {αβγδ}. beaver. Tom. 1. pag. 451. . Concerning the distribution whereof the same care is taken as was before in the Apostolical Canons. The Fortieth Canon also of the Council of Carthage made about this same time, mentions First-fruits as usually offered in Africa 
council. Carthag. Can. 40. beaver. Tom. 1. p. 565. , as we noted before. And a more ancient Council than any of these at Ancyra, calls this very offering {αβγδ}, the Lords part, and forbids the alienation thereof 
council. Ancyran, An. 315. Can. 15. ibid. p. 390. , before which time also it seems the Faithful used to desire the blessing of the Church upon their Fruits, that is, when they made this oblation of First-fruits 
council. Elliber. An. 305. ap. been. Tom. 1. p. 196. ; from whence we may infer the great antiquity of such kind of First-fruits as we have above described. And therefore having so many genuine proofs hereof, we shall not undertake to justify the whole collection of Clements Institutions, only we affirm there was such a Book anciently received in the Church, cited by many of the Fathers 
Can. Apost. ult. Athanas. Ep. ad Ammum, Euseb. Eccl. hist. l. 1. Cyril Hieros. Catech. 18. Chrysost. in Math. hom. 43. , and particularly Epiphanius twice mentions this Book, once by quoting a proof out of it 
Epiphan. Panar. l. 1. T. 3. haer. 45. , and at another time he saith, These Constitutions are doubted by many, but not rejected, for all regular order is found in them, and nothing delivered which is corrupted, in Faith, in Confession, or in Ecclesiastical Rule and Discipline 
Idem l. 3. Tom. 1. haer. 70. . And that ecumenical Council which Mr. S. saith, branded it for a Counterfeit, only notes, it had been corrupted by heretics 
council. Const. in Trullo, Can. 2. An. 680. ; but this Council was 300 years after Epiphanius, and though we doubt not but it is now corrupted in divers places, yet we cannot well suppose any Heretics should corrupt it in the point of Tithes and First-fruits, because the Orthodox Fathers then held they were due; and no Heretics were ever taxed for holding opinion they ought to be paid, and therefore in this point they are Orthodox, and therefore those full and express commands in those Constitutions for payment of First-fruits and Tithes, are not unlikely to be genuine, and may stand for a proof of their payment within the first 400 years; for many Learned Men believe the Piece to be ancient, and in this as well as many other particulars very agreeable to the Rites and Discipline of the first Ages. As for that Canon of the Roman Council under Damasus, An. 380. That Tithes and First-fruits should be given by the Faithful, and the detainers excommunicated, we cannot with Mr. S. confidently conclude it is supposititious; and he himself is not very confident since he bids us Remember, that some colour is for the truth of such a Constitution, in regard that about that time the first Memory of Tithes is by that name paid in the Primitive Church 
History of Tithes, Chap. 4. p. 45. , yea paid in Italy, as he confesses in the next page.; which makes it no ways unlikely, that a Pope then might make such a Decree, especially if we consider that S. Hierom was of Opinion, Tithes were due under the Gospel, and he generally lead Pope Damasus in all Questions. But Mr. S. objects, that Baronius first printed this Canon; to which I reply, that Baronius is by Mr. S. sometimes called a great and learned Cardinal, and upon his credit alone he rejects the witness of many Ancient Authors 
Review, p. 465. ; but Baronius took this Canon out of the Acts of Damasus, which 'tis likely were compiled by some considerable hand, because they were anciently red in the Church; and since this Canon was only in those Acts, it is no wonder that the later Collectors of Canons missed it. But those Collectors have another Canon of Damasus his making, against Lay-mens holding Oblations sub dominio( and not as Mr. S. mistakes, only for the distribution of them 
Binii, council. Tom. l. p. 1. pag. 512. ), which Damasus condemns as a great Crime, and this Decree was grounded on S. Hierom's Answer to that Question proposed to him by this Pope, Whether Laymen might enjoy Tithes and Oblations; from whence we may conclude that the Oblations mentioned in this latter Canon, were in proportion a Tithe; for Mr. S. tells us, p. 46. the Phrase then was to offer Tithes, and Offerings in that quantity were made in divers places; so that if Mr. S. do allow this Second Canon against Lay-mens possessing Tithes, as made by Pope Damasus, he may also allow the former, for excommunicating those who did not pay them: But whereas he pretends, the Epistle wherein S. Hierom answers Pope Damasus his Question, is not genuine, we reply, There is nothing in it contrary to S. Hierom's Opinion, and Pope Innocent did long since city it for one of S. Hierom's genuine Epistles 
Decretal. Gregor. l. 3. Tit. 10. c. 7. pag. 1194. ; however we will not much contend about it, being contented that we have many positive, and some probable Proofs, that Tithes and First-fruits in that Proportion were paid all along these first 400 years.   

CHAP. V. Of the Time from the year 400, until 800.  
§. I. THe Church beginning now to be settled, we may expect its Maintenance began to be more fixed; and Mr. S. confesseth, that in the end of the last, and beginning of this 400 years Tenths were paid, and— great Opinion was now of their being due 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 5. p. 46. . So that he grants practise and Opinion both, and indeed they are so linked together, and the Testimonies for practise do so frequently declare the Opinion of the Relator, that we shall put these two together, and proceed in the History of Fathers and Councils as they relate to this matter, and we begin with  
S. Hierom, 
S. Hierom, An. 400.  who having sold his own Estate and given it to the Poor, was zealous to have other Clergy men do the like; and if they objected fear of wanting, he intimates they had still such a provision as the Levites had, and for his part he did live contentedly on that provision; If I( saith he) be the Lords portion, and a part of his Inheritance, and have no part among the other Tribes; but as a Priest and Levite, I live of Tithes, and serving the Altar am sustained by the Altar: having food and raiment with these I will be content, and naked follow the naked across 
Hieron. ad Nepotian, Ep. 2. Tom. 1. p. 13. . He intimates plainly that he lived of Tithes and Oblations, as the Priests and Levites did, and if this were not so plentiful a Maintenance as he might have had by keeping his own Estate, he valued not that; but was well content, if with bare necessaries( stripped of all Propriety) he might follow his Lord and Master, who had no Inheritance, and was crucified naked; and he goes on to advice Nepotian not to design to grow rich by becoming a Clergy-man, which intimates the Clergy then had a liberal and certain Income, or else such a design had been ridiculous. So that there is no just ground for Mr. S. to doubt whether S. Hierom pointed at the receiving of Tithes here, for he is forced to put a word into the Text, and turn said quasi Levita, vivo de decimis; But live like a Levite, that lived of Tithes, to make some colour for his needless scruple. And since he grants, Tithes were then paid to the Clergy; and the plain sense of this Testimony is, that S. Hierom lived of Tithes, as a Levite or Priest( names he often gives to the Christian Clergy 
Ad Evagr. Ep. 85. Tom. 1. p. 512. In Malach. 3. Tom. 5. p. 641. ); what gross partiality is it, to strive to render it improbable that a Priest then should live of Tithes. But this place will be made clearer by adding another Testimony declaring the Opinion of the same Father, that Tithes were due under the Gospel; That which we have said of Tithes and First-fruits, given by the People of old to the Priests and Levites, do you understand also of Christian People, to whom it is commanded not only to give Tithes and First-fruits, but to sell all and give to the Poor, and follow their Lord and Saviour; which if we will not do, at least let us imitate the beginnings of the Jews, giving the Poor a part out of the whole, and paying due honour to the Priests and Levites;( here Mr. S. stops, but S. Hierom adds) and he that doth not this manifestly cheats and deceives God 
S. Hierom in Malach. 3. Tom. 5. p. 641.& ap. Selden, hist. c. 5. p. 55. . Here we see he would have us understand it to be the Christians Duty to give Tithes, for they are commanded to give them; but not them only, it being one of our Lords counsels to sell all; yet if we cannot reach to that perfection( for this is left to our liberty) however we are bound to give as large maintenance to our Clergy as the Jews did to theirs, which is so just and so due to God, that to fall short of this is to rob God: so that Mr. S. very untruly saith, This place is only about the neglect of payment of Tithes and First-fruits, not the right of them. For here is an express command for Tithes at least, and the right so fully made out, that withholding it is called sacrilege. Nor is there better ground for another saying of Mr. S. that S. Hierom here binds them not at all to offer this or that part, and we may as well infer he meant also, that all Men were still bound to sell all they had 
Seld. hist. cap. 5. p. 56. . It seems Non solum decimas dare, in S. Hierom, signifies Non omnino decimas dare, in Mr. S. otherwise, when the Father saith, we are commanded to give Tenths at least, and that we rob God if we give less than that, he would never have said, we were not bound at all to pay this or that part. And for that of selling all, S. Hierom plainly makes that a Counsel left to our choice, but paying Tithes a positive command; yea Bellarmine( though in this Question our Adversary) freely owns this difference, saying, Though S. Hierom affirms it is commanded to sell all and give to the Poor, he doth not mean it is commanded absolutely, as it is to Give Tithes, only if any will be perfect; for of selling all he saith, If we will not do it— &c. but of Tithes, He that doth not this robs God 
Bellarm. de Cleric. l. 1. c. 26. . Plainly therefore he counts paying Tithes a necessary duty, and that proportion he thinks is the least any man can give, without manifest sinning. Of this quantity therefore were those First-fruits which S. Hierom mentions elsewhere; The First-fruits of all our provisions( saith he) are offered to the Priest, so that we taste nothing of new Fruit till the Priest hath first tasted thereof, which we do that he may lay up our Gifts and Oblations in his House, and pray to God to bless our houses 
come. in Ezek. cap. 44. T. 5. p. 1066. . The quantity was not less than a Tenth, since it was to be laid up as a store, and that proportion was the least which any might give, for Tithes are by S. Hierom reckoned among The things that are Gods 
C●m in Math. xxii. Tom. 6. p. 105. S. Augustine, An. 400. .  
S. Augustine lived also in the beginning of this Period, In whose diocese of Hippo( Mr. S. saith) we may suppose Tithes were offered— and his words enough prove, that some did in those times so offer them 
Hist. Tithes Ch 5●. 46. ; yea elsewhere he saith, It may be collected out of S. Augustines Sermons, that a payment of Tithes was in use in the African Church 
Review, pag. 461. . Mr. S. indeed cites but one of these Sermons, but that alone is sufficient to prove, that S. Augustine believed Tithes were due by Gods Law; the whole is worthy to be red, though we have room only for some of the most material passages. In Harvest we ought to think of giving, or rather restoring Tithes to God, that gives all we have, with Thanksgiving, for the Giver of all is pleased to require back a Tenth from us, not for his profit but ours; for thus he promiseth by his Prophet, Malach. III. 10.( and then citing that Promise of plenty, and other Texts out of the Old Testament, as being yet applicable to Christian Tithing, he proceeds)— Tithes are the tribute of needy Souls, give therefore the tribute to the Poor, and make the offering to the Priest; and though you be not Husbandmen, and so have no Fruits of the Earth, whatever Trade you live by, it is of God, who requires Tithes of whatever is your livelihood, whether War, merchandise, or some handicraft Trade— And after a while, he saith—" Tithes are required as a Debt, and he that will not give them invades anothers right. So many Poor as die of hunger, in the place where he dwells, who pays no Tithes, so many murders shall he answer for at Gods Tribunal, who reserves to his own use that which God designed for the Poor; so that he who would procure either pardon or reward, let him give Tithes, and out of the Nine parts endeavour to give Alms. 
August. de Temp. Ser. 219. Tom. x. p. 235.  This Testimony is so full and clear, that Mr. S. uses all his Arts to discredit it, and first he tells us, It hath been doubted whether it be S. Augustines, or no 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 5. p. 54. ; but I reply, there is no reason for that doubt, since, in an Age when Tithes were certainly paid, it is not unlikely such a Sermon should be preached. And Caesarius Arelatensis( whom Baronius places An. 502, and they who go lowest, An. 670.) within a short time after S. Augustine, cites the very words of this Sermon as a genuine work of S. Augustine 
Caesar. de eleemos. hom. 14. . Venerable Bede also cites it in the next Century 
Beda de scintillis, c. 29. ; yea a whole Council quotes this Sermon under Augustines Name 
council. Tribur. Can. 13. An. 895. , and so doth an old Manuscript about the year 900, as Mr. S. informs us 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 8. p. 210. ; yea Eligius Noviomensis, An. 660. uses many words of this Sermon 
Audoenus vit. Eligii, l. 2. cap. 16. . So that here is evidence, that it was taken for genuine above 1000 years ago, and within 200 years after S. Augustines death. But Mr. S. objects, that the very words of it are found in a spurious Piece attributed to his Father. I Answer, this rather shows the Sermon to be so Authentic, that the Author of that spurious Piece hoped to set off his false Ware with some Sentences known to be S. Augustines own; and yet they who will compare that spurious Tractate, De rectitudine Catholicae conversationis, with this Sermon, shall find that there are but few of the same words there, and those not in the same order 
Lib. de rect. Cathol. conv. Tom. 9. p. 250. . But that which proves it most clearly to be genuine, is, that this Father declares himself of the same mind in other places of his Works( omitted by Mr. S. but) to be now produced. Our Fore-fathers therefore abounded in all plenty, because they gave Tithes to God, and Tribute to Caesar; but since Devotion is decreased, Exactions are increased, we would not let God share in our Tithes, and now all is taken from us, that which Christ received not, the Publicans seize 
Aug. hom. 48. T. x. p. 119. . And in another place, Take some part out of your Profits; if you like a Tenth, take out a Tenth, though that is but a small part, for it is said the Pharisees gave Tithes;— and what saith the Lord, Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven 
Idem in Psal. 146. Tom. 8. pag. 371. ; and the like might be shewed from other places of his Works 
Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 7: Tom. 3. p. 41. De tempore, Ser. 195,& 205. Ad fratres in eremo, Ser. 64. Isidore Peleusiota, An. 410. . Wherefore we conclude this Sermon( which is neither censured by Rivet nor Perkins, and) which is so well attested, is a genuine Piece of S. Augustine, and this with the rest of the Testimonies out of him abundantly show, He believed Tithes at least were due by Gods Law, and that it was Sin not to pay them.  
Isidore Peleusiota lived in Africa at the same time with S. Augustine, and was S. Chrysostoms Scholar, so that his Evidence will clear the Proofs from both those Fathers, and indeed he is so plain a Witness for the practise of Tithes, that it is not possible to invent any evasion, for which cause we may fear Mr. S. wilfully omitted it, since he cites this Author so often 
Preface p. 2. History of Tithes, p. 250. Review, p. 465. , that he could not well miss so obvious a Testimony, unless by design: For one Herminus, a great Officer and Count of the Empire( probably Comes limitis Aegypti) had sent his Tithes to Isidore and his Brethren of the Clergy, who returns him this Epistle, Thou dost rightly honour God in giving us the first of thy Fruits, and returning the Tithes of the increase of thy Land, unto him that gave it; by which means thou shalt long enjoy thy Estate, reserving sufficient for thy own need at present, and preparing for thyself Eternal joy hereafter 
Isid. Peleus. lib. 1. Ep. 317. pag. 85. . Where we see the offering of Tithes in Egypt by a great Officer, is commended by an Orthodox Father, as a right way of honouring God, and a wise method both to obtain a Blessing here, and Eternal life hereafter: And Tithes are here expressly name, though we doubt not it is the same payment which Theodoret about this time means, when he saith, Lay-men pay Tribute and Custom, and offer their First-fruits to God 
Theodoret. histor. religios. cap. 10. An. 440. Cassianus, An. 430. ; for Isidore here calls these Tithes, The first of the Fruits. And the words are used for the same thing in divers Authors, particularly in  
John Cassian, another of S. Chrysostoms Scholars( who while he was very young) was  told by an old Christian, called Theonas, that soon after he was married, He the said Theonas carrying his Religious gifts, with other Possessors who crowded in to offer Tithes or First-fruits of their Estates to the Reverend Abbot John, He received this oblation gratefully, being pleased that they did faithfully offer their Tithes and First-fruits for the use of the Poor, as a Sacrifice of a sweet favour to God 
Cassian. Collat. 21. pag. 942. . And Cassian adds, That it was the custom of this Theonas to pay the Tithes of his Increase every year to the house of the Ministry 
Ibid. cap. 5. p. 945. . Where we may see a general practise of paying Tithes in Africa in Theonas his youth, who was become very old while Cassian was yet a young Man, so that this Custom was at least 50 years before the year 430, and the Histories of the Church assure us, that this Abbot John lived about the year 380, so that this Testimony proves Tithes usually and yearly offered before the end of the first 400 years. But Mr. S. would gladly lessen the value of this proof, pretending first, That the Abbot received them as a Treasurer for the Poor 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 5. p. 47. , and yet he himself expounds Distributing Tithes to the Poor, to be meant of giving them to Monks, who( he saith) were usually called Pauperes, and were so indeed by their Vow 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 78. ; wherefore in that sense the Abbot might well be Treasurer for his own Monks, yet doubtless those devout Ascetics having renounced all Propriety, did also give of them to other Poor, when their own necessities were supplied; and partly from this renouncing Propriety, partly from the Charity of the Clergy in relieving the Poor out of their proper Portion, Tithes came to be called The tribute of the needy Souls, and the Patrimony of the Poor; not that the Poor had any original right to Tithes, but that the Charity of the Clergy was so great, as moved them to give the Poor a great part of them. Wherefore though S. Augustine and other Fathers call them rhetorically the Tribute of the Poor, &c. to commend the Clergies bounty, and induce the People more freely to pay that which was so charitably disposed of; yet the same Fathers show, that Tithes were strictly the Clergies right alone, and from their hands the Poor received the share they had of Tithes. Yea Mr. S. grants, That Tithes were given to the Clergy for the use of the Poor, and they were the dispensers of them 
Review, pag. 465. . And S. Augustine, in the place now cited, exhorts the People to give Alms( besides their Tithes) out of the Nine parts; the aforesaid Isidore( cited by Mr. S.) calls the Tithes there spoken of, The goods of the Church and the Poor, and that which he there calls {αβγδ}, the Poors propriety, was only the residue after the Church and Clergies needs were supplied 
Isid. Peleus. l. 1. Ep. 269. pag. 73. , not the Tithes themselves, as Mr. S. pretends. And the next Epistle cited by him out of that Author, seems to intimate, that those Oeconomi had no other but this surplusage of Tithes and Offerings under their charge 
Ibid. Ep. 425. p. 109. . Balsamon also,( whom Mr. S. cites to show the Poors right to Tithes) doth in that very place show, that the Bishops and Clergy were first to be maintained out of these Revenues, and that the remainder only went to the Poor, and it is the {αβγδ} only, which he there calls {αβγδ} 
Balsam. in apostle. Can. 59. beaver. T. 1. p. 38. . Which I do the more fully remark here, because Mr. S. is often urging these Tithes, in prejudice to the Clergies right of Tithes; whereas indeed those phrases commend their Charity, but do not impair their right at all: and not only Abbot John, but all devout Clergy-men in that Age received Tithes as Treasurers for the Poor. Secondly, Mr. S. pretends this giving Tithes to Abbot John, is no evidence for the preaching Ministers right, because these Abbots spoken of by Cassian were not properly of the ministering Clergy: wherein this great Critics zeal against the Clergies right, hath betrayed him into a shameful and gross mistake,; for besides that Cassian shows, these Abbots preached to the People, which Lay-Monks then never did 
Monachus plangentis non docentis officium habet. Hieron. advers. Vigilantium. . Sozomen speaking of this very Abbot John, and another( mentioned by Cassian) called Piammon, saith expressly, They were Presbyters, and very reverently performed the office of the Priesthood 
Sozom. hist. l. 6. cap. 26. , so that we may justly say,— aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus!  

Prosper Aquitan. An. 433.  Prosper of Aquitain was Cassians Contemporary, and though his bitter Adversary in other things, so that he writ against that very Book of Cassians, out of which the Testimony of Tithes was now cited, yet he never objects against that relation; but witnesses the very same practise, saying to the Clergy, We willingly receive the daily Oblations and Tithes of the Faithful, and shall we lay aside the care of the Flock 
Prosp. de vitâ contemplat. lib. 1. c. 21. : An evidence too clearly to be evaded, and therefore Mr. S. wholly omits it; as he also doth the Memorial of  
Germanus and Lupus, who came out of France into Britain about this time to extirpate the Pelagian heresy, 
Germanus& Lupus, Au. 429.  and among other things taught the Britains to give Tithes of all they possessed, and of Sheep and cattle at certain times, viz. at their making a Marriage, taking a Journey, or undertaking any penance, which they called their great Tithe, of which they gave two parts to their Parish Church, and the third to their Bishop 
Girald. Cambriae descrip. cap. 18. . And though the Author be not very ancient who reports this, yet the Custom of paying Tithes then in France, proved just now out of Prosper, makes it more than probable, that the two Bishops, Prospers Contemporaries, might teach such Doctrine. And Mr. S. either forgot, or else designedly omitted this proof here, for 'tis very sure he was not ignorant of it, since he cites it at large in a Book that he printed three years before this History of Tithes 
Seld. Analecta Anglo- Brit. l. 2 c. 2. pag. 60. .  
Sidonius Apollinaris, was Bishop of Auvergne in the same Country of France a few years after, 
Sidonius Apollinaris, An. 470.  and writing to Censorius a neighbouring Bishop, he reports, That a poor Levite of his diocese being fled with his Family, for fear of the Goths, into the diocese of Censorius, had there sowed a little field merely for Bread to sustain him and his, wherefore Sidonius requests of Censorius, Not to require of him the caconical due out of Tillage land 
Ut debitum glebae Canonem non petas. , which( he saith) the Poor man( whose stock and his mind both were very low) would take for so great a benefit, that he would not be sensible of the inconvenience of his removal from his own Country; if therefore the Bishop would please to excuse this Levite from the legal and customary payment of this small quantity of Corn 
Legitimam, ut mos est, solutionem perexiguae segetis. , he would count he was well treated there, and return home with thanksgiving 
Sidon. Apol. lib. 6. epist. 10. . The Custom of France then makes it plain, that Sidonius desires this Deacon of his( who was as a Lay-man in another diocese) might be excused from paying Tithe Corn to the Bishop, which is called a caconical Due, a payment settled by Law and Custom both: but of this not one word in Mr. S. who only picks out those Proofs which are most liable to exception, of which kind is that of  
S. Severine, 
S. Severine, An. 470.  who about this time is reported by his Example to have brought his new Converts in Pannonia to bestow the Tenth of their Fruits on the Poor. which command( saith Eugippius his Scholar, and then living) though it was well known to all by the Law, yet as if they had received it out of the mouth of an Angel, they observed with grateful devotion. The same Author further saith," That God blasted the Corn of the Inhabitants of Lauriacum( in Austria) for refusing to do this upon S. Severines admonition, who  told them upon confessing their fault, That if they had offered their Tithes to the Poor, they would both obtain eternal life, and abound in all good things 
Eugippus vit. S. Severin. cap. 17, 18. . But it may be considered, that in these Countries Religion was yet scarce settled, and therefore there was yet no settled Ministry to give them to, and in that case better were it they should be paid to the Poor then retained; yet from the custom of all other Churches we may conclude, the Clergy received these Tithes from the People( as soon as they were settled) and dispensed the remainder above their own maintenance, to the Poor. And here we may remember Mr. S. his wondering, 
lo Papa, An. 460.  That Pope lo in his Sermons De jejunio decimi mensis, though he be large in stirring every mans devotion to offer parts of his Fruits to his Parish Church, yet never mentions Tithes 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 5. p. 48. . I reply, There is not a word in those Sermons, De jejunio decimi mensis, of Contributions either in, or to any Parish Churches; but in his Sermons De collectis, he desires, That in all Country Churches there may be free Collections and voluntary Contributions of Alms. But this was for the Poor, not for the Clergy, who were then so liberally provided for, that they lived plentifully then, and out of their Superfluity fed many Poor, which perhaps made the Laity think the Clergies Charity excused them from giving Alms, and that might be the occasion of this Exhortation. However Mr. S. his own confession, and our many positive Proofs of Tithes being certainly paid then, make all these petty Arguments from the silence of one or two Authors very insignificant.  

Caesarius Arelatensis, An. 502.  Caesarius Arelatensis is to be placed next, if we follow Baronius his account, and he( though with all that follow wholly omitted by Mr. S.) frequently declares for Tithes, saying, Tithes are not our own, but deputed to the Church— and whatever we have received from God more than we need, we must bestow it on the Poor 
De eleem. hom. 2. vel. 9. vide item Ser. 14. init. . He also thinks, that Christ in the Gospel comprehended his own Disciples, when he said of Tithing, These things ought ye to have done 
Idem hom. 37. . And he cites many passages with Approbation out of S. Augustines Sermons about Tithes 
Id. hom. 14 , which sufficiently shows he believed the Divine right of Tithes.  

S. Rupertus, An. 537.  A little after this Rupertus, one of the Blood Royal of France, took upon him to convert the Bavarians, and had such success, that upon his preaching the People distributed their Tithes to the Priests; which the Historian brings in as an argument of their being become good Christians 
Aventinus, Annal. Boior. lib. 3. p. 194. S. Eligius, An. 620. . In like manner  
S. Eligius, who converted Flanders, persuaded his new Converts, To give Oblations and Tithes to the Church, pressing them with the Authority of S. Augustine in the Sermon cited before 
Audoenus vit. S. Eligii, l. 2. c. 16. . And there is one of his Homilies yet extant, which shows he esteemed Tithes were due to the Church 
Eligii, Serm. 13. Bib. patrum, Tom. 7. Antiochus, An. 630. .  
Antiochus also, a Greek Father, hath a large Homily in the Bibliotheca Patrum, pressing the payment of First-fruits as Due by Gods Law; and it is observable that he brings all the Texts for Tithes to prove First-fruits are due, which shows he meant Tithes under the name of First-fruits 
Hom. Antioch. 120. Bibl. Patrum, T. 1. edit. Paris. p. 1224. Bonifacius Mogunt, An. 750. Alcuinus, An. 780. . To him may be joined Bonifacius Moguntinus, who speaks of Tithes as a usual and customary due almost in the same words with Prosper, but he shall be cited in the Chapter of English practise. Alcuinus also will be mentioned in the next Period( though he lived in this;) and he in his directions for the Penitents confession of Sin, makes one Transgression to be the not paying Tithes and First-fruits 
Lib. de Psalm. usu, part I. p. 166. , which shows it was by him judged a Sin to detain them. But we need not multiply Proofs in a case so plain, as this is now evidenced to be, wherefore we conclude, That it was the Opinion of all the Fathers of this 400 years, that Tithes were due to the Clergy by Gods Law, and that the Peoples practise generally was to pay them.  
§. II. Since Tithes in general were thus fully believed to belong to the Church, it is not much to the Question what Portions of them were assigned by Kings and Bishops to this or that Church or Monastery, because that only concerns the disposition of what was owned the Churches right before, for which cause I cannot allow the Instances here given by Mr. S. being most of them in France( where Tithes were certainly paid long before any of these Assignations) to be any more than a mere distribution of certain portions due to the Church in general, and paid before perhaps by some other part of the Clergy, but now fixed on some other Church or Monastery with the Bishops consent. And first for the Antiquity of such Assignations Mr. S. rightly observes, that those words in the Council of Arles 
council. 4. Arelat. Can. 9. , and in the Capitulars 
Capitular. l. 2. cap. 36.& ibid. c. 154.  An. 813. That Churches anciently Constituted, shall not be deprived of Tithes, or of any other possessions, do prove there were Churches endowed with Tithes long before the end of this 400 years; and though one of the anciest Instances he gives of such an assignation, be that of K. Pepin, An. 750. who gave all the Tithes he had between the two Rivers of Ourk and Lesche to the Church of S. Monon 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 5. p. 50. ; yet this may very probably be no more than a restitution of Tithes formerly taken from the Church implied in those words, Quas habet, the Tithes which he had: but supposing it were Tithe of his own demesnes, assigned by the Bishops consent to S. Monon's Church, there are far elder Testimonies of the assignation and settling of Tithes upon particular Churches. S. Remigius, Bishop of rheims, in his Will yet extant, gives Tithes to the Church of rheims, An. 540. 
Flodoard. histor. Rhem. l. 1. c. 18. . The privilege of Pope John the Third, mentions Tithes given to Church of S. Medard, An. 562. 
Quercetan. not. in Abelard. pag. 1160. . Leodebodus, Abbot of Floriac, gave the Tithes of some Villages to that Church, An. 620. 
Proem. Helgaud. Floriac. ad Epit. vit. Roberti Regis. . The Tithe of Rodulfs Court( Mr. S. saith) was given to the Church of Arras, An. 680; but( which Mr. S. omits) the History saith, it was by the consent of Vindicianus the Bishop, and was confirmed by King Theodoric and Pope John the Fifth 
Chron. Cameracense, lib. 1. c. 15. . He mentions also King pippins confirmation of Tithes to the abbey of Fulda, An. 742. but omits again, that Bishop Boniface the Founder, in the very Epistle cited saith, He had first gotten the Popes privilege, and settled it by his own Charter: so that King Pepin only confirmed what was first given by the Bishop, and allowed by the Pope 
Bonif. Mogunt. Ep. 151. ; but Mr. S. designedly conceals what his Authors say concerning Ecclesiastical consent to the Assignations to make way for his false pretence of arbitrary Lay Consecrations. Whereas these first Instances being all of them Assignations made by Bishops, or with their consent, do sufficiently show, these either were not new Tithes, or however not Lay or arbitrary Consecrations. At this time also Pope Zachary gave his privilege to the Monastery of Monte-Cassino, that no Bishop should take Tithes thereof, An. 748. intimating, they use to take Tithes of others then. And for the other Donations which Mr. S. mentions in the Margin, pag. 50. of King Pepin, &c. in the Chartulary of Utrecht. Let it be noted, that the French Kings used not to make any such Assignations without Ecclesiastical consent, for the Emperour Charles the Great had the Popes consent to both those Assignations of Tithes he made to the Abbeys of Hersfield and Ersburg 
Luitprand. Ticin. vit. Adrian. 2. An. 680,& Binius Conc. Tom. 3. p. I.§. 2. p. 181. . So that Mr. S. need not wonder he can find no Precedent or Form in Marculphus, An. 660. of any Lay-man's Grant, or arbitrary Consecration of Tithes, though that Author hath collected all other Forms of Conveyances used in his time; for indeed there were no such Grants in Marculphus his time, Tithes being then distributed and disposed of only by the Bishops, and if any Lay-man did desire to give any New Tithes to a Monastery or Church, he applied himself to the Bishop to consent to his desire, and to make the Conveyance; which Grants of the Bishops were afterward confirmed by the Pope and the King. And this may suffice to show the way of assigning portions of Tithes to particular Churches in this 400 years.  
§. III. If we consider the Opinion of all the Fathers of the Gallican Church related before, Irenaeus, Hilary, Prosper, Germanus& Lupus, Sidonius, Caesarius and Eligius, with the practise related by them, we cannot well doubt but Tithes were among the possessions of the Church, in France, before Charles Martel's days. Wherefore it being agreed by all, that divers Possessions of the Church were taken away by this Prince and given to his Souldiers, it cannot be at all unlikely, that among other Possessions of the Church he took away Tithes. And it would be very strange that Mr. S. both in this Chapter and the Review, should labour so earnestly to disprove it, and to make it seem a common Tale, but only that it agrees not to his espoused Opinion; and he saith, If it were true, it were Authority of great antiquity, and fair proof both for general payment and special endowment in those Times 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 5. p. 51. ; and for this reason alone he would run it down. But let it be considered, that Mr. S. grants Parish Churches were anciently endowed with Tithes in the year 813, and what was ancient then must needs be long before Martel's time, viz. 742. We have also shewed in the last Section that bishoprics and Monasteries were endowed with Tithes before his time, so that since Boniface Bishop of Mentz( his Contemporary) 
Episcopales seeds traditae sunt Laicis cupidis ad possidendum. Ep. Bonifacii ad Zachar. Papam ap. been. Tom. 3. part. 1.§. 1. pag. 362. , and many other Authors 
Hincmar. Ep. 6. cap. 19. Flodoard Annal. vit. Dagoberti. , say, He seized on bishoprics and gave them to his Souldiers; to be sure he seized on Tithes also, especially since rheims was one of the bishoprics he thus seized on, as Papirius Massonius out of Flodoard relates; and rheims( as we have shewed) was endowed with Tithes by S. Remigius, 200 years before. The same Boniface also saith, Charles Martel was, Monasteriorum multorum eversor& Ecclesiasticarum pecuniarum in usus proprios commutator 
Bonifac. Ep. ad Ethelbaldum ap. Malmsbur. l. 1. cap. 4. pag. 15. . And it is certain, that some Monasteries were then endowed with Tithes; but Mr. S. will not allow that Ecclesiastica pecunia signifies Tithes, and he blames the Century Writers( as ignorant of the Phrase of that time) for expounding Pecunias Ecclesiasticas in a Synod of Caroloman, An. 742. by Decimas, for thus they red Decimas occupatas à profanis restituimus 
Centur. Magdeb. 8. cap. 7,& 9. ; but Aventinus had so expounded it before 
Aventin. Annal. Boior. l. 2. ap. Seld. Review 466. . Goldalstus also had Decimas in the first Edition of his Imperial Constitutions, and though his second Edition( as Mr. S. saith) hath Fraudatas pecunias, yet that Tome was published 1610; and in another later Tome, published An. 1613, the same Goldalstus hath Decimas again, as Aventine and the Century Writers had, wherefore Ecclesiastica pecunia signifies Tithes, and is used among Christians, as well as Heathens, for fruits of Corn and such things as the Primitive Deacons had under their Charge 
Decret. Epist. Anuclet. 1. Lucii 1. Ep. 1. Cyprian lib. 2. Ep. 8. Origen Tract. in 16 Math. ,( though Mr. S. confidently deny it, Review p. 466.) indeed it is used by S. Augustine for any thing which we can claim by Law 
Aug. Serm. Dom. in monte l. 1. c. 36. , and signified any sort of Goods in those Ages 
Spelm. Gloss. verb. Pecunia, pag. 455. . And therefore by consequence Tithes also, which were undoubtedly then among the goods of the Church; and since Aventine, the Centuriators, and Goldalstus do affirm, Caroloman( Son of Martel) restored Tithes, which had been occupied by profane Souldiers, thence it follows, that his Father, Charles Martel, had taken them away. Besides, it is plain that some of these French Princes took Tithes from the Church, and they were comprehended in those general words, Res Sacras 
Agobardus, de dispens. p. 283. , and Res Ecclesiarum 
Capitul. Exhib. Lothar. 2. ; for very ancient Authors of that Country complain, That Lay-men robbed Churches and Altars, and took away their Barns full of Corn, and Cellars of Wine, yea with their Wives and Maid-servants, and which was worse with their Whores, they eat the Tithes and Oblations of the Faithful 
Hinemarus Rhem. de statu Ecclesiae, p. 653. ; and Agobardus blaming the Emperours Predecessors for turning Res sacras to Lay uses, goes on to prove Tithes due to the Church, and saith, Tithes and First fruits should be more venerably esteemed, than to to be taken for keeping Lay-mens Dogs, Horses, and Servants 
Agobardus de Dispens. rei Eccles. p. 283. ; whence it is plain he knew that the Emperors Predecessors had taken away Tithes, and to whom can it be so probably ascribed as to Charles Martel, whom many Authors of both elder 
Gulierm. Br. Philippeis, l. 10. An. 1223. Ver. Chronic. apud Filesac. Eccl. Gallic. quaer. p. 846.  and later times 
Baronius, Annal. A. 731.& alii multi.  charge with this piece of sacrilege of Taking Tithes from the Church: and therefore we need not that Vision of Eucherius to prove a matter so very plain; yet Mr. S. confesses that Vision of Martel's being punished in Hell for this sacrilege, hath many old Authors to attest it; see his Review in the margin, p. 465. viz. Adrevaldus, who lived An. 820. Flodoardus, An. 960. and the Capitulars, An. 870. To which we may add Ivo's Chronicle in the life of Carolus Simplex, Vincentius Bellov. Speculum histor. lib. 23. cap. 15. and our Matthew of Westminster, An. 852. All which do affirm, that Martel was punished in Hell for taking away Tithes; but whether the Vision be true or false, it is much to be doubted, that unless he repented, the thing is too true, for nothing is plainer than that he did commit this great Sin. But Mr. S. pretends, that Ch. Martel did not wholly take away the Church Possessions, but made the Bishops make Leases for Life of them, to such of his Captains as he appointed; and he cites a Decree of Thierry and this Charles out of Goldalsius 
Goldalst. Constit. Tom. 3. pag. 648 ap. Seld. Review. p. 466. , reserving the Nonae& Decimae to the Church out of these alienated Possessions; but it is more probable that Reservation was made by his Son Caroloman, who( though desirous, was not yet able to restore all because of his Wars, and therefore) decreed, That what was not now restored, should be retained by Lease and pay Rent to the Church 
Synod. Ratisbon. An. 742. Binius Tom. 3. p. 1.§. 1. p. 377. Capitul. lib. 5. c. 3. . But whoever first reserved those Nonae& Decimae, it's wonder Mr. S. should say here, This had nothing to do with payment of Tithes 
Review, p. 466. , since he tells us elsewhere 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 132. , The Ninth and Tenth were the rent due from the Tenants of the Church-Lands, by the ordinary reservation of a Tenth, as of what was held by many of itself due to the Clergy, and of the Ninth, as rent or consideration to be given them as Lessors for the received profits. And indeed the Rents paid out of the Kings demesnes were called Nonae 
Cap. t. l. 5. cap. 147. , but the Church Tenants anciently paid a Tenth besides; which is a good Testimony that Tithes were then held due to the Church, and that they could not be alienated, no not when the Land was Leased 
Anesgis. l. 1. c. 163. p. 27.& lib. 2. ca. 21. . And one of the Capitulars cited by Mr. S. p. 133. viz. 
Capit. l. 5. c. 145.  mentions a Decree of one of the Emperors Progenitors, according to which He now enacts, that whoever did not pay this ancient payment of Nonas& Decimas, should lose the bnfice out of which they were to be paid. And if it were Charles Martel who first reserved these Ninths and Tenths, it is a good proof that Tenths were then held to be of themselves due to the Church: and Mr. S. tells us out of the Chartulary of Utretcht, p. 73. that not only Charles Martel himself, but the elder Pepin( who was his Father) had given Tithes to that Church, and this pippin lived An. 700; from whence it follows, that Tithes were given to Churches long before Martel's time, and that is the main thing in question. We conclude therefore, that Martel did take Tithes from the Church as well as other possessions, and that it is evident Churches were endowed with perpetual right of Tithes before his sacrilege, An. 740, or rather 731.  
§. IV. Whoever impartially considers the former Proofs for general payment of Tithes to all Churches, and particular assignation of some Portions to Cathedral and Conventual Churches, as also the Opinion of the Fathers from the beginning of this 400 years for the Right of Tithes, He will not doubt but these Fathers met in Synods would make Canons for regular payment of them, as soon as the decay of Devotion made it necessary. But indeed the earliest Canons of this Age do only take care of the distribution of Ecclesiastical Revenues, which implies they were well paid, and whether they name Tithes, or no, we need not question the payment was made in that Proportion at least, because it served to maintain the Bishops and Clergy, to supply all necessaries for Divine Administrations and repairs of Churches, as also to maintain the Poor out of the remainder. And the first Council of orleans, An. 507. expressly names Tithes, saying, The fourth part of the the Tithes, according to the Roman custom, must be given to the Bishop 
council. Aurel. 1. Can. 17. ap. been. Tom. 2. part. 1. pag. 550. An. 507. ; and Mr. S. cites this very Canon as genuine( only miscals it the 13th for the 17th) where it serves his purpose 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p 82. : but here he quarrels with it, as if Ivo had put in the word Decimas, when Burchard and Gratian red it Oblationes fidelium. To which I reply, That since those Offerings were from before the beginning of this 400 years made in the Proportion of a Tenth,( as he confesses) 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 5. p. 46. ; we cannot blame Ivo for thus giving the true sense of that Canon, and whether his reading be right or no, the matter of fact is true and certain, that Tithes were then generally offered. But upon the decay of Devotion, the Council of Mascon, An. 586. 
council. 2. Matiscon. Can. 5. An. 586.  Intending( as they say) to restore all matters of the catholic Faith, which had been corrupted by length of time; do thus declare and decree: The Divine Laws taking care of the Priests and Ministers of the Churches for their Inheritance, have enjoined all the People to pay the Tithe of their Fruits to Holy places, that being hindered by no labour they may duly attend Spiritual Ministrations. Which Laws the whole Company of Christians have for a long time kept inviolate; but now most of them appear in some degrees Prevaricators of these Laws, while they neglect to fulfil the things enjoined by God. Wherefore we Appoint and Decree, That the ancient Custom be revived among the Faithful; And that all the People bring in the Tithes, which serve to( maintain) Ecclesiastical Worship, which the Priests laying out for the use of the Poor and redemption of Captives, by their Prayers may obtain peace and safety to the People; and if any be contumacious to this our wholesome Order, he shall be for ever excommunicated 
been. Tom. 2. par. 2. p. 269. . Where we see Tithes are reckoned a matter of the Catholic Faith, and declared to be due by Gods Law, in obedience to which( they affirm) Christians had generally and for a long time paid them, and upon late neglect, they renew the ancient Custom of paying Tithes, and enjoin it under penalty of Excommunication. This Testimony is so clear, that Mr. S. uses all his art to disparaged it; and though he saith, No doubt can be made, but that in most Churches in this time, amongst the Offerings of those of the devouter sort, Tenths, or greater parts of their annual Increase, were given according to the doctrine of the Fathers 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 5. p. 65. ; yet he hath no mind to allow a Canon in that Age for Tithes: But his Arguments, or rather Conjectures against it, are so weak, that they express his desires rather than his power to disprove it, I am sure he reckons it among the known and certain Monuments of Truth 
Ibid. p. 62. , and allows it to be of some credit 
Ibid. p. 46,& p. 57. . But we have the express Testimony of Gregorius Turonensis, who lived in that Country at that time, and relates the whole History of this Council, at which( he saith) were present all the Bishops of Guntherans Kingdom 
Greg. Turon. histor. Francor. l. 8. cap. 12,& 20. , so that we are certain of the matter of fact. And though Mr. S. object, That the ancient Compilers of Synodal Decrees, and particularly Isidore,( who mentions other French Synods at orleans, Arles, and Agatha) hath not this Council, which ( he saith) was first published by friar Crab 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 5. p. 58. . This negative arguing concludes nothing, since we have Gregorius Turonensis's positive Testimony for it; and besides those Ancient Compilers omit many genuine Councils as well as this, for they commonly follow Isidore, who lived in Spain, and was made Bishop there but a few years after this Council, and therefore though he heard of those three Councils at orleans, Arles, and Agatha 
council. Aurel. An. 552. council. Arelat. An. 524. council. Agath. An. 506. , the latest of which was above thirty years before this of Mascon, yet it is very probable he might not have seen these Canons; and therefore it is no wonder if he, and all that blindly followed him, omit them, till the Industrious friar Crab put out the first general Collection of Councils. But Secondly, Mr. S. would insinuate that Agobardus, Bishop of lions( in which Province Mascon was) about the year 828 knew nothing of this Canon, because he saith, that nothing had then been ordained in Synods about endowing Churches, because the Devotion of former Ages made it needless; but how unjustly he makes this Inference will appear from Agobardus his words at large: He is there pleading the right of Tithes, and answering their Objection who alleged, there were no Canons of great Synods( that is, General Councils) for them at that time, and thus speaks; A man may know what Councils have defined in this matter, if he will red and turn them over, but some will not receive the French Canons, nor those of other Provinces, because the Popes and Emperors Legates were not present at the making of them— but we should think reverently even of Provincial Councils, and where there are no Canons of greater Synods, we ought to consult the Statutes of the Ancients, and to prefer their Opinion before our own, because even Provincial Canons were made agreeable to Scripture, and to former usages. And now if nothing were ordained in Synods, or publicly preached by the Fathers about endowing Churches, it was because there was no necessity, Religious devotion being then every where so fervent 
Agobardus de disp. rei Eccles. contr. Sacril. p. 276. . Can any thing be plainer, then that Agobardus expressly declares there were Provincial Canons for Tithes made in France, and other Countries before his time, which ought to satisfy any man, though there were no Canons of General Synods, because these Provincial Canons were grounded on Scripture and ancient Usage, and because there would have been Canons of General Councils, but only that there was no need of them. Which is so far from lessening the Authority of the Canon of Mascon, that it hugely strengtheners it; and we must conclude, either Mr. S. never saw this place in Agobardus, or if he did he resolved to make the most unjust pretence serve to disparaged this Testimony. To which end also he notes, That the Laws which this Council calls Divinas Leges, must be the Mosaical Law 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 5. p, 48. ; whereas whoever will red the Canon, cannot but see they mean the Laws of Christ, for how can they say, Moses Laws took care of the Ministers of the Christian Church, or how should any Christians be commended for observing Moses Law, or Excommunicated for breaking it? Again the words, Long time observed by the whole company of Christians; Mr. S. pretends, look back no higher than the time of S. Ambrose, and S. Augustine, which yet is a fair proof of general payment ever since before the beginning of this 400 years; but considering these were both foreign Bishops, and Irenaeus was Bishop of this very Province An. 180. and had preached, Christians were bound to offer not less than a Tenth, it is most likely the Council of Mascon refers to the Age of Irenaeus, ever since which time it is very probable these of the Province of lions had paid Tithes.  
Another Decree Mr. S. mentions 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 5. p. 58.  of Pope lo the Fourth, which saith, It seemeth good not only to us, but to our Predecessors, that Tithes shall be paid by the People in right order, and only to the Mother Church 
Decret. par. 3. c. 115. ; and if Ivo have annexed this to a Decree of Pope Gelasius, who lived An. 492. it is no such great mistake, for lo the IVth indeed was not Pope till after the year 840; but in regard he refers back to the Decrees of his Predecessors, therefore we must reckon this thing had been decreed long before the end of this 400 years.  
But shortly after that of Mascon, was that Council at Hispalis, An. 590,( and not 610, as it is false printed in Mr. S. p. 61.) where it was decreed, That Rich and Poor do rightly offer all the First-fruits and Tithes, as well of cattle as of Fruits unto their Churches, for the Lord saith by the Prophet, Bring ye all the Tithes into the Store-house, &c. Mal. 3.— Let every Husbandman and Artificer justly Tithe the profit of his labour, for as God gave all, so he requires Tithe of all, of the Fruits of the Field, of all Food, of Bees, Hony, Lambs, Fleeces, Cheeses, Swine, Goats, Cows and Horses, both great and small cattle: And if any Tithe not these he robs God, and is a Thief, yea the Curses of Cain are laid up for him that doth not rightly divide 
council. Hispal. ap. been. T. 2. par. 2. pag. 295. . Now though the Opinion of the Fathers, the practise of the time, and Mr. S. own Concessions, before related, make it no way improbable that such a Canon should be then made, yet He endeavours by all means to disprove it. And first he tells us, The Council is extant whole, and yet no such Canon in it; whereas Garsias in Binius, out of whom Mr. S. cites this Council here, expressly saith, I think this Council is not extant whole— and that many other things were decreed in this Council which are not extant 
Not. Garsiae ad council. Hispal. ap. been. ut supr. . Wherefore, since Garsias his MSS. had not the whole Council, we must consult the old Collectors of single Canons for the rest, and Ivo hath this Canon out of this very Council, and so hath Burchard also; and since Mr. S. quarreled with the Canon of Mascon, because it was not in these Compilers, surely he will allow this which we find there. But Secondly, he saith, This Canon is clearly of later times, the first words of it being nothing else but the syllables of one of Charlemain's Laws, An. 780. To which I reply, That Mr. S. very well knew that those Laws of charlemagne were no more, but a Collection taken out of former caconical Institutions, as the Emperor himself declares 
Praefat. ad Capitul. l. 1. ; and sometimes the Old Council, out of which these Laws were taken is name 
Capit. l. 1. cap. 1, 7, 14, 19, &c. ; sometimes the Council is not name, and yet the very words of some Old Council are set down 
Capit. l. 1. c. 23. de council. 5. Aurel. Can. 6. Ibid. c. 133. è council. Nicen. Can. 5. Ibid. cap. 135. è council. Cabilon, Can. 4. Capit. l. 2. c. 36. council. Arelat. Can. 9. ap. Seld. pag. 49. , because the Emperor gave it the force of a Law in his Dominions, and therefore no doubt these words were transcribed by charlemagne into his Capitulars out of the old Council of Hispalis, without naming the place whence he took it; and it is certain he transcribes the very words of another Canon, which Ivo, Burchard, and Gratian, do ascribe to this very Council of Hispalis, and which is not to be found elsewhere than in those Compilers 
council. Hispal. ap. been. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 294. Collat. cum Capit. lib. 5. cap. 175. . So that the words of this Canon being found in the Capitulars, is so far from weakening the Authority of it, that it shows there was a Copy of this Council extant in Charles the Greats time, out of which both he and these Compilers took this Canon, and therefore it stands for good Evidence after all Mr. S. his endeavours to disprove it.  
And it doth confirm the former Canon, that a Council in Spain also, An. 633. doth decree, According to the Authority of former Councils, the Bishop shall have the third part as well of Oblations, as of Tithes, and tribute of Fruits 
council. 4. toledan. Can. 32. ap. been. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 352. . So Binius, and so the Venice Edition and Caranza red, though Garsias Edition have only Oblations and tribute of Fruits. But there is no reason why Mr. S. should be so angry at the Editors or Compilers of Councils and Canons, for using the word Decimas sometimes instead of {αβγδ}, Oblationes, vota fidelium, res Ecclesiae, &c. since he confesses that a whole Council nigh 800 years ago, reciting a Canon of the Council of Chalcedon do translate {αβγδ} by the word Decimas 
council. Tribur. An. 890 been. T. 3. par. 2. pag. 124.& ap. Seld. pag. 63. ; and surely they had better means then, to know what the proportion was in which Church Revenues were paid, than we can have at this distance. And the promiscuous use of these words, by men who could have no design to deceive, manifestly shows that Tithes were so certainly the known proportion in which Men then paid their deuce to the Church, that it was understood, if it were not expressly mentioned. Nor can we doubt but Tithes were paid at the time of these Councils of Hispalis and Toledo, considering the Evidence before produced; and we now add, that the Council of Agatha( cited by Mr. S. p. 63.) distinguishes Church Revenues into Fields, Fruits, and Oblations 
council. Agath. A. 506. Can. 8. been. Tom 2. par. 1. pag. 556. , which Threefold Revenue cannot be understood otherwise than of Glebe, Tithes, and voluntary Oblations, and if the Compilers do so expound them, they do undoubtedly give us the true sense of them; and Mr. S. hath granted above, p. 46. that( not only in the time of these Compilers, but) An. 400 the phrase was To offer Tithes, and offerings were made then in that proportion: so that where Oblationes, only are mentioned as the whole Revenue of a Church, there Decimas are the proportion of those Oblations, yet we shall not take any advantage by the Compilers using the word Decimas, and are content that we can prove the sense of these elder Councils to be Tithes, even when some other word is used to express it.  
But Mr. S. owns that the word is used in the Council of Friuli, An. 791. where there is a long Canon to urge the payment of Tithes and First-friuts, from Gods promises of Plenty, and of his blessing on them that observe it, and his threatenings against the neglecters thereof 
council. Foro Juliens. Can. 14. been. Tom. 3. par. 1.§. 2. pag. 139. . He grants this is a good Testimony of the Synods Opinion, but thinks it rather a declaration by doctrine then a Constitution by precept: To which I reply, That when a Synod declare their Opinion in a matter of practise, they do it to oblige men to obey that declaration; and these Fathers tell us, they choose to give this Rule rather in Gods words than their own, in hopes they would be more effectual.  
§. V. This last Section( which is the 6th in Mr. S.) is wholly spent in Cavils, and little Artifices to lessen the former Testimonies; and what concerns the Council of Mascon, is answered in its proper place before, and the rest shall be now examined. First, he objects, Tithes are not name in any Old Collections of the Canons, p. 65. besides what is already said to this, I now further reply, that we have the word Decimae undoubtedly in those Canons of Mascon, Hispalis, and Friuli, which are justified for Authentic before. And divers Canons about the end of this 400 years, and the beginning of the next, do name Tithes as being anciently settled on the Church 
council. Paris. An. 829. l. 1. c. 31. ●in. T. 3. par. 1.§. 2. pag. 289. Mogunt. 1. An. 813. c. 38,& 41. been. ib. p. 201. council. Ticin. An. 855. ibid. p. 400. , and Mr. S. himself observes Decimae antiquitus Constitutae in the Council of Arles, An. 813. pag. 49, must needs imply Tithes settled in this 400 years; and Hincmarus Rhemensis, An. 850. saith, Tithes were due to the Church by the holy Canons 
Hinemar. Rhemens. Ep. 7. c. 35. , the thing itself therefore is plain, whatever words be used in any of the old Compilers or Collectors. And whereas he would make us believe it was only the firmer and devouter Christians then, who gave Tithes; I answer, No such matter appears in any Testimony he hath brought; for that Exhortation written about the year 700( cited by Mr. S. p. 66.) declares he is no good Christian that pays not his Tithes yearly: and the Epistle of Boniface, An. 750 implies, that it was a usual thing to pay them, and so do all the forementioned Testimonies both for Opinion and practise; indeed the Fathers and Councils both, do esteem them extremely wicked who do not pay them, which shows it was not only the best and firmest Christians who paid them. Thirdly, He pretends they were sometimes given to the Priests, sometimes to Abbots, and sometimes to the Poor, which is no more but that Tithes were given usually to the Secular Clergy, and by special consent of the Bishop to the regular Clergy, and after their maintenance was deducted the Poor had the rest, as is largely proved before. Fourthly, He suggests the Quantity was Arbitrary; but if so, then the Opinions of Fathers, and the Canons of Councils signified nothing, yea the Law of God, as then expounded, and the practise of above 500 years continuance must be supposed of no force: I am sure no other Proportion is name, and this is strictly required; and if Mr. S. could have produced any Instances of variety in the proportion, he might have had some pretence for this false Assertion, but he produces not one instance of such a kind; wherefore all that was arbitrary then, was to give more than a Tenth, as many did by voluntary oblations besides; but who can imagine that this Age thought the Proportion arbitrary, when the Tenth was generally held to be due by Gods Law, and where that sufficed not, it was strictly enjoined under the penalty of Excommunication, as we see in the Canon of Mascon cited above. Wherefore it is strange confidence in Mr. S. to affirm here, That he only was compellable by Excommunication who offered not at all, not he who offered in a less quantity: And for the place he cites out of Photius his Nomo-Canon, it is nothing to the case of Tithes, for Photius speaks of other voluntary Oblations, not of the fixed maintenance of the Clergy, It was( he saith) forbid to Clergy-men under the penalty of 10 l. or deprivation to excommunicate any for not making these offerings 
Phot. Nomocan. Tit. 6.( not 5. as Mr. S. mistakes.) . And Mr. S. will not allow Tithes were paid at all in the Eastern Church, so that he most unjustly and impertinently cites this Eastern Law, to prove Men were not compellable by Excommunication to pay Tithes in the Western Church. And it is as little to the purpose which he is speaking of, to tell us that Tithes were a matter of special bounty in the Ethiopic Churches, and yet the Prayer he produces out of their old Liturgy confutes that pretence too; for public Prayers are rarely put into the forms of any Church unless for Cases ordinarily happening, and the Prayer itself calls Tithes and First-fruits, Munera Ecclesiae, the Rewards of the Church, which implies a due, and if they gave them in sign of their gratitude to God, so do those also who pay Tithes ordinarily, as it is very likely these Christians did, from the clear practise of their neighbouring Churches in Egypt, cited out of Isidore Peleusiota, and Cassian, in the beginning of this Chapter, and I dare appeal to any, if this Prayer of the Ethiopic Liturgy do not well agree with usual payment of Tithes and First-fruits as the Rewards due to God and the Church. Fifthly, Mr. S. designs to make way for his arbitrary Lay foundations, by saying, that by the practise of some places the Lay Patron might assign a part of these offerings to the Minister, and enjoy the rest at his pleasure 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 5. p. 67. , which he would prove out of the Councils of Bracara and Toledo; but for the first of these, the Council of Bracara, the Canon indeed mentions a wicked practise of some places for Covetous Lay-men to build Churches on their Land for gain, that they may share with the Priests in the Peoples oblations, but it charges no such thing be done any more, and forbids the Bishop( without whose consent no Church could have any right to take Offerings) ever to consecrate any such Church, or consent to so abominable a design 
council. Bracar. 2. Can. 6. An. 572. been. Tom. 2. par. 2. p. 235. . And will Mr. S. pled the abominable and condemned practices of notorious wicked Men shows any right of Lay-Patrons? That such things were done indeed is true, but that they might be done appears no otherwise than by the Canons condemning them; by which way of arguing Mr. S. may prove, that we might kill, fornicate, consult with Wizards, commit Rapes, or do any other ill things, for all these also are forbid by Canons; and yet this fallacy of arguing Right, from those very Testimonies which condemn any evil practise is every where obvious in Mr. S. But as for this Canon of Bracara, it makes very little to his purpose if such a Custom could be proved thence, because it implies the Lay-founder had no right to any Oblations, but it was the Bishops consecration alone which annexed the right of them to the Church, and if he refused to consecrate it, there could no Oblations belong to it. And his next Quotation out of the Ninth Council of Toledo, manifestly shows the Founder had no right at all to the Church Revenues, for it Appoints, That the Founder or his heirs shall complain to the Bishop, or the King, if the Church Revenues be ill managed by the Incumbent; but withal saith, That these Heirs must not pretend these things are their own, or that they can exercise any power over them in their own right 
council 9. Tulet. cap. 1. An. 655. been. Tom. 2. p. 2. pag. 514. , which evidently proves the contrary to that for which Mr. S. brings it, and plainly shows that Lay Patrons might not dispose of Church Revenues. And though Mr. S.( which too often needlessly fills his margin) be pleased but to quote one Canon of this time, which puts Church Revenues into the Bishops power 
council. Aurel. 1. c. 13. ap. Seld. p. 67. , he might have produced very many more to the same purpose, since all Canons agree in this point 
council. Araus. c. 10. An. 441. council. Ilerd. c. 3. An. 525. Aurel. 4. cap. 7. An. 547. Tolet. 3. c. 19. An. 589. Tol. 4. c. 32, 34. An. 643. : And not only these, but all the old Canons also had strictly forbidden the Laity to meddle with the Church Revenues 
Can. Apost. Can. 37, 40. council. gangrenes. Can. 7, 8. council. Antioc. Can. 11. 24, 25 Agathens. Can. 48. Aurel. 1. Can. 16 . So that if any Lay Patron did sacrilegiously seize on the Revenues of any Church, it was not by any right he had thereto, but contrary to Law, Reason, and Religion also. Lastly Mr. S. here saith, he had never seen any Law mentioning Tithes in the Eastern Church, and pag. 245. he affirms there was no certain proportion there determined, but they were chiefly maintained by the {αβγδ}. To which I reply, that from the Testimony of Origen, Epiphanius, S. Chrysostom, Isidore, and others, it is plain that anciently the Tenth was determined even in the Eastern Church, to be the least proportion of the Christian Oblations; and if this were the effect of leaving the quantity undetermined by Law( as Mr. S. intimates) that their Priests had no certain maintenance, then we may see the inconvenience of leaving the Ministers maintenance to arbitrary Devotion, and may perceive that the Western Emperors and Bishops shewed more piety and prudence too, in making both Secular and Ecclesiastical Laws for the payment of a Tenth. And yet it is very probable that there was an use of paying Tithes also in the Eastern Church, for Pope Innocent the Third affirms Tithes were paid in his time at Constantinople 
Innocent. decret. l. 1. p. 83. ; and Humbertus asserts, that the Greek Priests had both Tithes and First-fruits in his days 
Humb. Cardinal. An. 1050 contr. Graecor. calumn. ; and before him, Anastasius a Greek Abbot saith expressly, The Lay-men are wont to give Tithes to the Priests 
Anastas. abbess, An. 850. ●ibr. cont. Judaeos. ; Theophylact speaks of a Tithing, and of a Tribute unjustly extorted out of it from the Church 
Theophilac. Ep. 41. ap. Bib. Patrum, Tom. 15. p. 263, 264. ; and in the same Epistle it appears, the Emperors Officers were obliged to give the Clergy an account in writing of Lay-mens Estates, which no doubt was with respect to the deuce they were to require of them: and these deuce are called the First-fruits due from the Laity, and the very {αβγδ} mentioned in Mr. S. were to be required of the People according to the proportion of their Estates, 
Nichol. Gram. sentent. Synod. Jur. Graec. Rom. p. 269.  and paid to the Reverend Priests, as the Golden Bull of Isaacus Comnenus decrees 
Ibid. p. 121,& 123. ; which is really no other than Tithes, though in the East it was called of old, First-fruits, and of later times the caconical due; for it seems to be a fixed proportion, because it was( as Tithe is) greater or less, according to Mens Estates; and if for want of an exact knowledge of Lay-mens Estates that Church took what Men gave in Balsomon's time, yet it is very likely that the due was the old proportion of a Tenth at least: and Mr. S. in his Manuscript Answer to Doctor Tildesly saith, I said no Laws there do mention Tithes— but for payment there I have expressly affirmed it. We therefore conclude, that there was payment of Tithes in the East, and both payment and Laws for it Civil and Ecclesiastical in the Western Church, before the end of this Period.   

CHAP. VI. The practise of Tithes from the year 800, until the year 1200.  
§. I. THe Testimonies for practise and Opinion are now so many, and so clear, that they admit of no evasion; for which cause Mr. S. hath passed 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 practise he grants, That not only from Devotion, but through Ecclesiastic Censure also, aided with Secular Power, about the very beginning of this 400 years many Churches of the Western Empire had Tithes paid as a duty 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 70. , 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 persuade charlemagne, 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 
Epist. Alcuin. ad Car. Magn. An. 797. ; 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 remain obliged to the Churches and Bishops by the Law of Tithes 
Krantz. Metrop. l. 1. cap. 8. . 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 cattle, Fruits, Tillage, and of all that they had 
Helmold. histor. Sclav. lib. 1. c. 3. ita etiam Adam Bremens. hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 9. . And surely if Mr. S. had been impartial, he should rather have related the Emperors practise than private Advice, which took no effect; yet from Alcuinus Epistle we may infer, That if charlemagne 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 settled 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) affirms, viz. That the execution of those Laws soon after failed, and this practise of payment became to be of rare use 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p 71. . 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 along; at present therefore we will only note, that Mr. S. himself in his Review, cites Hincmarus and Rabanus Maurus in the margin, but doth not transcribe the passages which indeed overthrow this false Assertion, for Hincmarus saith, Ausoldus, a Bishop of that time, forbid Prayers to be said in a chapel, till the People of that Town paid their Tithes to the Priest, according to the Ancient custom 
Hincmar, 55. Capit. ad Laudun. cap. 1. . 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 
Cent. Magdeburg. Cent. 9. cap. 7. ; to which we might add, that Alcuinus judged it a Sin fit to be confessed by a Penitent, if he had omitted to pay Tithes, as was shewed before: But we need not multiply Testimonies in so clear a case, nor question the payment where Christianity was settled since in New converted Countries they were settled after the Example of the French Empire, of which one Example here may suffice, Mieceslaus, first Christian King of Poland, erected bishoprics, and by a perpetual Decree 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 
An. 963. Cromer. de reb. Polon. l. 3. Johan. Hebart. hist. Poton. l. 2. c. 1. . This model being after the German pattern, whence the Preachers of the Gospel came, doth enough show the practise 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 falsely alleged, 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 Consecrations, but we judge they disprove them. First, The Council of Mentz. Decrees, That if any man will bequeath any thing of his propriety to some other place, he shall not take away Decimationem proventus priori Ecclesiae legitimè assignatam 
council. Mogunt. can. 16. qu. 1. c. 42. . 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 settled 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 
council. Metens. c. 2. ap. been. T. 3. p 2. pag. 1●6. ; which Place where Tithes were anciently consecrated, 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 
council. Bracar. Can. 5,& 6. council. Ticin. An. 855. been. Tom. 3. p. 1.§. 2. p. 400. Grat. c. 16. q. 1. cap. Plures bap. . Thirdly, The Second Council of Mentz mentions, Decimae quae singulis dantur Ecclesiis 
council. Mogunt. 2. An. 847. C. 10. been. Tom. 3. p. 1.§. 2. pag. 374. ; but the meaning is not of Tithes given arbitrarily, but given according 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 
Addit. ad Capit. 4. c. 73.& Leg. Longob. lib. 3. Tit. 3. cap. 7. ; and thereupon Hincmarus Rhemensis saith, Enquiry must be made what is spared of the Tithes, which belong to the Church by the holy Canons 
Hincmar. Rhem. ep. 7. cap. 35. ; yea Mr. S. himself saith, By the Laws of this time every Rector should have enjoyed the Tithes where he administered the Sacraments, pag. 72. 
Capitul. l. 5. cap. 46.  which he proves by the fore-cited Decree of Pope lo the Fourth, which saith, That he and his Predecessors had ordained, That the People should fully pay Tithes only to their Baptismal Church 
lo 4. in c. 16. qu. 1. de Monachis, c. 45, 46. , 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 mere Bruta fulmina, he still says, They were little obeied, 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 
Addit. 4. ad Capit. c. 73. . I am sure this Law orders the Kings Officer to distrain 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. preys 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 above, 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 persuade Strangers to come to their Churches, or to give them Tithes belonging to other Churches 
Capitul. l. 7. c. 141. ; and the Laity are strictly forbidden to come into any but their own Parish Church, except in a Journey, or on occasion of a Law-Suit 
Capit. l. 1. cap. 143,& cap. 154. council. Nannet. cap. 1. . Surely the Parochial-right was well settled 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 
Synod. Ticin. ap. been. Tom. 2. p. 2. pag. 400. ; and because it is forbidden there, thence he infers, it was usually practised. I reply, That the Fact of some Lay-men, doth not imply usual practise, much less any right, for some Lay-men committed Incest, Sodomy, &c. as we can infer 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 altogether 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 
council. Mutin. A. 898. ap. Sigon. reign. Ital. l. 6. . And before him one of the Popes had excommunicated both the Givers and Receivers 
Johan. 8. An. 872. ap. been. T. 3. p. 2. pag 1. . All which abundantly shows, that it could not be done very often, and whensoever it was, it was condemned and punished 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 confident he shall prove these Arbitrary Consecrations, though I doubt not to show in every one of the particulars, that they do all either virtually or expressly 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 pippin, Charles Martel, and Caroloman, Ancestors of Charles the Great, did assign the Tithe of their Customs about Utrecht to that Cathedral, this is no good proof of Arbitrary consecration of Parochial Tithes; for first the Tithes of Customs, as also of Wreck, Treasure-trove, and Fishings, 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 diocese 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 desired it, who as Guardian and Bishop then presided over the Church of Utrecht 
Vid. Chart. apud Miraeum de Canon. cap. 20. . Which Sentence Mr. S. conceals, as showing the Bishops consent, and sufficiently manifesting this was no Lay arbitrary consecration.  
Secondly, Gutha's Promise to the Bishop of Utrecht, to endow a new built Church( which he gave to the Church of Utrecht) with the Tithes of four Villages 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 74. , shows, that the Bishop was to be made acquainted how the Laity disposed of the Tithes in their dioceses; 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 diocese 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 obtained at Utrecht, 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 lorraine, 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 infeodate 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 Monasteries, 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 diocese 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 legally 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 
Spelman. Gloss. p. 313. ; 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 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 75. , for the very words of this Charter of Lewis the Fourth are, We confirm those Tithes, which by the Popes privilege and the Charters of Bishops, they have procured, and do hold and enjoy; which doth evidently show, 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 city this very passage of the Charter afterwards 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 99. , and there expressly tells us, it was only Lewis his Confirmation of what Bishops had given before; yet here he most disingenuously 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 Monasteries 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 money given for them 
Petr. Clun. l. 1. ep. 28. ; which shows these Monks had no Tithes, but by Bishops Grants.  
Fifthly, The abbey of Vendosm, founded( not as Mr. S. mistakes, An. 1050, but) An. 1033 
Sirmond. not. ad Epist. Goffrid. Vind. l. 2. ep. 26. , was indeed endowed with Tithe of Salt-pits, which was no ordinary Tithe; and yet Mr. S. confesses that Geoffry of Vendosm alleges the Grants of the Bishop of Xantoign's Predecessors, to justify 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 Urban, 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 
Geofr. Vind. l. 3. Ep. 41. . 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 settled 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 76. . Whence we may conclude, that his next instance of Ansellus de Garlanda's Grants to his new abbey 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 abbeys, of which there is an Example An. 1080 
Epist. Anselm. l. 2. ep. 14. in not. ibid. pag. 53. ; 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 abbey of Holy across, 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 expressly the Grant of the Bishop of Eureux, in whose diocese this abbey was; and since the caconical Rights of that Bishop 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 cannot rightly possess Tithes themselves 
Decretal. Lib. 3. Tit. 30. c. 31. p. 1347. . And indeed all the Popes Bulls do confirm only those Tithes which the abbeys did justly and Canonically possess. Now according to the Canons no abbey 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. crowds into his margin a heap of Examples of Arbitrary Consecrations, as he pretends, whereas every one of them, being preached, do only show Mr. S. his unjust dealing in concealing the Bishops consent, which is mentioned in every one of these Quotations. First, That of Galfridus, Vicecomes, expressly speaks of the consent of Theodoric, Bishop of charters 
Andr. Quercetan. not. ad Bibl. Cluniac. pag. 75. . Secondly, That of William Earl of Nivers, saith, Hugo Nivernensis Episcopus procuravit,& Ivo Carnotensis confirmavit 
Ibid. p. 174. . Thirdly, That of Adelardus hath these words, Ego Rainaldus Andegavorum Episcopus donum quod Adelardus— per manum nostram Sancto Albino de decimâ portus castelli sui fecit— confirmavi 
Sirmond. Not. ad Goffrid. Vindoc. pag. 95. . Fourthly, That of godfrey of Bulloign mentions Burchard Bishop of Cambray, declaring, That the Donor entreated it might be confirmed by the Authority of his Decree 
Miraeus de Canonicis, cap. 91. . 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, confirmamus 
Innocent. 3. decret. Ep. l. 1. pag. 160. . 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 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 78. , condemned( he saith) by Pope Innocent the Third. But if it were poor Monks to whom these Tithes were given, why should this Pope condemn the practise, 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 
Innoc. decret. Ep. l. 2. pag. 483. , and Decretals of the same Pope 
Decretal. l. 3. Tit. 30. c. 26. p. 1340. . And in all these places the practise is condemned, though it be there intimated to be occasioned by the uncharitableness 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 Injustice under pretence of Charity, as those Decretals declare: So that this doth not show any right of disposition of Tithes in Lay-men originally, but an illegal act of some few, grounded on the Clergies maladministration.  
The practise of those Bishops, who claimed( not Predial, but) Personal Tithes of a Family after its removal into another diocese 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 79. , shows, that not only continual payment of many years, but the Doctrine of the Fathers, and the Laws of God and Men, had now so settled 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 diocese the Family was removed for claiming Personal Tithes 
Innoc. decret. Ep. l. 1. pag. 83. : and soon after another Pope expressly 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 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 29. cap. 5. pag. 1323. . Yea, and the Decretal Epistle here cited says nothing of any Arbitrary Consecration, but expressly saith, Their Ancestors had paid Tithes to their own Bishop or Priest in former times, which implies an Ancient right and due.  
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 Persons 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 money for his Tithes 
Flodoard. hist. Rhem. l. 3. cap. 25. . Yea, the Emperor, in the Capitular cited by Mr. S. orders his Officer to force such Men to pay their Tithe freely 
Capitul. l. 5. c. 46. ; and can any man infer a right from so exploded a practise? Indeed the very word Redimere, shows that Tithes were the Clergies own before, or else it would rather be said, they bought them, than redeemed them; for as S. anselm 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 
Anselm. in Tit. cap 2. ; 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 
Ivo Curnot. Epist. 12. ; but no man will say they belonged 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 disproved.  
§. III. Appropriations are next considered; for explaining whereof he falls into a tedious discourse about the Ancient way of filling Churches with Incumbents, running 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 diocese, as was proved before out of the old Canons 
Chap. 5.§. 5 ; and though every one of these Country Priests had his certain proportion of the Profits, yet it was assigned by the Bishop, who both choose the Oeconomus and took in his Accounts 
Isid. Peleus. l. 2. ep. 127. . 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 Churches, and if they had any such Power afterwards, it must begin 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 Churches, and that these Incumbents received the Profits without any Admission from the Bishop 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 83. . 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 Aurange mentions Lay-mens building Churches, and forbids any but the Bishop of the diocese to dedicate them 
council: Araus. 1. Can. 10. An. 441. been. T. 1. p. 2. pag. 499. ; and Sidonius mentions one Simplicius, a young Knight, who builded a Church in the diocese of Bourges before the year 470. 
Sidon. Apol. l. 7. ep. 9.  And the power of choosing was long before taken from the People 
council. Laodicen. Can. 13. , and put into the Bishop to prevent Factions, and if any Lay-founder did put in any Incumbent, 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 privilege in his own diocese doth belong; and that none be put in, but such as the Bishop approves, and commands to officiate there 
council. Aurel. 4. Can. 7. An. 545. been. Tom. 2. p. 2. pag. 35. . 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 
Justin. Novel. p. 123. ; which Orders were renewed in succeeding Councils 
council. Cabil. An. 658. council. 9. Tolet. Can. 2. . 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 practise was condemned 
council. 3. Tolet. Can. 19. An. 598. been. Tom. 2. p. 2. pag. 282. . And to prevent this, both the Imperial Laws and Church Canons in the East, forbid the building Churches in any diocese, without the Bishops leave, as Theophylact relates 
Theophyl. Ep. 27. ap. Bibl. patr. Tom. 15. p. 257. . 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 Incumbents 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 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 84. ; 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 practise; 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 Incumbent, 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 attributed to Pope Damasus, An. 380, where he saith, this is titled An old Custom; to which I reply the words are only 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 Revenues; which practise is there condemned, but it is nothing to Mr. S. his purpose. And yet if it were, since this is only a Decree attributed to Damasus by Ivo and Gratian( whose Collections he elsewhere so much undervalues) 
been. Tom. 1. p. 1. pag. 512. , there is no reason he should be allowed to urge it here for a genuine Decree.  
Another proof of Lay-mens challenging a right to dispose 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 Endowments, though some very ill Men against all right did Sacrilegiously seize of them toward the end of this Period; yet it was an Usurpation, and was remedied by those many Canons which condemned and forbid it 
council. Valent. can. 9. council. Wormat. can. 6. council. Colon. can. 4. Mogunt. An. 888. can. 4. Capit. l. 7. cap. 368. . And indeed 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 Endowments and Profits on the Church, which, with the subjection of the Church to the Bishop, were delivered into his hand before the Consecration 
council: Bracar. 2. can. 5. An. 570. Greg. Mag. Ep. l. 12. c, 10. council. 4. Aurel. can. 33. ; 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 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 85. . I reply, the Imperial which he cites 
Capit. l. 7. cap. 213. , 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 Churches, 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 Livings without the Bishop; yet it is certain the Laws of that time highly condemns this 
council. Arelat. sub Car. M. can. 4. Turon. can. 15. Cabilon can. 42. Mogunt ca. 29. Meldens. c. 51. Wormat. can. 6. , and the Emperor calls it no mean presumption, and a piece of most wicked boldness 
Leg. Carol. M. edit. Vit. p. 311. ; 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 
Capit. l. 5. cap. 178. council. Paris. An. 829. : 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 Ulric, Bishop of Auspurg, An. 950, having finished 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 rob 
Vit. S. Valdrici ap. Seld. hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 86. ; 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 itself in every Church, Vice-Masters, Advocates, or Defensors 
Hincmar. Dial. de stat. Eccles. pag. 65. ; and therefore they did no doubt reserve to themselves their old privilege 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 reserved 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 Churches. I grant P. Damianus doth mention some Lay-men in his time who usurped this power of Collation, and delivered 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 
Petr. Damian. l. 1. Ep. 13. ad Alexand. 2. , 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 Parish Priests of their own choosing, without the Bishops consent first had. Nor doth the phrase of Commendatio Ecclesiae signify any such matter in any of his Marginal Quotations here produced 
Hist Tithes, Chap. 6. p 87. . The first place only forbidding Lay-men to take bribes for the commendation of a Church to any Priest 
Capit. l. 5. c. 83. , and the very next Capitular before prohibits Lay-mens putting in or casting out Priests without the Bishops consent 
Ibid. c. 82. . The second Quotation hath not so much as the word Commendatio, nor any thing to that purpose 
Addit. 4. c. 37. : 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 
Synod. Rom. c. 16. q 7. c. 33. Monasterium. ; and Luitprandus adds,— so that the said Priest shall obediently apply himself to the Bishops good pleasure 
Euitprand, vit. Le on. 4. ; whence it is plain that Commendatio Ecclesiae did suppose the Bishops consent, and was not( as Mr. S. falsely expounds it) The Livery of a Church and the Endowments, to the Incumbent, to take care and dispose of, as a Usufructuary of what the Patron was the Proprietary, or as a Tenant of that whereof he was in reversion: 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 without the consent of a Third person; and a strange kind of Tenancy, when the Lessor must receive no acknowledgement, 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 Chalcedon, 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 already 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 voided, but the Bishop should maintain him that was so Ordained till some Church became voided 
Decretal. l. 3. Tit. 5. c. 16. pag. 1128. ; all which proves not, that the Bishop did not collate, but only that he had not always Vacancies ready to bestow, which is nothing to Mr. S. his purpose. And whether the Patron choose 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 cannot give such power to another merely by his own Act 
Duarenus de Minister. lib. 5. cap. 4. . The truth is, that though originally the disposition of Churches 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 without 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 shows how little ground there is to pretend the Patron had any propriety in the Endowments of Churches. Nor was there any such use, as Mr. S. pretends, of Clerks resigning at pleasure into the Patrons hand 
Hist. Tithes Chap. 6. p. 89. , 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 Churches without the Bishops consent, and punish those who did so, with Excommunication 
Capit. lib. 6. cap. 197.& l. 7. cap. 173. ; and good reason, for they had made a Promise to the Bishop at their Ordination, or Admission, not to leave them 
Capit. lib. 5. cap. 108. , and so were not only forbid to leave these Churches, but also to take any New ones without the Bishops consent 
Ibid. cap. 43, and 82. . Wherefore unless all the prohibitions of good Laws be a proof that the practise prohibited was right before those Laws, these are no evidences, that Patrons had a right to dispose of Churches 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 obeied; 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 penalties annexed, should be mere 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 Parceners had parts, as in other Inheritances. I answer, If this were so, it only shows, that the right of Nomination was divided among the Patrons heirs; but indeed it only appears, 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 Altar should have divers Priests, and orders the Bishop to forbid Divine Service to be said there, till the Coheirs agree to present one only 
Addit. 3. cap. 25. , which was also enacted by many other Laws of that time 
Leg. Longob. l. 3. Tit. 1. c. 44. council. Tribur. c. 32. council. Cabil. c. 26. . His second Quotation expressly affirms, All these Clerks were presented to the Bishop 
council. Lat. sub Alex. 3. Can. 17. ,( which quiter overthrows his notion of Propriety), and yet it condemns the practise, 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 Inheritance, 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 husbands presentation was voided, because the Marriage was declared null; but the Decree confirms the first Husbands presentation, as having been allowed by the Bishop 
Addit. ad council. Later. par. 15 cap. 7. been. Tom. 3. par. 2. p. 602. ; which wonderfully confirms the Bishops Power then in such disposals, and confutes all the pretence of Propriety in Patrons. As for those Droits honorifiques de Signieurs d' Eglises, of the Patrons reserving 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 infeudations there. But he tells us, this custom 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 
Decretal. l 3. Tit. 5. c. 30. pag. 1150. Et extrav. l. 6. Tit. de Praebend. c. suscepti. , and declared, that all such reservations are voided without the Bishops consent, if the Patrons were Lay-men 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 38. c. 23. pag. 1451. ; 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 
Synod. sub Joan. 9. A. 904. ap. been. Tom. 3. p. 2. pag. 137. ; and, That all Tithes were to be in the Bishops power 
council. Augustan. A. 952. ap. been. Tom. 3. p. 2. pag. 152. ; but no such Laws were for his pretended propriety of Lay-men. And though he speak so contemptibly of these Canons, as if no practise followed, yet he himself grants, that in Germany generally the Bishops had the Tithes of their whole dioceses, and assigned what portions of them to the Incumbents they pleased. And in other Countries where Parishes were settled, 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 privilege 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 acknowledgement of their ancient right to the whole Tithes; so that we may justly say, that even where Parishes were settled 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 dispose of Churches.  
The Investiture of Bishops and the more eminent Abbots by Emperors and Kings, who anciently were( and always should have been) supreme Ordinaries in their Dominions, was upon the account of several Honours and Temporal privileges( 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) 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 91.  declares, which saith, this practise of the Laity was contrary to the Statutes of the Holy Fathers 
council. Rom. sub Greg. 7. An. 1078. . And that which he cites next, viz. the Council Lateran, relates only to Parish Churches, and is no more but a confirmation of the old Canons and Imperials, viz. That no Priest should take a Church with Tithes from a Lay-man by mere investiture 
council. Lat. Calixt. 2. An. 1119, &c. . 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 Churches; yet they would awe the Clergy, who were to be excommunicated for accepting them, and to forfeit both their former Living and this also, which was so unjustly procured 
council. Nannetens. Can. 16. ap. been. Tom. 3. par. 2. pag. 133. ; 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 practise of Investitures. And the very Quotations which Mr. S. produces here 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 93.  to justify his Opinion, do rather prove ours, viz. That Investitures were a usurpation upon the ancienter rights of Bishops. The first plainly saith; that Investitures were new encroachments upon the Bishops power by the boldness of some Lay-men 
Conc. Later. Alex. 3. Can. 9.& 14. been. T. 3. p. 2. pag. 558.& Decretal. l. 3. Tit. 38. c. 4. p. 1438. . The second shows, that Lay-Patrons often repented of their Investitures, and presenting others canonically to the Bishop, declared their former act to be voided 
Decret. ib. c. 10. p. 1443. . The third suspends the Receiver ab officio& beneficio 
Ibid. c. 21. p. 1449. . The fourth calls it an evil custom of one Province, and declaring it contrary to the Rules of the Holy Fathers, excommunicates the Receivers 
Ibid. l. 3. Tit. 7. cap. 3. p. 1161. . The last only adds, that worthy Persons be put in the room of those so deprived upon presentations to the Bishop 
Ibid. l 3. Tit. 5. cap. 31. pag. 1150. . And indeed 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.  

Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 94.  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 conveyed 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 abbeys( looking on themselves 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 
Sarisb. de nugis Curial. l. 7. cap. 17. . And that Age did so fully believe the Bishops interest in all disposal of Tithes, that it was not permitted to Monasteries to allow 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 pretence 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 settled 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 Instituted; Secondly, and that he remain under the Bishops Jurisdiction; Thirdly, that they gave this Vicar a sufficient allowance, which conditions quiter 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 
Monastic. Angl. Tom. 2. p. 114. ; so that these Appropriations were made at first by the consent of Bishops. But Mr. S. observes 
Hist. Tithes Chap. 6. p. 98. , That Lay-men sometimes made Appropriations, reserving the Patronage to themselves; but then their Presentations were accounted to be only to the Vicariges, which had Salaries annexed at the pleasure of the Monastery on whom the Church was settled 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 consent: 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 Patronage were reserved, there was nothing else in him properly 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 persuaded Lay-Patrons, that they were the devoutest 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 settled in such a Monastery; but whatever the words of that Charter were, I shall prove presently( and in the English practise) 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& successoribus nostris jure& Authoritate Pontificiali 
Monast. Angl. T. 2. p. 208. , or as Mr. S. his instance of the abbey of S. Germans hath it, pag. 99. Salvâ Diocesani Canonicâ justitiâ; which shows 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 satisfy the Canons, not to give validity to the Grant in secular and Common Law 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 99. ; 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 shows 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 privileges, and the Bishops Charters. Whence it is evident that the Monks first procured the Appropriations, by Grants from the Bishops, 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 practise, I shall undeniably 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 appropriate 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 
Monast. Angl. Tom. 2. p. 409. . Further proof of this also Mr. S. himself gives us in the next pages 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 100, &c. , 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 conveyance, we may thence conclude the Bishops Act was the main thing in all Appropriations. 'tis true, these German Bishops( as Mr. S. largely proves) had in them from the beginning of Christianity there, the sole right of Tithes through their whole diocese, because bishoprics were settled long before Parish Churches in that Country. But this alters not the case, because bishoprics were settled 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 Incumbents 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 settled, the Bishops seem to have been Patrons of all those Parishes out of which they gave Tithes, and upon that ground Athelbero 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 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 104. : For as to the latter of these, Mr. S. hath not yet produced 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 Northern Countries paid them so much better than others, it seems strange why Mr. S. should only hunt about for Examples, 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 show some People counted Tithes a burden, do expressly declare, that paying of Tithes was, according to the custom and example of all Churches, especially of those near them, and that it was a duty by Gods Law. S. p. 104, 105, which shows, 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, 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 106, &c.  there was no reason to complain of the detaining Tithes, but of the ill disposal of them in taking them from the Parish Rectors, 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 bread 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 settled by the Bishop on the Monks; which being so contrary to the Ancient practise, and so great a hindrance to the due performance of Divine Administrations in remote Country Churches, was much complained of by the best Authors of this time, viz. Ivo Carnotensis, Hugo Pontiniacensis, Stephanus Tornacensis, Petrus Blesensis, Petrus de Alliaco, and Petrus Abelardus, who( though himself a Monk) saith expressly, Those things which belong to the Parochial Clergy we usurp to ourselves, and by any kind of means we get to ourselves from the Bishops the Revenues of Parishes, as well in Tithes as Oblations 
P. Abelard. Serm. in natal. S. Joh. Baptist. ; and Sarisburiensis blames the Popes and Bishops for these Grants 
Sarisbur. de nugis Curial. l. 7. c. 21. ; for Monks of old were required to pay Tithes of that Land which they tilled with their own hands 
Privileg. Formos. Monaster. Gigniacen. An, 896. ap. Baluz. Miscel. Tom. 2. p. 160. Decretal. l. 3. Tit. 30. c. 3, 4. p. 1326, 1327. : And the Founder of the Cistercian Order discerning this to be a duty, when he would reform the practise of Monks, persuaded his Disciples, according to the letter of S. Benedict's Rule, to live of their hand-labour, and leave Tithes and Oblations to the Clergy that serve in the diocese 
MSS. Bibl. Bodleian. ap. Monasticon, Tom. 2. p. 947. . But afterwards 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 caconical Order of the Bishop 
Extat. Monast. Tom. 1. p. 736. . Yet we must do the Bishops of that Age right, so far as to excuse them on this ground, that they did not take such Grants to be alienations 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 himself elsewhere contradicts this and saith, Religious persons were always of the Popes sides and reckoned in the Catalogue of the Clergy 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 119. . Nor could he be ignorant, that the Popes and others, who favoured and pleaded for giving Tithes to Monks, expressly call them Levites, and reckon them among the Clergy 
Append. ad council. Later. p. 13. cap. 3. been. T. 3. p. 2. p. 598. , and thence justify their right to them. Since the religious( saith Hales) are reckoned in the order and office of Levites they may receive Tithes 
Alex. Halens. p. 3. qu 5. n. 6. art. 2. ; 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 
Pet. Cluniac. l. 1. ep. 28. . And it is well known divers of them were in Orders, and did supply by Turns their Appropriate Cures themselves, and administer Sacraments there, and where the distance permitted not that, they found Vicars who were Priests in Orders, and allowed by the Bishops, who did minister all Sacraments to the People; which I do not allege to justify the Bishops of that Age, as free from all blame in confirming such Grants, but only to show 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 alienated from the Clergy, or that settling 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 
Chart. Hugonis de Ver. Monasticon. T. 1. p. 1021. ; but when the Monks practise of supplying Cures by Vicars had obtained, then the Nuns not only got the Bishops and Pope to free them from paying Parish Tithes 
Monast. ib. , but also to give them Appropriate Churches, which they could supply by Vicars as well as the Monks, though this practise was not very frequent.  
But Mr. S. proceeds 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 108.  to inform us, that the Abbot of Hersfielt justified his claim to Appropriate Churches against the challenge of the Bishop of Halberstadt, An. 1059, which might well enough be, since this abbey was very anciently endowed with Tithes, for the Emperor Otho the Second gave Lands in exchange for some Tithes, of which this abbey was possessed An. 972 
Lib. de zelo yet. Princip. German. Bibl. patrum, T. 15. p. 736. ; and since Mr. S. grants, the whole Tithes of the diocese 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 pleaded the Popes Bulls, and the Charters of this very Bishops Predecessors for the Tithes they enjoyed 
Lamb. Sbafnaburg. ap. been. Tom. 3. p. 2. pag. 252. . 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 Forefathers had always paid them to the Monks; and that was the Legitima Patrum svorum, which these Thuringians contended for, not( as Mr. S. falsely pretends) a right to detain their Tithes, or arbitrarily to dispose of them, but only a right of paying them to such Monks, as their Fathers 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 abbeys, to receive Tithes anciently 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. pretends) 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 abbeys 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 broken 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 abbey: for this Historian Lambertus( who so highly commends the Thuringians) was a Monk of Hersfielt, and a party in this cause, which makes him call the paying Tithes to the Bishop Exactio decimarum; but when they paid them to the abbey, 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. Wherefore neither this, nor any other proof yet alleged, doth make out any Arbitrary Power in Lay-men to consecrate or appropriate their Tithes, much less to detain them.  

Hist. Tithes, Ca. 6. p. 111. §. IV. infeudations were conveyances of Tithes into Layhands 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 complains of them to Alexander the Third; but Mr. S. himself saith, pag. 113. He complains of the Bishops for it 
P. Damian. l. 4. Ep. 12. ; and if they came from the Church at first, then it will not serve Mr. S. his purpose at all, nor show any Arbitrary power in Lay-men to detain their Tithes, or give them away to the Laity. As for the Original of infeudations Mr. S. despises Krantzius extremely 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 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 112. , 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 remembers 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 other Authors, as well as Krantzius, think infeudations much elder, though it is not my concern to prove that, since the later such a corrupt practise began, the less we need wonder 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 corrupt 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 bnfice, choosing rather to lose the half than the whole 
Krantz. Metrop. l. 1. c. 2. . And the same Author relates the passage concerning the Emperor Frederic Barbarossa, An. 1186,( which Mr. S. cites out of Goldalstus) 
Seld. Review, p. 474. , That of old time, when the Pagans invaded the Church, the Nobility received Tithes from the Church, as a reward for defending it 
Krantz. Saxon. l. 6. c. 52. . And if the Emperor pleaded that as a good Argument so anciently, we may thence infer, First, that infeudations 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 infeudations) An. 1078, plainly 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 
been. T. 3. p. 2. p. 400. . 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 infeudations from being made) Forbids Lay-men, that detain Tithes with the hazard 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 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 30. c. 19. pag. 1335. . 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 
Hoveden, Annal. p. 2. pag. 335. , Newbrigensis 
Hist. lib. 3. cap. 3. , and Halensis 
Halens. qu. 51. m. 6. art. 1. , 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 likely, that this Pope Alexander the Third designed to condemn all Feudal Tithes past as well as future, for his Predecessor Gregory the Seventh had condemned both sorts before as Mr. S. shows pag. 112. and his Successor Urban the Second condemned past infeudations, ibid. pag. 113; yea, and Pope Innocent the Third so understood this Canon, as he confesses, pag. 139. Why then is it unlikely that Alexander the Third should condemn old Infeodate Tithes? Mr. S. tells us indeed, this Canon did not prevail to take away old infeudations, 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 infeudations 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 infeudations show any Arbitrary Power the Laity had in disposing Tithes, excepting what they had from the Church.  
He saith, Perhaps some Old infeudations were made by Lay-Patrons in the vacancy of their Churches 
Hist. Tithes, Chap. 6. p. 115. ; 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 Vacancy dispose of the Endowment to another Lay-man for ever: Nor is there any one passage in Flodoard, or P. Damian, that Lay-men without the Bishops consent made any such infeudations; and his Canon of Innocent the seconds 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 Conveyances, did without the Bishops consent give them arbitrarily; but we speak of the first conveyance, not of the after derivations. But that grant of Charles King of France of the church of Egmond, Cum omnibus ad eam jure pertinentibus, 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 abbey; 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 joined with Bishops to bring in the payment of Tithes, that thereby themselves might have beneficial infeudations of them from the Church 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 117. . So that if Princes themselves were beholding to Bishops for Grants of infeudations, 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 infeudations 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 Exempt Religious making infeudations out of their own demesnes, confirmed and given to them by Popes and Bishops; First, It is but a secondary Conveyance, and yet even this practise is declared illegal, and the Grant to be null, in that very Decree of Alexander the Third, which he cites to show there were such infeudations 
Extravag. l. 6. Tit. De Decimis, cap. 2.§. San●. : So also his two Instances out of Innocent the Third were so evidently reputed illegal, that the first was resigned 
Innocen 3. Epist. l. 3. p. 447. , and the second repealed by Sentence 
Idem. ibid. pag. 482. . 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 voided. His Example of Henry, Count of Ratzenburgh, who had an Infeodation of Tithes from the Bishop of Oldenburgh 
Krantz. Wandal. l. 4. c, 38, 39.  is nothing 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 diocese, 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 Error by the Clergy, since some Prelates do indulge them to dispose of Churches and Tithes, &c. 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 30. c. 17. pag. 1333. . The blame we see is chiefly laid on the Clergy, and the Sentence subjoined is to deprive 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 Christian People; and therefore no wonder if( as Mr. S. notes, pag. 118.) many of the Country People were by this maladministration of the Bishops discouraged from paying Tithes. But still here is no proof of any infeudations, but what came from the Bishops, which no way helps Mr. S. his Opinion, nor are these any instances of Lay-mens Arbitrary 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 practise 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 Christianity 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 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 119. . 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 being no more but various methods of disposing Tithes among 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 practise, 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 Families on their Land should pay Tithes to the Church where they had Sacraments and Prayers 
council. Cabilon. can. 19. been. T. 3. p. 1.§. 2. p. 193. . 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 
Decretal. l. 3. Tit. 30. c. 2. pag. 1325. . Yet it seems Monks must have paid Tithes to Monks, if they had Lands in the Parish of a Church appropriate to another abbey, 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 
Idem ibid. c. 10. p. 1330. , and were immediately complained of, as censured and very unjust by the Authors of that Age, viz. Sarisburiensis 
Sarisb. de nugis Curial. l. 7. c. 21. pag. 452. ; and Peter Blesensis boldly saith, These Dispensations were Dissipations 
Pet. Blesens. ep. 82. . And the Monks of Clugny renounced these Papal privileges 
Pet. Clun. l. 1. ep. 33, 34. , as did also the Cistercians in their Charta Charitatis, made by Stephen their Third Abbot 
Quercetan. not. ad Bibl. Cluniac. p. 115. . So that the practise 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, shows how great a Power the ruling Clergy then had in the arbitrary disposal of Tithes, when so unjust and unreasonable practise was continued. But it is objected, The Templars and hospitalers were not of the ministering 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 
council. Trecens. can. 66. An. 1127. been. Tom. 3. p. 2. pag. 476. . Yet from this ill practise 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 condemned as contrary to the first end and design of Tithes.  
§. VI. If Mr. S. had been as industrious to collect particular Opinions for the Divine right of Tithes, as he hath been to search out for Instances of Arbitrary Consecrations, 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 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 122. . And that Res dominicae, Dominica substantia,& Dei census, are the Attributes given to Tithes by the Ancients of this Age 
Ibid. p. 123. ; 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 Opinion about Tithes a Doctrine not more base than damnable, and adds, That when he could get no Followers, he drowned himself 
Rodulph. Glaber. l. 2. c. 11. . 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 
council. Mogunt. cap. 38. An. 813. been. T. 3. p. 1.§. 2. pag. 201. ; but that of Arles, in the same year, expressly grounds them on Gods Law 
council. 4. Arelat. can. 9. ibid. p. 188. : That of Chalons in the famed year excommunicates the Neglecters of this payment 
council. Cabil. can. 18. ib. 193. , and that of rheims then also decreed, Tithes should be fully paid 
council. Rhem. can. 38. ib. 204. . And to the same purpose speak all the Councils from the beginning of this 400 years 
council. Aquens. A. 837. c. 18. Metens. An. 890. c. 2. Tribur. An. 895. c. 13. , and the Capitulars which are taken out of them do in many places repeat the same thing 
Capitul. l. 2. cap. 38. Et lib. 4. cap. 40. Et lib. 5. cap. 46.& 89, &c. . 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, declare 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 passages 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 
Vid. been. T. 3. p. 1.§. 2. p. 325. . 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 supply Mr. S. his omissions of the Opinions of private Fathers 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 
Paschas. in Math. l. 10. An. 820. . 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 
Agobard. de dispens. rei Eccles. p. 277. An. 828. . 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 
Walafrid. Strab. de reb. Eccles. cap. 27. An. 480. . 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 
Rab. Maur. in Num. l. 2. c. 23. . Hincmarus Rhemensis threatens Lay-men with God's Judgments for usurping Tithes, saying, Belshazzar was not guilty of so great a sacrilege 
Hincmar. Rhemens. de stat. Eccles p. 653 An. 850. . In his time also it is plain, That Tithes belonged to the Church by the Sacred Canons 
Idem, ep. 7. cap. 35. ; and he speaks of a Church which had its Glebe, and the Tithe of the Faithful 
Idem in Hincmar. Laud. cap. 35. ; which, together 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 practise 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 pretending, That the practise of the Time allowed by the Clergy, of disposing Tithes to Monks, Nuns, Hospitals, and religious Orders of Knights seems to contradict this Opinion 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 125. . 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 charters, doth not say, The Church might give Tithes to Monasteries and Hospitals by the Law of Justice; but by the Law of Charity, 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 
Ivo Carnot. Ep. 207. ; 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 
Idem. Ep. 192. ; 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 Monasteries; but since there were Monks in Orders who did administer Sacraments and Preach, and their Administrations 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 fearful a sacrilege, as Mr. S. pretends, in consenting to such disposal of Tithes to Monks, though they still held them due to the ministering 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 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 10. c. 7. p. 1195. , 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 contrary to the Divine Law to convey Tithes to any other church 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 dispositione, that is, without the Bishop did so dispose of them 
council. Ticin. ap. been. T. 3. p. 1.§. 2. pag. 400. , which Sentence had Mr. S. put in, it would have appeared the practise was not contrary thereunto. Again, he wonders 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 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 127. ? I answer, That Rome even then declared expressly, That the Pope could dispense with the Law of God 
Gloss. ad c. 25. qu. 1. sunt quidam. , 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 condemn them as contrary to God's Law. Since the Lord commands Tithes to be paid( saith Peter Blesensis) who can dispense against his Precept? Where divine and human Laws are contrary, God is to be obeied rather than Men 
Pet. Blesenj. ep. 82. . 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 
Joh. Sarisb. de nugis Curial. l. 7. c. 21. . As for infeudations, Mr. S. will inform us, what cunning distinctions the Schools invented to make the irregular Acts of some Bishops look plausible, pag. 156; but he grants, they were condemned and disannulled by Popes and Councils 
Extrav. de Decim. c. 15. ad haec. Append. ad council. Lateran. par. 4. c. 1. To which add, Alex. 3. in council. Turon. An. 1163. , and therefore from a few condemned Acts, no general inference can be made against the common Opinion 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 Secular Laws to compel the refractory. The ancientest instance of such a Law is that of Congallus, King of Scotland, An. 570, which enjoins general payment there; but Mr. S. not only removes it into this Period, but labours to discredit Hector Boetius, who relates it 
Hector Boet. hist. Scot. l. 9.  as if he feigned 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 better to colour his own ill deeds, and having such cause to be partial, he is not to be credited against an old Historian, 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 Bishops Courts only should have cognizance of Tithes 
Idem hist. Scot. l. 10. , 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 
Hector hist. Scot. l. 12. Spelm. council. Tom. 1. p. 571. . The Imperial Laws for Tithes were made as soon as ever the Barbarous Nations, 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 many others 
Capitul. lib. 5. c. 106, 123. lib. 6. Cap. 29, 41. Addit. 3. c. 51. Addit. 4. c. 73. . 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 
Capit. lib. 1. cap. 155. item Cap. 152, 153, 154. ibid. . 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 
Cap lib. 5. cap. 46. cited in Seld. p. 79. , however it appears, the practise was condemned and punished 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 practise was of any of those Laws 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 132. . 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. Baronius is speaking of the obstinacy of such who detained Tithes infeodate, and shows God's Judgments on the Nation for it 
Baron. Tom. 10. An. 845, 846. ; 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 bishoprics of their immovable 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 Persons 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 tottering foundation is removed, and indeed the Nona and Decima( so often name 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 itself due to the Church; and accordingly they paid both Ninths and Tenths, as Mr. S. himself confesses; which, together with the former proofs out of Hincmarus and others, do fully show, that Parochial Tithes were then generally paid in obedience to the Imperial Laws then in force. And no wonder, since the Canons of the Church also enjoined the same thing, as appears by the Councils of Mentz, Arles, Chalons, rheims, 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 Decree ancienter than that of Pope Nicholas, An. 1059 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 134. , yet we affirm the three last Books of the Capitulars were confirmed by Papal Authority before the year 900 
Capit. l. 7. cap. 377. , yet in those Books Tithes are often fully and strictly enjoined. Again, that Decree of Pope lo 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 
Const. 16. qu. 1. c. 45. , is a plain constitution, and not barely a declaration of his Opinion, 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 enjoin by Apostolic Authority, &c. and a little after he saith, the Pope Excommunicated those who did not obey this Decree 
Luitprand. vit. Leon. 4. . Wherefore, though the Decrees of Popes were not collected into one body till An. 1051, yet there were Decrees made, and in many places obeied, long before, concerning Tithes. And as the Popes Power increased 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 Epistle of Pope Gregory the Seventh to some Princes of Spain, that the Pope there only persuades and exhorts, but doth not command the payment 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 136. . 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. 
Rod. Sanct. histor. Hispan. lib. 1. cap. 11.  Nor was there in Spain then any such Gothic corruption 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 
Ep. Greg. 7. Registr. lib. 9. ep. 14. apud been. Tom 3. par. 2. p. 372. ; wherefore this Epistle was sent to the Gothic Princes of Sweden and Denmark, then newly converted from Paganism 
Krantz. Danic. l 4.& Suec. l. 5. c. 10. ; yea this Pope Gregory the year before writ an Epistle Suetonum Regi, to the King of Swethland, declaring he had heard that the Christian Faith was begun to be preached there 
Registr. Greg. 7. l. 8. ep. been. ib. p. 361. . 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 enough 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 enjoin 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 
Alex. 3. Epist. 19. . So that it is now made very evident that there were Imperial Laws, Canons of Councils, and Decrees of Popes from the beginning of this 400 years to enjoin the payment of Tithes; and there is abundant proof of general practise 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 remembered the Duty, and the first that mentions them is that of Lateran, An. 1119. 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 6. p. 137.  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 enjoined under penalty of damnation to restore them 
Synod. Rom. sub Greg. 7. ap. been. T. 3. p. 2. pag. 400. , 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 
council. Lateran, An. 1119. been. Tom. 3. p. 2. pag. 465. . 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 infeudations; and the word Restore them to the Church, shows that it was then believed they were taken away from the Church at first 
Conc. Lat. An. 1130. ap. been. ib. p. 487. . 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, because such disposition of Tithes would be injurious to Parish Churches, which were then in possession of them 
council. Later. An. 1180, Can. 9. ap. been. ibid. pag. 557. ; 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 expressly 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 name Council of Lateran, An. 1180, forbid to consent to any such disposition 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 name Council of Lateran only prohibited Religious houses to receive newly created Tithes without the Bishops consent, whereas the Decrees of former Popes, and the History of that time assure us, the Roman Church designed long before to cut off that innovation 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 practised; for Laws, practise, 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 
Seld. Review, pag. 467, 468. ? I reply, By the consent of Bishops and Popes they might give Tithes to Monasteries, though Parochial payment were not arbitrary; 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 Confirmations, but they were Confirmations Non solum ad solennitatem, said ad necessitatem actus, as the Canonists speak; and the Bishops use of the words, Damus& Concedimus, very frequently 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 Predecessors 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 Bishops consent, was always voided, 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 Confirmation are both made voided, for want of the Bishops consent at first had 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 30. cap. 31. pag. 1347. . But Mr. S. his other instance of the Donation of the Knight of Berry, was a gift of infeodate Tithes with the Bishops consent, which Pope Innocent is so far from declaring voided( as Mr. S. fully pretends) that he expressly 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 voided 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 10. cap. 7. pag. 1194. . And we may justly wonder at Mr. S. his confidence in saying concerning these two Instances, That every Canonist will aclowledge they were of new Creation, at least not of Infeodate Tithes, when as the former Example is of Tithes anciently debitas Ecclesiae Vesprimensi, and so no New creation: and the latter is expressly said to be meant of Infeodate Tithes in the very words of the Decree, and so neither of them prove what he intended. 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 diocese 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 impoverished by these Grants, it was judged a maladministration, 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 practised against many Canons both Papal and Synodal 
Seld. Review, p. 469. ; 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, because Prescription was never allowed where the Thing was not fairly come to at first, as is expressly 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 voided 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 30. cap. 31. . And the Decretals cited by Mr. S. in the margin speak not of Prescription grounded on Lay-Grants, or pleaded by Monks against Parochial right, but of Prescription pleaded by one Parish Church against another 
Decret. l. 2. Tit. 26. cap. 6. pag. 933. &c. 8. p. 934. ; and one of them expressly saith, No Prescription can be grounded on a Lay-Donation 
Decret. l. 2. Tit. 26. cap. 7. ; and another," In prescription of Ecclesiastical profits, bona fides& justus titulus exigatur 
Ibid. c. 17. pag. 498. . Therefore unless the Lay Donation 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 leaguer 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 
Seld. Review, p. 470. . And no wonder, for there never were any such Arbitrary Consecrations, but in Mr. S. his imagination; so that he truly confesseth this Doctrine is new, and never pointed at before, 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 leaguer 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 discourse about Appropriations wholly relies on this false foundation 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 deserts of Wagria, to pay Tithes 
Seld. Review, p. 472. , is not so very contemptible considering 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 turned 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 impoverished the Parish Rectors in that Age, as might in time have ruined Religion itself. As for infeudations 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 infeudations which would sometimes have been claimed, but only that these Tithes now alienated by Infeodation 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 Infeodation made by a Bishop: So that reason, authority, Laws and history of practise do thus far declare, that Tithes were ever reputed to belong to the Church.   

CHAP. VII. Of Tithes since the Year 1200.  
§. I. THis Chapter Mr. S. begins with a confession, that Parochial right became now to be more established 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 7. p. 141. ; but he commits two great mistakes, and both grounded upon his old erroneous Supposition of Lay-mens arbitrary disposal of Tithes, viz. First, That Parochial right owed its original to the Canon Law, whereas we have proved it was in use long before it. Secondly, That it was a Usurpation upon the Laities arbitrary power of giving Tithes, introduced by the Papal power; whereas all that the Pope did in this matter, was to retrench the Laity from usurping upon the ancient and undoubted right of the Bishops, and to restore the old usage of regular Parochial payment; wherefore the Canons of those Councils of Lateran forbidding infeudations, and receiving Tithes from Lay-mens gifts, without the Bishops consent, mentioned by Mr. S. 
Ibid. pag. 142, 143. , were but a restauration of the Churches just and ancient right; and since he grants Parochial Tithes, were in the beginning of this Period claimed as due De jure communi 
Decret. Innoc. 3. An. 1200. lib. 3. Tit. 30. c. 29. pag. 1344. &c. 31. p. 1346. . It is evident from this they had been settled by Law long before, yet Mr. S. whose business now is not historically to relate the manner of paying Tithes, but sophistically to dispute against regular payment, runs back into the time before An. 1200, to show that Parochial payment was little observed then; but his Proofs are utterly insufficient. The Covenants which Bishops and Monks took from their Tenants, not to pay Parochial Tithes, are no evidence that the Laity did not pay them, and they clearly show Parochial Tithes were demanded then, even of the Clergy who had Land in other Parishes, or else what need of these Covenants; and this practise is condemned in the Council of Chalons, An. 813,( 400 years before the beginning of this Period) and there it is decreed, That notwithstanding these Covenants the Tenants of Bishops and Abbots should pay Tithes to the Church where they heard Divine Service 
council. Cabilon. can. 19. ap. been. T. 3. p. 1.§. 2. p. 193. . So that Parochial right prevailed against such Covenants many hundred years before this Period began. And if Exemptions( which Mr. S. saith were got about An. 1100) did make some Monks presume to renew this unjust practise, yet he confesses it was remedied in the General Council of Lateran, An. 1215, and indeed it was prohibited in a former Lateran Council, An. 1160 
Append. ad council. Later. par. 13. c. 6. ap. been. Tom. 3. par. 2. p. 598. , that is, as soon almost as this ill usage began to revive; but Mr. S. puts that quotation very cunningly into his margin, and cites only in his Discourse the Council nigh 50 years later. His second instance, of the Archbishop of Matera complaining to the Pope, That the Tenants of some religious Persons would not pay their Parochial Tithes, makes strongly for us, because that very Decree saith, It appears Tithes were fully paid in former times, while these Lands were in the hands of Lay-men, and therefore he decrees they shall be fully paid henceforth to the Churches to which they are due 
Epist. Decr. Innocent. l. 2. pag. 483. . So that this Decree shows Parochial payment preceded this usurpation, and restores an old due unjustly interrupted for a while. Thirdly, the Council of Tribur doth not suppose Men had a liberty to make any Church their Parish, by paying Tithes thither; but it supposes Men did constantly pay their Tithes, while living, to their own Parish Church, and therefore it orders them to be butted there when they died 
council. Tribur. Can. 15. An. 895. been. T 3. p. 2. pag. 214. ; yea the very Canon before Can. 14. doth expressly decree, that Tithes shall be paid to the old Parish Church. Fourthly, 'tis true Alexander the Third, An. 1180, would not determine whether Predial Tithes should be paid to the Church in whose Territory the Land lay, or to that Church in whose Parish the Owner lived; but this very doubt supposes Parochial right agreed upon, and that it was certain Tithes must be paid to some Parish Church, the only question is, when two Churches claim the same Tithe, to which it shall be assigned 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 30. c. 18. pag. 1334. . Yet even this was decided presently after, for about An. 1182, P. Lucius ordered, that Predial Tithes should be paid where the Land lay, and Personal Tithes where the Party dwelled 
Ibid. c. 20. pag. 1335. ; wherefore Mr. S. most unjustly infers from these Doubts, that Parochial right was not so much as in Opinion established about the Year 1200 
Seld. hist. Tithes, ch. 7. p. 146. , whereas if there had not been a general opinion of Parochial right, there could have been no such doubts. Fifthly, The Decree enjoining the Monks of Boxley to pay Parochial Tithes, was not made by Alexander the Third, but by his Predecessor Adrian the Fourth, An. 1155; and if this payment had been enjoined because they were wont to be paid fully before the Monks came thither; that would show that Parochial payment was become a custom before the year 1144, when Boxley abbey was founded 
Monastic. Angl. T. 1. pag. 827. , and as well in all other places as there, for ought appears to the contrary in the Decretal: Yet the best Copy of that Decree reads otherwise, and grounds not the Order on any Custom, but saith, The Bishop shall compel those Monks to pay Tithes as fully as they had been paid before they came into that Parish 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 30. cap. 4. pag. 1327. . So that here we see Parochial right prevailed against the Monks pretences long before that General Council of Lateran, which he would persuade us first fixed that right. And now at length Mr. S. grants, what he disputed so hotly against pag. 138, 139. viz. That the aforesaid Canon of that Lateran Council was not concerning Parochial Tithes, but only concerning passing Feodal Tithes out of Lay hands to the Church, and in that case the Bishops consent was sufficient to make such a Conveyance good; but not to make good a Lay donation of Parochial Tithes: which abundantly proves Parochial right was not settled in that Lateran Council, but established long before; and we have Mr. S. his own confession in the end of this Section, pag. 149, That this Council did not directly constitute Parochial right, but rather supposed it as of former time. Wherefore it is to no purpose for him to bring in that gross mistake of his dull Monkish Historians, who say, that Pope Gregory, An. 1274, in the Council of lions first ordained, That no man should assign his Tithes at his own will, as formerly, but should pay them all to his Parish Church: for this was constituted long before, and Mr. S. grants therere is no such matter to be found in that Council of lions, out of which they pretend to take it; so that it must pass for a mistake of the Monks, unless they mean it of that Lateran Council, which allowed not such disposals of Parochial Tithes, no not with the Bishops consent, because they found the inconvenience of impoverishing Parish Churches to enrich Monasteries, so that indeed after this Lateran Council Parochial right was more strictly observed than before. But as for what he cites out of a Spanish Council, An. 1322, concerning the liberty which Men had then in the diocese of Palentia, to declare themselves of what Parish they would, it is nothing to other Countries; for the reason is given in that very Council, viz. Because as yet no certain limits had been assigned to Parishes there 
V. council. ap. been. T. 3. par. 2. p. 811, 812. ; but in Italy, France, Germany, and England, there were Parishes limited many hundred years before; wherefore there Parochial right was settled of ancient time, and from the beginning of this four hundred years very generally and regularly observed.  
§. II. The Opinions of this Age are less considerable, because we have already related the sounder Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, in times of more Learning and Integrity, and therefore the Canonists Opinion is most to be valued because it is grounded upon the sayings of Fathers and Canons of old Councils, and so comes nearest to the sense of the Primitive Ages: and Mr. S. confesses 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 7. p. 150. , they do generally hold Tithes are due Jure Divino, nor do they only city the Levitical Law, but divers places of the Gospel also to prove it 
Rebuffus de Decimis, qu. 1. p. 13,& alii. . 'tis true, the dependence they had on the Pope inclines them to give him too much power,( as in other things, so) in the disposition of this Sacred Revenue, and hence they justify Alienations, Appropriations and Exemptions by Papal Authority, especially if the Bishop consent thereto. By which we may learn, that the ill practise of the former Age in conveying Tithes to Monasteries, and exempting them, is no certain proof that Tithes were not held due by Gods Law in those times, for the Canonists generally hold them Jure Divino, and yet allow that practise. And now we shall only make two or three remarks on what Mr. S. saith of this point: First, He confesseth, Parochial right was so settled in this Age, that the person need make no other Title to Tithes, but only to prove they grew in his Parish, pag. 151. Secondly, That it was taken for granted by the Canonists, that S. Augustine, and S. Hierom, were clear for the right of Tithes, since their sayings were cited as Law in this matter. Thirdly, These Canonists generally disallow all Customs to do diminish the Quota, as being contrary to Gods Law, p. 153. Fourthly, And they generally hold all Feudal Tithes came from the Church at first, and cannot now be retained in Lay hands, but ought to be restored.  
§. III. The Opinion of the School-men, as Mr. S. saith, was, That only a Competency is due to the Clergy by the Divine Moral Law, the quota of a Tenth being but of Ecclesiastical Institution 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 7. p. 156. . But we must observe, these School-men were generally Monks, who cunningly invented this Doctrine to spoil the Parochial Rectors of their Tithes, or however to get a Maintenance out of the People, besides what they paid to their Parsons; for Alexander of Hales, the first Author of this distinction, about An. 1230, was a Franciscan friar, and in that very place where he disputes this point, he concludes thus, Therefore we are obliged now to give as large a quantity or larger— Christians are bound to give this or more, if they will enter into the Kingdom of heaven 
Alens. Part. 3. qu. 51. m. 3. . After him Aquinas a preaching friar also saith, The Tenth was instituted by the Church in a kind of humanity or condescension 
second. 2. qu. 1. art. 1. ; implying, this was the lowest measure; but that men were bound to give more, that is,( we must suppose) give to the friars beside the Tithe paid to the Parish Rector: But when the Monks found the Pope and greater Clergy inclinable to exempt Monasteries, and endow them with Tithes taken from Parish Rectors, they thought nothing could better defend them in these unjust possessions, than this device of making Tithes to be of Ecclesiastical Institution; for thus they could answer Petrus Blesensis, Sarisburiensis, and others, who had opposed this practise, as being a dispensing with the Law of God. Besides, this Opinion served to defend them in the enjoying of Parish Churches and Tithes, only assigning a small portion to the Vicar or ministering Priest there,( a practise which had its original from the Monks) and this they called Competens beneficium; The Monasteries( saith Hales) ought to assign a competent benefit to him that Ministers the Sacrament, or else they are Robbers of the Church, and unjustly detain Tithes 
Alens. m. 16. art. 2. . From this Opinion also sprung divers other pernicious consequences, as Mr. S. himself observes, The opinion of Tithes, being mere Alms,( he saith) sprung from hence 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 7. p. 166. , and Customs of paying less, yea of paying nothing, were hence allowed 
Ib. p. 164. . This Doctrine also is pleaded to take away the Jurisdiction of Tithes from the Church, and to justify the Alienation of them 
Ib. p. 181. . Wherefore this Opinion being invented for base ends, and the maintaining it producing such mischievous effects, ought by all means to be exploded. But we may be sure Mr. S. will be wonderfully kind to an Opinion tending so evidently to undermine the Right of Tithes, and therefore he pleads, That Hales was not the first Author of it, but that those Ancients who speak of Lex Divina,& Deus praecepit, &c. means no more than Lex Ecclesiastica,& Ecclesia praecepit 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 7. p. 159. . This he infers first from the practise of the time, in consenting to Appropriations, &c. which he thinks in Conscience they could not have done, if they had believed Tithes were due by Gods Law; but we have so fully shewed how that practise and this Opinion was reconciled in that Age, that this Exception signifies nothing. And, Secondly, if any of the Late Doctors, who follow this Opinion of the School-men, would gladly strain the Fathers expressions( as Mr. S. here doth) and force them to seem of their own side, it is no wonder, since all novel Errors usually seek the Patronage of Antiquity. Thirdly, Therefore we will examine the places of the Ancients, and show that Lex Divina in them doth not signify Lex Ecclesiastica, as Mr. S. asserts. Not only mayor, but Bellarmin also alleges, that S. Ambrose saith Lent was Divinitus instituta, which yet they suppose means no more, but that it was of Ecclesiastical Institution 
mayor ad 4. sent. dist. 15. qu. 3. Bellarm. de Clericis, l. 4. c. 24. , and this they apply to the sayings of the Ancients concerning Tithes: Yet the same Bellarmine elsewhere cites this very phrase of S. Ambrose, to prove Lent was instituted by Christ 
Bellarm. de verbo Dei scripto, l. 4. c. 9. , which indeed seems to be S. Ambrose his true meaning, only this shows Bellarmines honesty, who turns these phrases as he pleaseth to serve a present turn. But it seems Mr. S. could not find any Author long before Hales who so used this Phrase, for his first instance is but of Pope Alexander the Third, An. 1180, who speaking of a prescription of Tithes saith, De jure divino& humano melior est conditio possidentis; but whatever his MSS. Copy saith, I am sure the Decretal hath no more than this, De jure melior est conditio possidentis 
Decret. l. 2. Tit. 26. c. 6. pag. 933. ; and if this be the true reading, then it is nothing to his purpose; yet if we allow his own reading Alexander may red it of the Divine natural Law, and so it will not prove what Mr. S. intends: however we are very sure that this Pope Alexander did fully believe Tithes were due by the Law of God, and not by the Law of the Church only, for he saith, They manifestly oppose the Divine Institution, who do not pay Tithes to the Church 
Append. ad council. Later. p. 4. c. 2. been. T. 3. p. 2. pag. 578. ; and therefore in whatever sense he use Lex Divina in the afore-cited Decretal( where there is no question by what Law Tithes were due to the Church, but only to which of two Churches One portion of them belonged) it is sure he was not of Hales his Opinion: Who is likewise falsely cited by Mr. S. as if he used the words Jure Divino for Jure Ecclesiastico, whereas Hales hath not the words Jure Divino there, but he is proving that Tithes ought to be free from Tribute, &c. Because( saith he) the Church receives not Tithes as a Common profit, but as the general Lords Tribute, Autoritate Divinâ, and therefore the stipend of Tithes is free from all obligation to Secular service 
Ales. par. 3. qu. 51. m. 5. , where we see his words are ( by Divine Authority,) and his sense must be more than Ecclesiastical Authority, or else how could Tithes be free from Secular service, if they were only of the Churches Institution? Wherefore I think he means plainly, They are received by virtue of Gods Law; and if this seem to contradict his former Opinion, I reply, that is no wonder, for elsewhere he saith, Non cessavit Sacramentum Decimarum quia de Lege Naturae, maximè fuit 
Idem p. 4. q. 2. m. 2. : so that sometimes they are due by the Law of Nature, sometimes by the Law of God, and sometimes by the Laws of the Church, according to this Author. As for the Council of Lateran, An. 1215, it was in Hales his time, and however the phrase Lex Divina be used there, it will not thence appear it was anciently used so( which is that Mr. S. was to prove;) nor yet is it clear that those words of that Council, Decimae— quae debentur ex Lege divinâ, vel loci censuetudine approbatâ 
council. Later. can. 53. ap. been. T. 3. p. 2. pag. 692. , do any way signify as Mr. S. would have them; for an ancient Canonist( as Mr. S. confesses) interprets it of Predial Tithes due by Gods Law, and Personal Tithes due by the approved Custom of the place, which Mr. S. grants might be a tolerable Interpretation, if the distinction of Predial and Personal Tithes were as old as this Lateran Council, and for that matter Mr. S. himself in the next page. cites this very distinction out of Hales, who lived at the very time of this Council 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 7. p. 164. ; yea and he also tells us, that Pope Innocent the Fourth( who wrote long before he was Pope, viz. An. 1246) uses this distinction as well known in his time 
Ibid. p. 152. ; wherefore since this is a good Interpretation, what reason is there to strain these words to any other Sense, especially since 'tis very plain, that Pope Innocent the Third, under whom this Council was assembled, did hold Tithes were due by Gods Law, and not by Ecclesiastical Law only, for he saith, God hath reserved Tithes to himself by a special Title as a sign of his Universal dominion 
Innocent: ap. Seld. p. 144. , and again, God commands them to be paid in token of his Universal dominion 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 30. c. 26. pag. 1341. , they are due by Divine Constitution 
Idem ibid. c. 25. p. 1339. , and due by the Divine Command 
Idem c. 26. pag. 1342. . All which are plain proofs that he believed Tithes due by the Law of God, and so 'tis not reasonable to expound Lex Divina, in his Council, by Lex Ecclesiastica; nor hath Mr. S. yet given one good proof that it is so used any where else, wherefore it remains that the covetous and crafty Monks first invented this Opinion: For Hugo de S. Victore, An. 1130, doth not at all countenance this Opinion, since the Liberty he speaks of under the Gospel, agrees not with the Monks Opinion of a Tenth, being determined by the Law of the Church. And indeed all the liberty this Author means, is a liberty to give more than a Tenth( as Irenaeus held of old,) for he is plain enough that Tithes were due by Gods Laws now; Tithes( saith he) are so instituted from the beginning, that they could never be alienated without sin— for they are reserved under the Law of Grace for the Ministers maintenance— so that it is sacrilege for any to retain them, but those to whose maintenance they were ordained by Divine Institution 
Hugo de S. Victore, de Sacram. l. 2. p. 9. c. 10. . We conclude therefore, that the School-men and Monks did first alter that, which was the Currant Doctrine of the Church about An. 1200, for a little before Urban the Third said, Tithes are known to be granted to the Ministers of the Church, as well by the Old as the New Law 
Bibl. Clun. p. 1448. ; and Beleth, An. 1200, He that presumes to retain Tithes, is become a Transgressor of the Divine Law, and sins mortally 
Joan. Beleth. explic. div. office. c. 5. ; and at the same time Frederic the Emperor saith, The Duty of Tithes is confirmed by both Testaments 
Const. Sic. Frederic. l. 1. Tit. 6. ; and thus do all Authors of that Age speak, so that it may be hoped, when divers( who have too greedily received this plausible Opinion of the Schools) do perceive, that it is so contrary to Antiquity, and invented for evil ends, and that it is so prejudicial in its consequences to the safety of that Sacred Maintenance, which supports the profession of Religion, they will renounce it, especially since it is false, as well as novel and mischievous, as we have sufficiently proved in this whole discourse.  
§. IV. The Spawn of the former Doctrine was the Opinion of the Mendicant friars, who taught, that Tithes were mere Alms, not due by any right to the Parish Ministers, and might be disposed of or retained at the Owners pleasure 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 7. p. 165. . But Mr. S. explodes this Doctrine as a base design merely to get Tithes from the Secular Clergy, and to excuse their detaining them in Lands belonging to their Monasteries; and he tells us withal, that Innocent the Fourth writ against these new Teachers, as preaching against both the Old and New Testament, An. 1240. He brings in also Richardus Armachanus, An. 1350, as greatly complaining of them, noting withal, that Wicklief, Brute, and Thorp, followed these friars in this point, whose Arguments Mr. S. doth not think worth the relating, nor I the confuting. The Council of Constance( following in this, the Primitive Canons against the Eustathian heretics) justly condemned these Innovators; and though the Bohemians agreed with these in denying the right of Tithes, it is to be observed, they had first spoiled the Clergy of all their Possessions, and then could not defend their sacrilege, but by this specious Error. Erasmus it seems was at first inclined to this Opinion; but since he received a Parsonage in Kent, and took Tithes there afterward, there is no doubt but he recanted his former Principles, which is all I observe concerning this matter.  
§. V. Mr. S. had  told us before, pag. 150, that the first Opinion was that of the Canonists, who held Tithes due by the Divine Moral Law; yet now he reckons as a Third Opinion, That Tithes, as to the Quota, are due from the Moral or Divine Natural Law 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 7. p. 168. , which seems to be the very same Opinion with the first. But he censures the Author of a Penitential made about the time of Henry the Sixth, for impudently urging a Command given from God to Adam, about paying Tithes 
Ib. p. 169. . Yet Hugo de S. Victore, who was lately cited by Mr. S. with approbation, saith, We believe that God taught Adam how to worship him, that he might recover his favour, lost by the Transgression, and he taught his Sons to give Tithes and First-fruits 
Hug. de S. Victor. annot. in Genes. c. 4. . Peter Comestor also saith, We believe Adam by the Spirit taught his Sons to offer to God Tithes and First-fruits 
Scholast. Histor. in Gen. cap. 26. . Nor is this Tradition without ancienter footsteps among the Jews, and Abrahams fixing on a Tenth so readily, as if it had been known from the beginning, makes it neither so impudent nor improbable, as Mr. S. pretends, that Adam had a Command from God to teach his Sons to pay Tithes. As for the condemnation of friar Russel as a Heretic, by the University of Oxford, for maintaining, That Personal Tithes were not due by the Law of God, but only by Custom; Mr. S. somewhat too rashly censures their Sentence, since it was the Opinion first of the whole Convocation, and then of that famous University of Oxford, to which also the University of Cambridge subscribed 
Registr. Rossense, An. 1425. ; and Leutardus in Rodul. Glaber, and Wicklief in the Council of Constance, had both been declared heretics before on the same account: And whereas he saith, Many who search most curiously into this matter( reckoning no doubt himself for one) are of the same Opinion 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 7. p. 174. . I reply, The School-men( who, he tells us, are most curious in this point) generally make no difference between Personal and Predial Tithes 
Ib. p. 163. , no nor the Old Canonists neither 
Ib. p. 152. , whom he counts to be the best 
Ibid. p 97. . But S. Paul expressly saith, we must give part of all our goods, Galat. vi. 6. and S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, and others say, Tithe is due out of all that Men live by: so that it is no wonder if the later Authors and Councils( as Mr. S. shows pag. 175) follow the elder herein; for indeed it is both the truer and the older Opinion, that Personal, as well as Predial Tithes, are due by the Law of God, and so ought not to be subject to any Customs, especially not to such as cut them quiter off.  
§. IV. The rest of this Chapter is an account how the modern Secular Laws, Customs, and practise of divers Countries, have opposed the ancient and approved Opinion of the Divine right of Tithes, concerning which we shall not dispute the matter of Fact with Mr. S. in his own Profession; but supposing all he saith in this matter be true, it will not follow, either that the Divine right of Tithes is a false Opinion, or that these Customs of later Ages are sufficient to direct or secure any mans Conscience, when there is so great proof that the Truth lies on the other side. There are many things to which Conscience obliges us, though Secular Laws leave us free; and many things are evil and unjust, which no human Law either forbids or punishes. The Rule of our duty( saith Seneca) is much larger than that of the Laws; how many things do Piety, Humanity, Liberality, Justice and Fidelity oblige us to, that are not in the public Statutes 
Sen. de ita, l. 1. c. 26. . The Laws of our Courts are one thing, and the Law of Heaven is another 
Augustin. hom 49. . Caesars Laws and Christs are different, Papinian enjoins one thing and S. Paul another 
Hieron. Epitaph. Fabiolae. . Grotius, who was himself a Lawyer, and understood the Laws of all Nations as well as any Man in this Age, gives many instances wherein the Civil Laws of divers Kingdoms, are contrary to equity and the Law of God 
Grotius de jure belly& pacis. l. 3. c. 2.§. 2. ; and, There are many things( saith Cicero) which we ought not to do, though the Laws permit us 
Cicero pro Balbo. ; and therefore to argue from human Constitutions, that a thing is right in point of Equity and Conscience, is no good reasoning: for indeed evil Customs are many times so universal, and so rooted, that the best Legislators despairing to root them out, are forced to make their Laws bend to them; even Moses himself( by Gods permission) was forced to allow Divorces to the Jews, because of the hardness of their hearts, and to give them Statutes which were not good, Ezek. xx. 25. And not only he, but all the Law-givers of the World, if they were asked, Whether their Laws were the best that could be devised, must answer, Not simply the best, but the best that the circumstances would allow 
Origen in cells. l. 3. . When a 'vice grows general, and the Offenders are great Men, it is hardly safe to make strict Laws against it, as Tiberius observed of the sumptuary Laws at Rome, which some would have revived, I know not whether I should persuade you rather to let alone strong and overgrown Vices, than to get this by making Laws against them, to make it public what Crimes are too hard for us 
Tacit. Annal. l. 3. . He must be a great stranger to the World, who knows not how easily an ill thing grows into a custom, and how easily afterwards interest will pass that into a Law: so that to think every thing right that was settled by Custom and human Law, is a great Error. We should ever prefer that which is just before that which is the Custom, saith Synesius 
Synes. Epist. 57. pag. 201. ; for Truth( as Tertullian speaks) is of that nature, that no prescription can hold against it, no length of time, no eminence of Persons, no privilege of Countries 
Tertul. de veland virgin. . Isidore P●leusiota adds, We must not judge of the goodness or badness of any thing merely by the time of its continuance— for he that prefers Custom before Equity shall involve himself in a thousand wickednesses 
Isid. Peleus. l. 2. ep. 46. ; and if that every Law that arises from an evil Custom could make a false Opinion true, or an ill practise good, we might say with Seneca, With us Error made public stands in the place of Truth 
Senec. Epist. 123. . We have shewed there were of old good Laws both Civil and Ecclesiastical, and the general opinion and practise of the best sort of men, contrary to these Customs, which Mr. S. here relates. And these Customs had their rise from the malice of the Devil, as King Edward's Laws speak 
Spelm. council. Tom. 1. p 620. , from the Covetousness 
Alcuinus ap. Seld. p. 71. , and wickedness of the Laity 
Ludovicus ap. Seld. p. 177. , and the folly and negligence of the Clergy( who betrayed the Churches rights to ingratiate with great Men) contributed to establish them; so that if there be such Laws and Customs in any Country, as oppose the Divine right of Tithes, they are not to be urged as a proof of right; and therefore we shall briefly pass them by with some short notes on the particulars. Pag. 178. There were in France good Laws, Civil as well as Ecclesiastical, to oblige all Tithes to be restored to the Church, and their Lawyers( who should best understand this matter) do affirm, that all Infeodate Tithes in France first came from the Church, for which cause the Clergy there owe it to their Predecessors ill management, that these Lands pay no Tithes parochially. And pag. 181. The School-mens Doctrine helped those that possessed them to a plausible excuse, why they should not restore them. Pag. 183. The Customs, De non Decimando, it seems were sometimes allowed in France, and sometimes not, according to the Judges opinion( perhaps, Interest) before whom the cause lay; but Mr. S. ought not to call the disallowing this bad Custom, a usurpation of the Canons upon the Secular Law; for these modern Secular Laws and Customs had rather usurped upon the old Civil Laws and Canons too, and when the juster and ancienter Laws took place, it cannot be called Usurpation.  
§. VII. Pag. 184. He confesseth, that the Tithes which are in the Crown of Spain, or that have been infeodated by those Kings, were granted by the Pope, and that Cum onere dotandi Ecclesias, on condition to endow the Churches other ways, which was indeed an unfit exchange, but not plain robbery; and still those infeodate Tithes retain the marks of their coming from the Church, since divers of the Spanish Lawyers hold, that the connisance of them belongs only to the Spiritual Jurisdiction. Pag. 186. And it is but, quandoque, sometimes that these Causes are tried before the Kings Judges, and it's likely but of late years, for the oldest instance Mr. S. can bring is dated but An. 1525; for there were not only Canons, but Civil Laws also in that Country,( pag. 185) which decreed on the Churches side, though evil Customs it seems bore them down there, as well as elsewhere. Pag. 188. That Infeodation of the Tithes belonging to the Family of the Mutii at Piacenza, was probably derived from the Church, because it was confirmed by the Pope. The Ordinance of the Emperor Frederic( which I cited before§. 3.) clearly declares Tithes are due by the Law of God, and this passage cited by Mr. S. owns them due to the Churches; and the reason why they are appointed to be paid in such manner as they were in the time of King William, is because they were then well and generally paid. Pag. 190. The Council of Lateran indeed speaks of some foreigners mingled among the Nations about Italy, who pretended Customs of Non-payment; but the Canon saith, They scarce deserve the name of Christians, and enjoins them, contrary to so wicked a Custom, to pay Tithes according to the Law of God, and the Custom of the Western Nations: and if these mixed People were Greeks and Armenians, yet surely the Law of God, and usage of all Western Nations, ought to prevail over their evil Customs; but we have proved before, that the Greeks did pay Tithes of old, and therefore it is not likely to be meant of them. Pag. 191. The liberty of Non-payment of Tithes of waste-grounds in Poland for 30 years, was granted by the Bishop of Cracovia, and he that hath a right, may abstain from using it in some cases and for some time, if he please. Pag. 192. As for Scotland, I appeal to the History of that Church to show by what ill practices( in the hurry of a Reforming humour) Tithes were taken from the Church there, and how much Mr. Knox, and other Advisers of that project, repented thereof when it was too late. Pag. 193. But the strangest thing of all this Chapter is, that Mr. S. should confidently produce a late confirmation( by Robert Bruce( afterward King of Scotland) An. 1290) of an old settlement of some Churches on a Monastery; as if it were an instance of an Original Appropriation made by a Lay-man long after the Lateran Council: whereas the Monasticon will inform us, these Churches were appropriate to that Monastery by the Ancestors of this Robert 140 years before; and this Charter which Mr. S. cites is nothing but a confirmation of former Grants. These Churches were first assigned to the Priory of Giseburn by the Son of the Founder Robert Bruce, Lord of Anandale, circ. An. 1150; and the old Bishops of Durham had appropriated such of them as were in that diocese to these Monks of Giseburn, as appears by a Charter in the Monasticon 
Anglican. Tom. 2. p. 152. : and it is likely the Bishop of York had appropriated the rest, though the Charter be not extant, because Sir Robert Bruce, Father of this Robert Lord of Anandale, and Founder of this Priory, declares, he founded it by the admonition and counsel of Pope Calixtus, and Turstan Archbishop of York 
Ib. p. 147.  An. 1124. so that as the Father had Ecclesiastical consent, so no doubt had the Son also. But this Robert Lord of Anandale, the Second of that name, was Father of William Bruce, and he Father of Robert the Third( whose Charter of Confirmation to these very Churches is yet extant 
Monastic. p. 152. circ. An. 1200. ), which Robert the Third was Father of Robert the Fourth, and the Father of Robert the Fifth, who by the Daughter and Heir of the Earl of Carrect, had Robert Bruce( the Sixth of that name) who made a Confirmation of his Predecessors Grants; and of those Churches by name, which were given 140 years before by his Ancestors, and this is the Charter( dated An. 1290) which Mr. S. very honestly cites for an Original Appropriation, and for such it might pass with Readers that rely on Mr. S. his integrity without examining; but I assure them 'tis dangerous to follow such a guide, for upon such mistakes are most of his Arbitrary Consecrations and Lay Appropriations founded, as we will show in the Eleventh Chapter.   

CHAP. VIII. Of the English Laws for Tithes.  
§. I. THE Laws and practise of England in point of Tithes were put by themselves, because they chiefly concern us, and because they are fuller and were better observed than in most other Nations; but Mr. S. begins too late, omits many, and discredits some of those he produces, wherefore for the perfecting this Collections of Laws we will add what is wanting, and vindicate what is unjustly disparaged with all the brevity we can. If we look back to the first Conversion of the Saxons, it will appear very probable that Tithes were paid among them as soon as Christianity itself was settled; for in the Laws of King Edward the Confessor, after the enumeration of all kind of things whereof Tithes are to be paid, it is said, Haec enim praedicavit B. Augustinus, & concessa sunt à Rege, baronibus& populo 
Spelm. council. T. 1. p. 620. , and an old Manuscript of these Laws hath this Marginal Note there, Of the preaching of S. Augustine the Apostle of England: And this very Augustine the Monk, is called S. Augustinus in ancient Record 
Lambard. Archaionom. p. 137. ; so that it is very likely this is meant of the preaching of Augustine the Monk, and the Grant of King Ethelbert his Barons and People, An. 600. for neither did the Father S. Augustine preach for the payment of all the particulars there enumerated, nor can his preaching many hundred years before be well applied to the Grants of any of our Saxon Kings. Nor is it unlikely, that Tithes were paid here in Augustines time, because he came from Italy and France, where we have shewed they were well paid long before; and we have noted, that Rupertus, the Apostle of the Bavarians, persuaded that People to pay Tithes above 60 years before the Conversion of England; yea an old Historian relates, That a certain Fisherman, who lived in S. Augustines time, constantly offered the Tithe of his Fishing to the Church of S. Peters, Westminster, and obliged his Heirs to do the same, which they had continued to do till the days of Edward the Confessor 
Ailredus Rieval. vit. Ed. Confess. l. 1. col. 386. . Since therefore Tithes were then paid, it is very likely there might be a Law made for it, and 'tis probable, that Law of King Ethelbert against the taking away res Ecclesiae,( or as it is in Saxon) Gods Fee 
Bed. hist. l. 2. c. 5 p. 62. Spelm council. T. 1. p. 127. An. 610. , must be expounded of Tithes also, which the Saxons usually called Gods Right, or Gods Fee. But it is certain, that Tithes were ordinarily paid here about 140 years after; for Boniface, Bishop of Mentz, in his Epistle to the Archbishop of Canterbury expressly saith, The Clergy here did receive the Wool and Milk of Christs sheep, in the daily Oblations and Tithes of the Faithful 
Bonifac. ad Cuthbert. Ep. 105. ap. Seld. p. 66. An 750. ; and if it were so general and usual then, the practise must needs have begun long before. And upon this ground, the Laws of King Ina for paying the Cyric-sceat, An. 692 
Spelm. council. T. 1. p. 181. ; those of King withered, forbidding Lay-men to possess Things anciently given to God, An. 694 
Ib. p. 189. , and enjoining, that the Church should have its Revenue, An. 697 
Ib. p. 194. : As also the Charter of King Ethelbald, That the Servants of God( so the Clergy were then commonly called 
Spelm. gloss. verb. Parliamentum. Selden Hist. Tithes, p. 215. ) should have their proper liberty in the Profits of the Woods, the Fruits of the Fields, and of Fishing, An. 749. 
Spelm. C ncil. T. 1. p. 264.  All these I say may very reasonably be expounded of Tithes, which undoubtedly were paid to the Church in that Age.  
But the first Laws now extant which mention them by name, are the Canons collected by Egbert, Archbishop of York( Brother to Eadbert King of Northumberland) An. 750. in the very time of Boniface, Bishop of Mentz, the Fourth of which Canons Commands the Priest to teach the People how to pay Tithes: The Fifth appoints him that receives them, to keep a Register of the Names of such as paid them, and to divide them according to caconical Authority before Witnesses. The 24th forbids taking Tithes from ancient church: The 25th, That Priests should do no Secular service for Tithes: The 99th is the Precept of Moses Law; and the 100th, the Sayings of S. Augustine for Tithes. This being so full and so ancient Authority, Mr. S. labours by all means to discredit it: First, Because some of these Canons are the same syllables with the French Capitulars, made 30 years after Egberts death 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 8. p. 197. . To which I reply, That though it be so in some few of them, yet there is no reason to suspect these Collections taken out of the Capitulars, but great cause to believe the Capitulars were taken out of these Collections; for Alcuinus, Tutor to Charles the Great, who advised and assisted in the making of the French Capitulars, was Egberts Scholar; and when this Alcuine was to collect matter for the Capitulars, Malmsbury tells us, he writ to Charles, That he might have books of exquisite Scholastical Learning, such as he had in his own Country, by the pious and devout industry of his Master. Egbert, the Archbishop— and that the King would sand some Youths into Britain, to bring into France the choice Collections that were there 
Malms. de gest. pontiff. l. 3. pag. 153. . And the same Author there describes Egbert, as a Magazine of all liberal Arts, a great Lover and Collector of Books, having set up a most noble Library at York. Which makes it very plain, that Charles the Great had a Copy of these Collections before he made his Capitulars, and therefore it is no wonder if the very words of these Canons be transcribed there. Secondly, Whereas the Fifth of Egberts Canons speaks of, dividing Tithes according to caconical Authority before Witnesses: Mr. S. objects, That there was no caconical Authority for dividing Tithes before Witnesses, till an Imperial made in the 11th year of Charles the Great, long after Egberts death 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 8. p. 198. . But Mr. S. grossly mistakes this Imperial, for it only appoints, That if any difference arise between the Priest and his Parishioner, whether Tithes were paid or no, Four or Eight honest men shall be chosen, to witness between the Priest and People, whether the Parishoner did give his Tithes or no 
Edit. vit. Amberbach. c. 7. Leg. Longob. lib. 3. Tit. 3. ; but this is nothing at all to that caconical division of Tithe( already received) into four Parts, which Egberts Law saith, is to be done before Witnesses. The Imperial speaks of Witnesses between Priests and People at the paying of Tithes; but Egbert treats of Witnesses, to see that Priests rightly distributed the Tithe already paid; which shows the impertinency of this allegation, and Mr. S. his desire to feign seeming Objections when he wants real ones: Which ill dealing of his will still be plainer when we observe, there was good caconical Authority before Egberts time for thus dividing, Tithes received, before Witnesses. The Council of Antioch, An. 341, orders, That the Bishop do make the Priest and Deacons acquainted with the Goods of the Church, and do not distribute them without their knowledge 
council. Antioch. Can 24. . Pope Gelasius also had decreed, That the distribution should be attested by the notification of Witnesses present at it, An. 494. 
Gelas. Ep. l. 1. c 29.  Another old Council had appointed, The Bishop should do it in the presence of the Priests and Deacons according to caconical Institution, An. 541. 
council. Arvern. ap. been. T. 2. p. 2. pag. 32. . Wherefore this was a thing enjoined by the Canons long before Egberts time. and we may conclude both, that these Canons were the genuine Collections of Egbert, and that they are good proof, that Tithes were paid here by virtue of these Canons as anciently as the year 750.  
§. II. The next Law is the 17th Canon of the great Council of Calcuth, An. 787; where, after the Precept of Moses, and the place of Malachy related, All men are earnestly pressed to take care to pay Tithes of whatever they possessed, because it is Gods special part, therefore they must live on the Nine parts, and give Alms out of them 
Spelm. council. Tom. 1. p. 298. . Mr. S. grants, this is a most observable Law being made with such solemnity by both Powers of both States, and thinks it was made general to all England, if it be of good Authority 
Hist. Tithes, Ch 8. p. 201. : But he can give no reason why it should not be genuine, and he himself answers all his own Objections, and concludes, pag. 202, It cannot be suspected by any circumstance in the Subscriptions, which being so many, might have by chance soon got among them a Character of falsehood, had it not been genuine. Wherefore we will take this for another Authentic Law for Tithes, An. 787. and though the very Syllables of this Council are found in the Constitutions of Odo Archbishop of Canterbury, An. 943, yet that is no more than usual, viz. for later Decrees to repeat the words of elder Councils, when there was occasion to revive an ancient Canon. And it doth show, that the giving Tithes was now held a piece of Religion in this time, in that King Offa gave the Tithe of all he possessed to the Church, An. 793. 
Histor. Jorvalens. col. 776. polydore. Virgil. hist. Angl. l. 4.   
§. III. I know not for what reason Mr. S. here puts the Son before the Father, and the Year 878 before 858; but we must rectify the order, and begin with the famous Charter of King Ethelwolph, the first hereditary sole Monarch of the English Saxons reigning peaceably, and so the First who could make a general Law to bind the whole Kingdom to pay Tithe, which by Canons and particular Laws of some Provinces was paid in many places before. As for this Law, it was made in a General Council of the whole Kingdom, or( as Mr. S. speaks) by the Parliamentary consent of that time; and since it is too much to city at large; we will take Mr. S. his account of it, who saith, The purpose of the Charter was to make a general Grant of Tithes, payable freely, and discharged from all kind of Exactions used in that Time— so that the Tithes of predial and mixed Profits was given, it seems, perpetually by the King, with the consent of his States both Secular and Ecclesiastic; and the Tithe of every Mans personal Possession were at that time also expressly included in the gift 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 8. p. 207. . This therefore is so clear Evidence, and so great Authority, that there is nothing more need be added, but briefly to note, that Mr. Fox doth unjustly contract the sense of this Royal Law, as if it were a donation of Land only, and a particular Consecration to the Church of one time 
apud Seld. p 208. ; for as Mr. S. rightly notes, the words of many Historians cannot be so interpnted, who say, He endowed the whole Church of England with Tithes 
Ingulphus, p. 491. ; He tithed all his Possession for Gods part, and appointed it should be so done all over his Kingdom 
ethelvverd. p. 478. ; He tithed his whole Kingdom 
Simeon Dunelm. p. 840. . And if some of them call it giving the Tenth part of his Land, they mean by His Land, his Kingdom, and use the Tenth part for the Tithe, or Tenth part of the Profits, for so we must understand, He Tithed his whole Land for the use of the Church 
H. Hunting. l. 5. p. 200. ; He Tithed his whole Land and gave it to the Church 
Hoveden, Annal. par. 1. pag. 231. ; He gave the Tithe of all the Hides in his Kingdom to Gods Servants, free from all burdens 
Malmsb. l. 2. c. 2. p. 20. . And let it be observed, that it was so well known then, that these Sacred Revenues should be discharged from Secular service, that some Authors make it all one to say, He freed the Tithe, or Tenth part, from all Service for ever 
Ingulphus, pag. 491. Florent. Wigorn. Seld. 205. Radulphus de Diceto, A. 849. Malms. p. 22. , and to say, he gave it for ever to the Church. And whereas Mr. S. would persuade us, that the payment of Tithes before Ethelwolphs time had commonly been omitted, because Ingulphus saith, Then he first endowed the Church with Tithes, &c. I reply, That this was the first time Ethelwolph made such a Grant, and the first general Grant to the whole Church of England; Ingulphi ibid. but the forecited proofs show, Tithes were generally paid long before, in divers parts of England; and it is like that Ethelwolphs Journey through France, and his marrying that Kings Daughter( where Tithes were so strictly established by Law) might occasion his making this general Law, which was confirmed by almost every one of his Successors.  
§. IV, and V. King Alfred, his Son, when he made the League with Guthran King of the Danes, An. 878. made a Law to lay pecuniary Mulcts on all English or Danes, who should detain or forhold their Tithes, the Dane being to forfeit Twenty shillings, and the English man, Thirty 
Spelm. council. T. 1. p. 377. ; which shows, that Ethelwolphs Law was both speedily and generally put in execution, since within twenty years after it was made, so large a Fine was set upon the breach of it, though it were by one of the Danes, as yet but lately converted to the Faith. Again, about the year 900 this same Law was renewed between King Edward( Son to Alfred) and the same King Guthrun 
Spelm. ibid. pag. 392. . The Church Laws also collected about the time of this King Edward, An. 900. called Statuta Synodorum, cited at large by Mr. Selden 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 8.§. 5 pag. 210. , reckons Tithes are due to the Church by the Law of God; and we may observe, that this Collection cites the Fifth of Egberts Canons( of which we spoken before) with this Preface, Lex dicit; which shows, that those Canons of Egbert were so far from being collected about the year 900( as Mr. S. suggests) that it is a plain proof, they had been long received into practise, and were looked upon as Authentic Laws in this time.  
§. VI. King Athelstan, Son of Edward, as Mr. S. notes, by the consent of his Bishops made a general Law for Predial and mixed Tithes 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 8. p. 213.  An 930. commanding they should be given to God, and that all his Judges and Officers should see this Law well executed by all both great and small 
pelm. council. T. 1. p. 396. Histor. Jorval. col. 840. . Which Command was so well received, that Jorvallensis saith, The Nobles, Gentry, and Commons of Kent, returned humble Thanks to the King for all his Laws, and particularly for this of Tithes, to observe which they were very forward and willing 
Jorval. hist. col. 850, .  
§. VII. King Edward, Brother and Successor to Athelstan, in a general Parliament of Clergy and Laity at London, An. 940. makes another Law, Charging all Christian Men upon their Christianity to pay their Tithes, and those who neglect it are declared accursed 
Spelm. council. T. 1. p. 420. Histor. Jorval. col. 858. . Which shows, how highly this Duty was then esteemed, since the neglecters of it were supposed to renounce their Christianity, and by a general Law were condemned to be Excommunicated. As for the Cyric-sceat, or Mensura bladi( not tritici, but) triturati, du bleé batu, in Fleta 
Fleta l. 1. c. 47. , which that Author saith was paid to the Church even from the time of the Britons, it may not be improbable, it was a sort of Tithe at first, if the Measure varied, according to the proportion of the Crop; but afterwards, when a regular Tithe was paid, this seems to have been retained as a kind of First-fruits of the Threshing-floor, and was paid beside the Tithe.  
§. VIII. About the same time, in this King Edmunds days, Malmsbury tells us there was Synodale Concilium, an Ecclesiastical Council, wherein Odo Bishop of Canterbury renewed certain Decrees, which he found among the ancient Precepts of famous Men that had been before him; and the Tenth of these Constitutions, is concerning Tithes, in the very words of the Council of Calcuth,( cited before,§. II.) out of which it is plain Odo had taken it, and therefore Mr. S. need not wonder why it should be in the same syllables.  
§. IX. King Edgar was Son to edmond, who in a full Assembly( as Mr. Lambard speaks,) and by the advice of his Wise men( as Mr. S.) made Laws for Tithes An. 967; but Mr. S. omits some passages, which Jorvallensis and Lambard both remember, and we will supply; the sum of these Laws are, 1. That the Church shall have all her rights, and that all Tithe shall be paid to the Mother Church in whose Parish a man lives. 2. Only, if a Lord have a Church with privilege of burial, on his own Free-land he may give the third part of his Tithes to it; but if it have not privilege of burial, the Lord of the Soil must maintain the Priest out of his Nine parts. 3. The Tithe of young cattle must be paid at Whitsuntide, and of the Earths-fruits before the middle of September, the First-fruits of Seed at Martinmas, and the Neglecters shall be punished, as is declared in the Book of Penalties. 4. If any Tithe not thus, the Kings Officer, with the Bishop and Priest of that Church, shall force him to restore the Tenth to the Church to which it is due, leaving him only the Ninth part, and the other Eight shall be given, half to the Lord, and half to the Bishop, whether he be the Kings Tenant, or a Barons 
Spelm council. T. 1. p. 444. Hist. Jorval. col. 871. . Which is a full and clear Authority for Parochial payment as can be; and the Penalties on Offenders are so severe, that we need not doubt of its being observed. In this Kings time also were certain Canons made in the Province of York, entitled Laws for the Priests on the North of Humber, the 51 Canon whereof declares, several Fines were set upon the detainers of Tithes, according to the quality of the Person, the Kings Thain being to pay Ten Nobles, the Lord of a Mannor Six Nobles, and the Farmor Twenty Shillings for this offence, as Spelman notes 
Spelm. council. T. 1. p. 501. ; but this Mr. S. omits.  
§. X, XI. King Ethelred, Son of King Edgar, in a general Council or Parliament at Enham, An. 1009. made Laws also for Tithes.( the Saxon Copy of which is the best Edition) enjoining every man truly to pay Gods rights every year, viz. The Plough-Alms within a fortnight after Easter, Tithe of young cattle at Whitsuntide, of the Fruits of the Earth at All-Saints 
Ibid. p. 513& 525. . There is also another Law made by this King and his Wise men at Haba, An. 1012. Commanding the Thayn to Tithe all that he possesseth, and enjoining all Men by the love of God to pay their First-fruits, and their full Tithe in such manner as when it was best paid in the days of former Kings, that is, the Tenth acre which the Plough goes over; and that all deuce be paid to the Mother Church to which they adjoin, and that no man presume to take away that which is Gods right, and which the Kings Ancestors had given to the Church 
Hist. Jorval. col. 901, 902. Spelm. council. T. 1. p. 530, 531. .  
§. XII. King Canutus repeated the former Law of King Ethelred at Enham, in a General Council at Winchester, An. 1020( or rather 1032) prescribing the same penalty on Offenders as King Edgar had done,§. IX 
Spelm. council. T. 1. p. 544. ; and Mr. S. rightly observes, these are those Laws which are properly called Leges Angliae, To the observance whereof( as Malmsbury tells us) our Kings, after the Conquest, did frequently Swear under the name of King Edwards Laws; not because he made them, but because he observed them 
Malmsb. de gestis reg. l. 2. c. 11. . And these are the Original of Magna Charta, the first Clause whereof gives the Church all her rights, and these Laws declare what were her rights in those days, viz. Tithes, above all other Possessions, which therefore are now secured by Magna Charta. About this time( as Spelman informs us) were those Canons collected, which enjoin the payment of Tithes, as a duty taught by the Holy Fathers, and directs the Division of them according to the Old Canons 
Can. Aelfrici ad Walsin. Can. 24. Spelm. T. 1. p 578. : And those which forbid any Priest to draw away anothers Parishioner, or persuade him to give them his Tithe: And further command, that Tithe be paid by Merchants and Artificers of their gains, as well as of the Fruits of the Earth 
Capitul. incert. Cap. 14.& 35. Spelm ibid. p. 593,& 610. .  
§. XIII. King Edward the Confessor not only observed the former Laws, but made a new Law about Tithes, An. 1050, which saith, Of all Corn, the Tenth Sheaf is due to God, and therefore to be paid; and the Law doth particularly prescribe the manner of paying Tithe of Colts, Calves, Cheese, Milk, Lambs, Fleeces, Pigs, Bees, Wood, Hay, Mills, Parks, Warrens, Fishing, Orchards, Gardens, and of all sorts of Trades, yea of all that God gives; it being reasonable he should have the Tithe, who gives both the Nine parts and the Tenth. And if any be contumacious, this Law orders, He shall be compelled to do his duty by the Power of the Bishop and the King, for the Blessed Austin preached these things, and the King, Barons, and People granted them 
Leg. Evard. 8, 9. Spelm. council. T. 1. pag. 620, 621. . And thus stood the Laws for Tithes at the time of the Conquest.  
§. XIV, XV. William the Conqueror, and his Successors, frequently ratifying these ancient Laws, was instead of making new Civil Laws for Tithes, but still there were divers Synodal Decrees concerning them: Mr. S. cites one made about the time of the Conquest, commanding, That Tithe be paid of all that is possessed by Gods bounty 
ap. Seld.§. 14. p. 225. ; and a little after a Council at Winchester, An. 1076, saith, That all Laymen must pay Tithe according to the Scripture, that is,( as another expounds it) Tithe of all 
Seld. p. 226. collat. cum Spelm. T. 2. pag. 12. . In the time of King William Rufus, Malmsbury remembers, it was decreed in the Council of Clermont, That every Church should have its own Tithe, nor should it be passed to any other, nor might the Laity buy or sell Tithes 
Malmsb. de gest. Reg. l. 4. c. 2. p. 74. , An. 1095.  
§. XVI, XVII. King Henry the First enacted, by the consent of his Bishops and Barons in Parliament at Westminster, An. 1102, That Tithes should be given only to the Churches 
Cap. 13. Spelm. council. Tom. 2. p. 22. : And a Council of his Bishops made a Decree, ratified by that King( which Mr. S. omits) An. 1127, That Tithes be fully paid as the Inheritance of the Most High God, and we do by caconical Authority forbid any Person to give or receive any Churches or Tithes, or other Ecclesiastical bnfice, without the consent and Authority of the Bishop 
Spelm. ibid. p. 36. è Contin. Florent. Wigorn. ; which utterly overthrows Mr. S. his pretended Arbitrary Consecrations about this time, and therefore he leaves it out; but he is so just as to tell us, this King made a Law, that his Officer, with the Bishops and Lords of the Mannor, and the Priest of the place should take away Nine parts from him, who would not pay the Tenth, as King Edgar had ordered before§. IX. 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 8. p. 227.   
§. XVIII. King Stephen allowed a Synod to be called at London, An. 1138. where, by the Popes Legate and our Bishops, it was decreed, That of every years increase full Tithe should be paid, and whoever did not perform this should be excommunicated 
Spelm. council. T. 2. p. 42. .  
§. XIX, XX. King Henry the Second, after his Conquest of Ireland, gave his Royal assent to the Canons of a Council at Cassel, An. 1172, one of which was, That all the Faithful shall pay the Tithe of their cattle, Fruit, and other Profits, to that Church of which they are Parishioners 
Spelm. council. T. 2. p. 97. . About this time also came those two Decretals of Pope Alexander the Third into England, ordering Tithes to be paid of Mills, Fishing, Hay, Wool, Bees, and all Fruits, unto the Churches to which they were due, under pain of Excommunication 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 30. c. 5. &c. 6. p. 1327. ; but observe, these Decretals enjoin no more than what was enacted in the Laws of King Edward the Confessor,§. XIII. A little after, in a general Synod at London, held in the presence of both Kings, Father and Son, divers Canons of old Councils were confirmed by their Royal assent and made Laws here, particularly that Canon of the Council of rouen: All Tithes of the Earth, whether of Fruits or Trees, are the Lords and sanctified to him; but since many refuse this duty, we appoint that, according to the Popes Decree, they be admonished thrice to pay Tithes truly, of all Grain, Wine, Fruits, young cattle, of Wool, Lamb, Butter, Cheese, Flax and Hemp, and other things yearly renewing, and if they amend not upon the admonition, let them be Excommunicated 
Spelm. ibid. pag. 105. Roger Hoveden fol. 311. , An. 1175.  
§. XXI. King Richard the First next followed, in whose time in a Provincial Council at York, An. 1195, it was declared, That Tithes were due by Gods Law, and decreed, That due and accustomend Tithe be fully paid of all yearly renewing, and that Servants and Labourers be paid out of the Nine parts 
Spelm. ibid. p. 122. .  
§. XXII. In King Johns time, in a general Council at London, An. 1200, after the Examples of Abraham and Jacob, and the Authority of both Testaments alleged to prove Tithes of yearly increase due to God and his Priests; it was again decreed, That no Wages be deducted before Tithe be paid, and that the Priests in Autumn shall excommunicate all defrauders of Tithes; and that new Tilled grounds shall pay Tithes only to the Parish Church 
Spelm. ibid. p. 126. . A little after Pope Innocent the Third sent a Decretal hither, An. 1210, to compel those in the diocese of Canterbury, who disposed of Tithes to other Churches, to pay them to their own Parish Church, by Excommunication 
Ep decret. Innocent. 3. l. 2. p. 452. . Richard, Bishop of Salisbury, An. 1217, made a full Synodal Decree for Tithes also, to the same purpose with the former Canon of the Council at London, An. 1200, and almost in the very words of that which Mr. S, cites§. 24. 
Spelm. ibid. p. 146.  And another very little different, was made soon after by Richard, Bishop of Durham, An. 1220 
Spelm. ibid. p. 171. , which Canons were observed as Law in their own dioceses: and this may suffice for his 23 and 24 Sections.  
§. XXV. In the Reign of King Henry the Third, edmond Archbishop of Canterbury renewed those Canons about Tithe, which are related before§. XXI, XXII. An. 1236; adding, That no Lay-man can prescribe De non Decimando, nor may deduct expenses out of Predial Tithes; and that Parish Priests may deny the Sacrament at Easter to such as detain their Tithes 
Spelm. ibid. p. 207. . The former Decree also of Richard, Bishop of Salisbury, was renewed again An. 1237. 
Ib. p. 237.  And in a Synod at Worcester, An. 1240, are divers Canons about Tithing Lambs, Calves, Wool, Cheese, and Hay, concluding with a Decree for Excommunicating offenders 
Ib p. 254. ; all which are omitted by Mr. S. The Constitution of Walter Grey, Archbishop of York, which Mr. S. saith he had not the Copy of, is the very same with that which he attributes to Robert Winchelsea, and transcribes at large pag. 233, as may be seen in Spelman 
Ib. p. 290. , it was made An. 1250, and the sum of it is, To settle one uniform Custom of tithing Hay, Lambs, Wool, Milk, Mills, Pasture, Fish-ponds, and all manual Arts; concluding with an Order, to excommunicate the Offenders after three admonitions, so as none but the Bishop shall absolve them; and to suspend the Parsons if they do not prosecute: And such another Constitution there is, though somewhat larger, made by the Bishop of Salisbury, An. 1256 
Ib. p. 302. , omitted also by Mr. S.  
§. XXVI. In King Edward the Firsts time, Robert Bishop of Durham made a like Constitution to that of Walter Greys, but fuller as to the particulars, An. 1276 
Ib. p. 316. ; and another as large as that, and as strict, made in a Synod at Exeter, An. 1287 
Ib. p. 391. : Also one made by Gilbert, Bishop of Chichester, for the full payment of Tithes, An. 1292 
Ib. p. 411. ; all omitted in Mr. S. his History. After these Robert Winchelsea, Archbishop of Canterbury, An. 1300, renewed the former Constitution of Walter Grey, and made it a Law for his Province also 
Spelm. council. T. 2. p. 431. .  
§. XXVII. In the time of King Edward the Second, and Edward the Third, there were divers Canons also made for Tithes; one very full Constitution in a Synod at Winchester, An. 1308 
Ib. p. 452. , and another made by Richard Bishop of Durham, An. 1312 
Ib. p. 476. , both which declare, Tithes are reserved by God in token of his universal Dominion, and blame the Custom of such as expected Feasts or Bribes from the Priests before they would pay their Tithes. And the general Council held at London by Simon Mepham, Archbishop of Canterbury, decrees the very same things for the whole Kingdom, An. 1328. 
Ib. p. 496.  The same Archbishop made another fuller Constitution for Tithes, and renewed the former Decree of Walter Grey and Robert Winchelsea, in a Council at Mayfield, An. 1332, which Mr. S. omits 
Ib. p. 502. .  
§. XXVIII. In King Edward the Thirds time also was that Council at London, under Archbishop Stretford, An. 1342. which condemns all such as hindered the due taking of any kind of Tithes 
Ib. p. 584. . In which Council also that Canon was made, which declares all Tithe to be due by the Authority of the Old and New Testament, and condemns those who refused to pay Tithes of Wood cut down, on this pretence, that they had not used formerly to pay such Tithe, notwithstanding which pretence they excommunicate the Offenders. And though Mr. S. spends six or seven following Sections in recording the Complaints of the Commons in Parliament against this Canon, yet it appears by his own relation, that the King put them off for 27 years together, and at last yielded but in part, for he only exempted Trees of twenty years growth: And after all, the Clergy thought their claim so equitable, that they did not give it over for many years after; and this is all I need remark upon his 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 Sections: and for brevity sake I shall now put what remains together.  
§. XXIX. In King Richard the Seconds time, William Courtney, Archbishop of Canterbury and legate of the Pope, made a large and full Decree for Tithes, An. 1393, in which all evil Customs of Tithing in a wrong manner, or of deferring the payment, are condemned as contrary to the Law of God 
Ib. p. 644. . And in Henry the Fourths time, when the Commons would have been exempted from paying Tithes of Quarries, the King rejected their Petition as unjust 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 8. p. 242. ; where by the way we may observe, that Mr. S. hath left out more than half of the Constitutions for Tithes since the Conquest, to make room for the complaints against Tithes, which he reports at large. Nor can this be excused by saying, these are only Ecclesiastical Laws, for he hath set down some such, and withal that Age did generally leave the Duty of Tithes to be ordered by Ecclesiastical Canons, believing the Clergy best understood the practise of Ancient time in a point so nearly relating to Religion, and these Canons were of great force then; the Secular Power thinking it sufficient to make general Laws, that the Church should have all her Rights secured and inviolate: which is the true reason why we have more Canons, than Civil Laws for Tithes, since the Conquest. However these Canons were Confirmed by King Henry the eight, after he had cast off the Popes Supremacy, An. 1536; and as Mr. S. confesseth, he by Act of Parliament commanded, Tithes should be paid according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church of England, and laudable usage of the Parish 
St. 27 H. 8. chap. 20. . Ordering the Trials for them to be in the Bishops Courts, and enjoining the Civil Magistrate to execute the Sentence in case of Contumacy; and good reason, for the Preface of that Act declares, They are due to God and Holy Church. 'tis true, upon the dissolution of Monasteries, the Lay-men who held Possessions formerly belonging to them, were to hold them discharged of Tithes, as freely and fully as the Religious Houses had done before 
St. 31 H. 8. chap. 13. . But the Tithe of these Lands was first alienated by Ecclesiastical consent, and still Care was taken for due payment of Parochial Tithes 
Stat. 32 H. 8. chap. 7. ; but of this more hereafter.  
§. XXX. Those Statutes of K. Henry the Eight, which order the Citizens of London shall pay a Tenth part of their Rent at least, in lieu of their gains, which were uncertain and not easily known, declare, that it was then believed the Tithe of Tradesmens gains were due to the Church, only this method was devised for Peace sake. But whereas Mr. S. both in his Preface 
Seld. Pref. p. 8. , and here 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 8. p. 244. , would persuade us, that one Farthing for every Ten shillings rent, paid in London of old every Sunday and chief holiday, was all the Tithes formerly paid there. I must observe, that though this comes to above Two shillings a year for every Pound rent, yet the Citizens paid Tithes anciently besides these Farthings; for these, Lindwood counts Oblations 
Lindwood const. de Decimis. c. Sancta, verb. Negotiatione. , which are a due besides Tithes; and Doctor Tildesly cites an Agreement between the Clergy and Citizens of London, made An. 1235, in the time of that Roger Niger Bishop there( who Mr. S. thinks made this Ordinance of Farthings paying,) wherein it is declared, That detainers of Tithes in London shall be excommunicated, and that three Sundays before Midsummer the Curate shall forbid any under pain of Excommunication, to carry away the Tithe of Fruits of Fields or Gardens, till they had first satisfied the Parish Church. And it was Simon Langham Archbishop of Canterbury, An. 1366, who ordered the payment of these Farthings, or at least renewed that payment; for upon a difference by him decided between the Citizens and Clergy, it was agreed, That out of every Pound rent the Citizens should pay one Farthing( each Sunday and chief holiday, I suppose) to their Priest, besides Oblations( for the Dead, perhaps) and Personal Tithes 
Godwin de praeful. Angl. pag. 165. . All which makes it plain, that of old Tithes were paid in London, besides these Farthings, whatever Mr. S. pretend to the contrary.  
§. XXXI. The Laws of Edward the First give good Remedies against detainers of Parochial Tithes, but they allow some sort of Customs further than can be justified by Men, who in the Preface to this Act declare, Tithes are due to God: for if so, no Custom which defrauds God of that due, in whole or in part, ought to be allowed. And for that reason those Ecclesiastical Canons, collected by Eight of our most famous Men of all Learned Professions about that time, Two Bishops, Two Doctors of Divinity, Two Doctors of Civil Law, and Two Common Lawyers, have declared, these Customs ought utterly to be abrogated; but since this Collection was never passed into a Law( which is much to be lamented) it only remains a Testimony of the Opinion of our most Judicious Persons at the Reformation, concerning the payment of Tithes: And the Ingenious Mr. Cowel, of later time, hath declared himself of the same Opinion, as to the reasonableness of abrogating all such Customs as do lessen the Tenth part due to the Church by the Law of God 
Cowel's Interpreter in the word Tithe. . But 'tis time to conclude this Chapter, which hath shewed, That Tithes, which God first taught, and inspired patriarches paid, which were enjoined under the Law, and not repealed, but required under the Gospel; which were held to be due by the Fathers, and paid by the Primitive Christians, came in here almost as soon as Christianity itself, and began first to be paid of Devotion in obedience to Gods Law, and then by Custom, and some human Laws were confirmed, till at length, by a general Law and voluntary Donation of them throughout the whole Kingdom, with the consent of the King and Three Estates, they were for ever Dedicated to the Church, and have been confirmed by innumerable Acts of Parliament, and Canons almost in every Kings Reign since, with severe Penalties on the Offenders. And by virtue of these Laws the Clergy have enjoyed them for above 800 years, adding Prescription to all their other Titles; and ever since they have been a Collateral Estate, distinct from the Inheritance of the Land, so that no Purchasor could, or did ever buy them, nor no Inheritor could, or ever did sell them, or bequeath them to his Heir; nor can any but the Clergy by Law claim any Property in this sort of Tithes, and therefore no Possessor now can be said to give them out of his own, any more than he that pays an Ancient Free Rent, or Rent-charge, formerly given for ever to some college or Hospital; for they are Gods part, and in his right legally settled on the Clergy, who do therefore now possess Tithes by as good a Title, as any Man in the Nation possesseth his own Inheritance, descending to him from his Ancestors; and this may suffice for this Chapter.   

CHAP. IX. Of Parishes.  
§. I. IF the discourse of Lay Consecrations had immediately followed these Laws to the contrary, it would have appeared too incredible even for an easy 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 inquire about the Original of Parishes, which disquisition doth not necessary 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 Parishes 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 iceland should differ therein, from what was uniformly received through those parts of Christendom whereof we have best Testimony remaining 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 9. p. 249. . And if we consider France alone, the nearest 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 
Flodoard. hist. Rhemens. lib. 1. cap. 18. ; 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 before this S. Germanus and Lupus came out of France into Britain, and taught them, as Giraldus Cambrensis shows, To pay their Tithes partly to the Bishop, and partly to their Baptismal Church 
Girald. Cambr. descrip. Camb. cap. 18: ; and surely those old and ruinated Churches which Augustine found in decay at his coming, and got leave to repair( as Bede shows 
Bed. hist. l. 1. c. 26. p. 30. ) were built by the Britons, and used before the Saxons came( An. 460) but by these Pagan Saxons suffered to fall to ruin. 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 adorned with Marble in his time 
Isid. Peleus. l. 2. Ep. 246. , and why not in Britain also? He tells us, Bede mentions a Church built here in the time of the Romans 
Bed. hist. l. 1. c. 26. , and that Gildas, An. 580, saith, The British Priests had Churches, which they went to for filthy lucres sake; wherefore doubtless they had Churches endowed 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 Evidence 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 therefore he and his Clergy for a while lived in common; but afterward King Ethelbert and he built and repaired many Churches 
Bed. hist. l. 1. c. 26. , Which( Mr. S. saith) doubtless had some kind of limits of adjoining Villages or Towns 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 9. p. 252. . And if so, there were Parochial Churches even in Augustines time, and that Tithes were then paid also( especially in Ethelberts Kingdom) 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 
Bed. hist. l. 4. c. 12. p. 163. . Malmsbury calls it, Ecclesiam campestrem& agellum 
Malmsb. gest. pontiff. l. 2. p. 132. ; 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 Conversion of Mercia to the Faith, and about Fifty years after Augustines death. And if there were no Country Churches then separately endowed, but the whole Revenue of the diocese 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 Curates residing at these Churches, and were ordained with a Title to them, as the Sixth Canon of that Council speaks 
council. Calcuth. Spelm. T. 1. 293, 295. ; and Mr. S. hath confessed Tithes were ordinarily paid here, by the Testimony of Boniface Bishop of Mentz, An. 750 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 5. p. 66. , and also that Lay-men had built Churches on their Land for Priests to reside at, An. 700 
Ib. Chap. 9. p. 261. ; and therefore 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 
Beda lib. 3. cap. 26.& l. 4. c. 27. , 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 wonder if at that time Parochial Cures endowed, were but few in that Country; though they were settled long before in other parts of the iceland, yet Bede in that Colmans time speaks of Churches in Northumberland, to which the People resorted on Sundays, and he expressly 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 
Beda ib. l. 4. c. 27. . And now, what wonder is it, that in such remote and inaccessible Villages the presence of a Priest was rare? will it follow hence, there were no Churches built and Priests resident in the more habitable parts? The truth is, this is mere 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 settled, 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 
Godwin. Vitâ Honorii. p. 59. , is affirmed not only by Mr. Joscelin, but by our great Antiquary Mr. Cambden 
Cambden's britain. p. 104. , and before him by the Archbishop Parker, as also by Bishop Godwin; and as Mr. S. confesses, by some( yea by many) of our greatest and best learned Writers 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 9. p. 256. . And Mr. S. hath no way to disprove this Ancient 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 Country Church, and therefore he would have us believe, that since two new Bishops were made in the Province of Canterbury in Honorius his time( where there were three Bishoprics before) therefore it was said, Honorius primus Provinciam suam in Parochias divisit; that is, He first divided it into Bishoprics. But how could the erecting two New bishoprics, 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 grossly 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 mere guesses, and therefore we will( till better proof appear against it) take it for granted, That Honorius divided his Province into Parishes 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 concerning Byrinus, who was Bishop of Dorchester, An. 635, That he built and dedicated many Churches 
Beda hist. l. 3. c. 7. p. 99. ,( which was in Honorius his time) and therefore it is not likely that Parishes 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 diocese, and annexing them to a Priest resident at a Country Church, was by the consent of the Bishop( who for the better edifying of the People 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 
Bed. ib. l. 5. c. 4,& 5. ; at which time, by the old Canons the endowment of the Church was to be settled 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 diocese should always consecrate New built Churches, An. 816 
council. ap Spelm. T. 1. p. 330. ; 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 settled 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 
Malmsb. gest. reg. l. 2. c. 11. p. 42. , 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 
Spelm. T. 1. pag. 185. . Afterwards the proofs for Parishes are still plainer, That old Synod in Ireland commanding, That no man should depart from his own Church 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 9. p. 264. , being cited in the Statuta Synodorum, collected An. 900, must needs have been held long before that time; and if Parishes were limited 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 Synodorum, 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 show 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 Tithing 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 chapels within that precinct; and if the Bishop( who only could limit Profits) gave this Church right of Sepulture, then the Lord might( with the Bishops 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 chapel, 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 shows Parochial right of Tithes was then so very firmly settled 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 lye, hath but the third part of the Tithe; which shows, that my Church anciently was the Elder Minster, and this but a new Erection by the Bishops consent: But for the Churches without right of Burial, they were and still are only chapels, and this in after-times was reckoned the distinction between a Parochial Church and chapel, 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 shows the Bishops first divided Parishes, his first instance is clear, viz. of a command from the Pope to the Archbishop of York, to erect a New Parish within one that was too large 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 9. p. 267. ; and his second instance only shows, that the Bishops did desire the King to consent to the putting 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 Hospital Church) was the Bishops Act, as is most evident from a Patent of King Edward the Third, for such another Union where the King gives licence— ut ille ad quem pertinet, annectere& unire posset 
Monast. Tom. 1. p. 493.& pag 494. ; 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 Profits to them; and this may suffice for Parochial Limits.   

CHAP. X. Of the practise of Tithing.  
§. I. AFter this large enumeration of Laws, and concession of the ancient Original of Parishes with limited Profits, we might have expected Mr. S. should have produced many Instances of regular Parochial payment; but on the contrary he hath raled into all sorts of Records for feigned Instances and false Conjectures to disprove it, as if he were not a Historian, but a party, and intended not to relate matter of fact, but to argue against the Truth. The custom of the old Saxon Pirates, who Sacrificed the Tenth Captive to one of their Pagan Gods 
Sidon. Apol. l. 8. ep. 6. pag. 185.  is nothing to this purpose, and seems only related by Mr. S. here, to show his Reading; yet it is more likely this Captive was offered to wooden or Mercury, To whom( saith Cambden) they offered human Sacrifices, and especially of a Victory 
Cambden britain p. 79. , then to Neptune, as Mr. S. conjectures. The story of Cedwalla, King of the West-Saxons, Tithing his Spoils to God before he was baptized 
Malmsb. gest. reg. l. 1. p. 6. , An. 686, is no proper proof of Heathens devotion in Tithing, but rather an evidence, that the Christian Saxons, An. 686, used to pay Tithes; for Cedwalla had conversed with Christians, and though he deferred his Baptism, yet he was well opinionated of the Christian Faith before he was baptized, as appears by beads relation, of his giving the Fourth part of the Isle of Wight, and also of the Spoils to Wilfrid the Bishop, as he had vowed before his Baptism 
Bed. hist. l. 4. c. 16. p. 169. . And( whatever Mr. S. pretends) there is no contradiction between Bede and Malmsbury, for Bede mentions his Vowing Spoils also, as well as the Fourth part of the Isle of Wight, while he is relating his War there; and Malmsbury is speaking of another War against the Kentish Men, after which he tells us, That he Tithed to God all his Spoils of War: so that it is likely they may speak of two several things. But if Malmsbury do call the giving of the Fourth part of his Spoils to God, the Tithing them, that will show that a Tenth part was most usually consecrated, and that the word Tithing, in Malmsbury, is used for Consecrating, even as we shewed before, {αβγδ} [ to Tithe] among the Greeks is put for {αβγδ} [ to Consecrate] for the very same reason. Mr. S. pretends to give some other instances of the like use of the word Decima, for any Consecrated part, but they do not reach the point; for if Pope Gregory the Ninth do call King Athelstanes gift of four Threaves out of every plough Land in the East-riding, to S John of Beverley a Tithe, it is not unlikely it may be a full Tenth, for every Threave is 24 Sheaves, and four Threaves is nigh 100 Sheaves out of every Plough-land; but Authors differ so much about the quantity of a Plough-land, that we cannot exactly determine this matter. His next instance of Robert Hesel( who gave to the building of Giseburn Church duas Garbas, out of his Land of Hesel, which is also called a Tithing) cannot be explained of two Sheaves only, for that had not been worth fetching, nor would it have been considerable toward building a Church; and therefore it must signify, Two Tithe Sheaves, the Third being usually reserved by the Bishop for the Parish Priest, before he would allow such gifts. Thus in the Parish of Hurst, Perpoint in Sussex, the Abbot of Lewis had two Tithe Sheaves, and the Priest of the Parish the Third: But however this word Decima be used, whether for the Tenth, or any other part consecrated, it makes nothing against the general usage of Tithing.  
§. II. Mr. S. passeth by many unexceptionable proofs of Tithes paid in the times of the Britons and old Saxons, and produces a story of Augustines excommunicating the Lord of Cometon for not paying his Tithes, because there are some incredible circumstances in it; but though Jorvallensis 
Hist. Jorval. col. 736.  report this History at large( an Author in great credit with Mr. S.) yet we will not defend the Relation, but rather note that Mr. S. saith, No doubt can be, but that some practise of payment was here used very anciently, which( beside the Devotion to be supposed in Christians, and the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers, which very likely wrought here as in other Western-Churches) may be collected out of the Saxon Laws 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 10. p. 275. . And he must think the old Saxons had but little devotion, if the Doctrine of the Fathers, the Example of other Western Churches, the Laws of the Kingdom, and equity of the thing itself, could not move them to give Tithes. The Epistle of Boniface, An. 750( cited above) shows they ordinarily paid them, before Laws were made to compel them. And since the Britons learned from S. Germanus and Lupus to give Tithes, An. 470, it is no strange thing that Tithes should be paid in S. Cadoc's time. As for the passage of Beda concerning Eadbert Bishop of Lindisfarn, An. 665, Who gave the Tenth of his cattle, Fruit, and Garments every year to the Poor, according to the Law 
Bed. hist. l. 4. c. 29. , is an evidence that Tithe was then thought to be so due to God from all, that this devout Bishop( who being of the Clergy himself, could not pay them to the Clergy) paid them to the Poor; but not as Mr. S. suggests, according to the Law of Moses, for that Law never enjoined any Man to give all his Tithes every year to the Poor; wherefore the meaning is, according to the Law of God, which was then believed to declare the Tenth to be Gods part, and where the Clergy could not be his Receivers, there he thought the Poor ought to be so: And this Opinion so prevailed by the Example of this and other devout Clergy-men, that within an 150 years after, a Canon was made to enjoin the Tenth part of every Bishops Estate at his decease to be given to the Poor. 
council. Celcyth. An. 816. Spelm. Tom. 1. pag. 330.   
If Mr. S. his design were not to make the payment of Tithes seem late, arbitrary, and uncertain, how could he( after all his proofs and confessions of payment among the old Saxons) pretend that we can only conjecture there was some such practise from Canutus his Epistle, An. 1031 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 7. p. 277. ; whereas it is as certain as History can make any thing, that Tithes were generally paid long before, and Canutus there saith, Tithes are due by the ancient Law: And though the King do there threaten to execute the penalties on such as had not paid them fully at his return, that doth not suppose any general neglect, only it shows a great Opinion of their being due, and that he intended to terrify all covetous and sacrilegious Persons from doing so great an act of Injustice as the detaining of them was, in his opinion; so that it only proves there might be some ill Men in that Age, as there are in all others. As for that other complaint, which he thinks, is but a later Edition to King Edwards Laws, That some, after the first granting of Tithes, had by the instinct of the Devil detained them, and the Priests having large Parishes, and enough beside, were remiss in demanding them 
Leg. Edv. Confess. c. 9. Spelm. Tom. 1. p 621. . This is no proof of general omission neither, for the wickedness of some People, and the connivance of some depending Clergy Men in this Age of ours, though they be generally paid regularly, might give us occasion to say as much now. As for the time before King Edward, there is sufficient Evidence of general payment, and very strict Laws to enforce it; and in the Confessors time Tithes were so well paid, that the Charters after the Conquest made that the Rule for good payment: so Henry the First orders, That the Church of S. John of Beverly shall have its Tithes paid as fully as when it was best paid, in the days of King Edward, or of his Father William the Conqueror 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 14. p. 417. . The same King Edward also himself gave Tithes, as Mr. S. confesses pag. 351, and confirms those Tithes which Aelstrued, niece to K. Alfred, had given to the Church of S. Peter in gaunt 
Registr. R●ff●nse. ; yea in the time of the Danes also, Mr. S. owns dedication of Tithes 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 11. p. 299. , so that all this scruple was only to cast a Mist before unwary Readers.  
But he tells us, However it might be in elder times, it was about the Norman Conquest much discontinued 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 10. p. 279. , which he would prove from Domus-Dei Book, where divers Churches are reckoned up with other Possessions, and yet but seldom are Tithes name among those Possessions. To which I answer, Since he hath granted Parochial right of Tithes to be fixed so long before, it is certain these Churches once had a right of Tithes, and there is no account in History when or how these Churches should lose this right again, nor any reason to believe, that since some Churches( mentioned in this Record) did retain this right, others should have lost it. And there is a clear reason, why in that Book some Churches have Tithes mentioned, and others not, viz. because the Inquest was made by divers Jurors, some of which left Tithes out, because they were free from all service to the King, and others thought fit however to put them in. But this Negative Argument, or rather Conjecture, will quickly vanish, when we consider what full and express proof there is, that Tithes did belong to Churches in the Conquerors days, and were always conveyed with them. Mr. S. shows, that Parochial Tithes were sued for in this Kings time 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 14. p. 416. , and that the payment of Tithes then, was made a Rule for good payment in the Reign of King Henry the First 
Ib. p. 417. . The Conquerors Charter to the abbey of battle, shows he gave to that abbey the Churches of Radings, Culinton, and S. Olaves in Exeter, with the Tithes, and all else pertaining to them 
Monastic. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 317. ; and Mr. S. remembers how the same Prince gave to the abbey of S. Augustines in Canterbury, the Churches of Feversham and Middleton, and all the Tithes of those two manors, and their appurtenances 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 11. p. 321. . The Chartulary of Rochester( commended by Mr. S. above all others) saith he gave to the Priory there Rotherfield, with all appertaining to it, in Tithes, &c. the Church of Walton, with the Tithes of all pertaining to it. And King Henry the First doth in those Chartularies confirm divers Tithes to that Priory, commanding they shall be paid to them, as fully as they had been in the days of his Father: which are such plain evidence, that Tithes then were reckoned to be due and appertaining to Churches, that if some of the Inquest did not return them, yet we may be assured they were among the possessions of all Churches in that Age. And if Ingulphus only mentions Churches given to Crowland abbey, and not Ecclesias cum Decimis 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 10. p. 281. , while he is remembering the Grants in the Saxon times; that shows, that Tithes were then so constant, so known, and so certain an appurtenance of every Church, that there was no need to name them particularly, because they went with the Church, which would not have been worth giving, if the Monks had been bound to find a Vicar, and yet no Tithes had belonged to it. But to proceed with the Conquerors time, The former proofs show, that it is a designed extenuation in Mr. S. to say, There was some kind of payment at least to some Churches in this time 
Hist. Tithes, ib. p. 282. . For it is plain, the payment was constant and universal; and though many things were put into confusion for a while at the Conquest, yet the Conqueror who had sworn to maintain the Churches right, did not at all offer to take away the established payment of Parochial Tithes, if he had, the Clergy of that Age, some of which liberally publish his Crimes) had not concealed this notorious sacrilege, of which there is not the least mention in any Author: and therefore Mr. S. wisely forbore to mention His gifts of Churches with Tithes to the Priory of Rochester;( some of which we related before) for this would have discovered the vanity of his pretences, and shewed, that Churches and Tithes then always went together.  
In King Henry the Firsts time, out of innumerable proofs of regular payment, Mr. S. picks up some few that may seem to make it dubious: The Monks of Lindisfaru( he saith) desired of a Covetous Lord the Tithe of Fish, due to them by Law and the custom of the Province; which proves both a right and ancient practise, and though this evil Man would not do him justice, yet that is no proof of general Non-payment; and the Relator saith, God revenged this Impiety on him, which shows it was a crime not often committed, because it was punished by a remarkble judgement. Those Persons who lived within the Parishes of Churches appropriate to abbeys, ought to pay their Tithes to those abbeys, and no others; and these were those whom the Chartulary of Abingdon complains of, That they did not pay their Tithes in kind, as it was enjoined by Law, but in lieu thereof 40 Sheaves out of a hid, or else the Tenth Acre of their Tillage; but we see this practise was contrary to Law, and to the usual way of paying Tithe, and therefore it is complained of: for the Tithes of these Churches were Canonically conveyed to that abbey of Abingdon, as the Bull of Pope Eugenius shows, An. 1146, which mentions and confirms divers Churches, which they justly and Caonnically possessed 
Monastic. Angl. T. 1. pag. 107. .  
In the time of King Henry the Second, Mr. S. produces a Decretal of Alexander the Third, which saith, Men were bound to pay the full Tenth part of their Fruits to that Church of which they were Parishioners, according to the general Institution of the Church of England 
Append. ad council. Later. par. 4. c. 4. ; and another Decree of the same Pope, directed( not only to the diocese, but) to the whole Province of Canterbury, declares, That the People of that Province were wont to pay their Tithes entirely, to those Churches to which they were due; but now neglecting this laudable Custom, some did detain some kind of Tithes 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 30. cap. 5. pag. 1327. . And Pope Adrian, Predecessor to Alexander, in the next instance, Orders the Monks of Boxly to pay Tithes as fully, as they had been paid before those Monks came thither 
Ib. cap. 4. pag. 1327. ; that is, before the foundation of that abbey, An. 1144. whence it follows, Tithes had been fully paid to the Parish Church there, before the year 1144, that is, long before this King Henry's Reign began: To which he adds, that a Judge delegate from Pope Honorius, An. 1220. declares, That certain Tithes were due to the Church of Leonminster, De jure communi, because they grew within the Parish 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 10. p. 284. . Finally, Mr. S. saith, there are other declarations of that kind in the leaguer Book of Reading: Yet though we see Examples, ancient Custom, general Institution of the Church, laudable Usage, and allowed Law, do all concur to prove regular payment of Tithes continued in this time. Mr. S. tells us, We must not conclude out of all these for practise, viz. purely for this reason, because they across his novel device of Lay arbitrary Consecrations, which he is so far from justifying, by the Examples of the next Chapter, that we shall show they are all falsified, and purposely mistaken to carry on an ill design.  
He proceeds to Henry the Third, where though it appears, the Tithes of Hay and Mills on the Kings demesnes, were detained by some of his bailiffs, An. 1227, which occasioned that Writ of the Kings to enjoin these Tithes, should be fully paid for the future: yet it is plain, that Tithe Hay was regularly paid by others long before, for the Chartularies of Rochester mention a suit between the Prior of Rochester and the person of Bocton Malherb, An. 1166, for Tithe Hay, which the person claimed in right of his Church, and the Prior by Prescription and Possession time out of mind. And there also William de Albeney( who died An. 1136) is remembered to have given Tithe of his Mills at Elmham to the same Priory. Yea the Constitutions before mentioned, Chap. VIII.§. 24. made in this Kings Reign, do mention the Tithe of Mills and Hay among ( Decimas consuetas) Tithes that were usually paid. As for the Times after this King, Mr. S. grants there are certain proofs of Parochial right of Tithes, claimed De jure communi, and that before the time of Edward the First, the person need make no other proof of his right to Tithes, but to prove they lay in his Parish; of which he saith, there are frequent Examples in the Year Books, pag. 285. But out of them all he produces not one, because they establish Parochial payment, choosing rather to divert his Reader with an impertinent story of the Parsons and Vicars of cornwall paying Tithes of the Stannaries there, though( for ought appears) they had recovered them of the King, if it had been proved they had been usually paid to the Bishop of Exeter. After this Mr. S. goes on to the time of Edward the Third, and Richard the Second,( though he grants Parochial right established long before) and for want of other matter he relates the Rhithms of satirical Poets, who in all Ages use to reflect upon Men of any Profession in power and esteem; but I suppose he doth not take these Mens fancies for true Characters, if he did, we might remember what Chaucer saith of the Men of Mr. S. his Profession: but this is to leave the Subject.  
The Custom of paying Mortuaries, in satisfaction for omission of Tithes, is much ancienter than Edward the Thirds time 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 10. p. 287. , there being a Constitution for paying them made by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, An. 1206, mentioning a former Constitution of his Predecessor about the same thing 
Spelm. council. T. 2. p. 133. , and another of Richard Bishop of Durham, An. 1276. 
Ib. p. 318.  But as well this paying of Mortuaries, as all before remembered, do abundantly show, Parochial right was received and acknowledged from ancient times, and though Mr. S. hath made so many vain attempts to make it seem of later Original, yet at last he confesses, It is not clearly known when it came first to be settled in practise 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 10. p. 288. . I answer, It must needs begin as soon as Parishes were set out, and Profits limited, which he hath granted, and I have proved was in the times of the Old Saxons, and therefore it is strange he should here doubt, whether it were customary in King Henry the Seconds time, or produce that idle story of his mistaken Monks, who report it began to be settled first in the Council of lions, An. 1274.( a Council which saith not one word of this matter.) Is it not certain, by what Mr. S. and myself have cited, Chap. VIII. that this Right was settled not only before Edward the Firsts time, but long before the Conquest by Synodal and Secular Laws too? How then could it be found never settled till An. 1200? or what evidence is there of any discontinuance before that time? The former Instances show there was no such matter, nor can it be collected from the illegal and condemned practise of some Persons in one diocese( which is all that is implied in Innocents Decretal, cited before Chap. VIII.§. 23.) that there was any general discontinuance, since Alexander the Third saith( not 20 years before) That the Men of that Province were wont to pay their Tithes fully to the Churches to which they were due,( as was shewed just now;) and if Many in that( not Province, as Mr. S. falsely reports, but) diocese did presume arbitrarily to distribute their Tithes, in Innocents time, the practise was presently declared unreasonable, unjust and illegal, and was immediately reformed, and so doth not prove any general omission of paying Parochial Tithes. And the next Chapter will show, there was no such usual arbitrary Conveyances of Tithes to Monasteries by Lay-men as he pretends, either used in fact or allowed by Civil, much less by Canon Law; for the Laws always required the Bishops consent to these Lay-grants, and in Fact, the Lay Grantors ever had their Grants confirmed by such consent in all times, as I shall prove by a thousand instances. Now though the Bishops did ill to consent to such Grants, yet since the Original right of distributing Parishes and Parochial Tithes was believed to be in them, this Consent both shows the Lay-mens Grants were not arbitrary, nor Parochial right overthrown by such like dispositions of Tithes. As for Wicklief, he is as much mistaken in his Chronology as he is in his Opinion; and though Mr. S. would help him out, by explaining within few years, to be within 200 years; yet all this will not shake the foundation of Parochial Tithes, or make any considering man think they began so late as the year 1200. But he cites some passages out of the Year Books, to prove, That before the Council of Lateran, every man might give his Tithes to what Church he pleased 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 10. p. 292. ; which if it be understood, that they might do it with the Bishops consent, before that Council, and not afterwards, since the Bishops were there forbid to consent: in this sense it is true; but in Mr. S. his sense it is notoriously untrue: and Mr. S. confesseth, pag. 359, That these passages in the Year Books have been taken for falshoods, grounded upon ignorance; and so they really are, if they mean the Laity might do this without the Bishops consent, though I am apt to believe, both the Monks, and the old Lawyers did mean it of a power to give their Tithes to Monasteries by Episcopal consent, and then their Assertions may be reconciled to sense and truth. But Mr. S. who strains these expressions to Arbitrary power of disposing Tithes by Lay-men, blunders extremely to bring them off, confessing no Canon of any Lateran Council of that time, did alter the Law in that particular, and then conjectures it was but a private Decretal Epistle, signed in the Lateran, only relating to the diocese of Canterbury, which they took for the Lateran Council; but all this while he supposes his Monks and Lawyers to be notably skilful, who could not distinguish between lions and Lateran, nor between Gregory and Innocent, nor between a private Decretal and a General Council: So that we may perceive it was his excess of affection to his New device of arbitrary Lay Consecrations, that runs him upon all these false and mistaken conjectures about the original of Parochial payment of Tithes; but unless his following Instances were better proof, he might have saved the labour of making these two Chapters to undermine Parochial right, and introduce them with some apparance of Probability: For neither do these Arguments, nor those Instances, shake the ancient usual and universal custom of paying Tithes parochially, where the Bishop did not agree to some other disposal of them.   

CHAP. XI. Of Arbitrary Consecrations, from the year 1000 till after the year 1200.  
§. I. THE great strength for Mr. S. his proofs of Lay Consecrations, lies in the many Instruments yet remaining in the Chartularies of the old abbeys, which he hath here collected, as undeniable evidence that Lay-men, from the year 1000 till after the year 1200, did at their own pleasure( without requiring the Bishops consent) consecrate their Tithes, or any part of them, to Monasteries; which Donations were made, as he pretends, only by these Charters he produces, and allowed by the practised Law of that time, and that if there were any Confirmations of Bishops added to the Lay-Donors Charter, they were procured by the Monks afterwards to satisfy the Canons. But all this is so contrary to truth, and to the practise of that Age, that though I have no other help than what I receive, from the Chartularies of Rochester( transcribed by Doctor Tildesly, formerly Archdeacon there) from the Monasticon Anglicanum, and from Mr. S. his own Instruments here cited; yet I doubt not to show, that the Bishops Consent was required to make the Lay-mans Grant valid from the beginning, yea that the very Bishops Charters originally allowing these Lay-Grants are extant, even in Sir Robert Cottons Library, out of which Mr. S. quotes these Instruments, so that it was impossible for him to find the Lay Grant, but he must at the same time see the Bishops Charter; yet he conceals the Bishops Charter most disingeniouly, and fraudulently transcribes the Lay Charter, as if it were arbitrary, and made without any Bishops consent at all. And besides, he often cites later Confirmations of the Lay granters Heirs, as if they were Original Grants, and pretends these to be Arbitrary Consecrations, when the Tithes mentioned in them were confirmed by Bishops long before; indeed this whole Chapter is so full of designed mistakes, and fraudulent dealing, that it is enough to show how little he can be trusted in matter of fact, who to serve an evil end, and support a false Opinion of his own, valves not how falsely he represents the matter. But because his Instances are thrown into a confused heap, I shall render the practise of the time more intelligible, and more orderly and briefly confute all his Instances, by reducing them under those several evidences of Ecclesiastical consent, which overthrow his pretended Arbitrary Consecrations.  
First, The ancientest way of declaring the Bishops consent was, by their signing and sealing the Original Charter; which practise was used in the old Saxon Times before the Conquest, where we find no Charters made to any abbeys, but still the Bishops do sign and seal them; and though the Saxons usually gave only Land, and rarely any Tithes to their abbeys( the first gift of Tithes to the abbey of S. Augustines, Canterbury, being one of William the Conqueror 
Chron. w. Thorn. A. 1070. ) yet still their Bishops consents were desired to confirm it, and therefore they subscribe all Lay Grants with these words, Confirmavi, Corroboravi, Assensum dedi, &c. so in the Chartularies of Abingdon, Pope lo, and Rethun a Bishop, consent to Kenulphs's Donation, An. 821. 
Monast. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 100.  Bishop Hedda consents to Ina's Grant, An. 699 
Ib. p. 99. ; and another of King Ina's Donation, is said to be Canonically and Ecclesiastically confirmed by King Ina and Daniel the Bishop 
Ib. Vide etiam Monast. Angl. T. 1. p. 13. : So the Charter of King Edward the Confessor to S. Benets in Hulmo, is confirmed and allowed by six Bishops 
Ib. p. 284. . And when Osrich, a Nobleman, founded the abbey of Gloucester, by Licence from King Ethelred, An. 690, Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury, and Bosel first Bishop of Worcester, confirm it 
Ib. p. 108. . The same method of declaring Ecclesiastical consent by the Bishops signing the Original Grant, was used both in Ireland 
Mon. Angl. T. 2. de Coenob. Hibern. p. 1027. 1031, 1032, 1035. , and also in Scotland 
Ib. Caenob. Scot. p. 1052, 1054, 1056. . And so it was in Normandy before our Conquest, for when Robert Duke of Normandy founded the abbey of S. Vigours, and endowed it with Tithes, An. 1032, six Bishops seal the Grant and corroborated it 
Ib. Caenob. Gallic. p. 958. ; and accordingly after our Conquest the Norman Bishops still signed to all the Kings Grants to Monasteries there until the times of Henry the First 
Ib. p 958,& 961. , yea of Henry the Second 
Ib. p. 978. . Hence it came to be also the Custom in England in the Conquerors time, for the Bishops to witness the Donors Charter, and so to express their consent: So the Conquerors Charter to battle abbey, in which he gives three Churches with Tithes, is signed by Two Archbishops and four Bishops 
Monast. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 317. ; and King William Rufus expressly declares, he had the Bishops consent, who are also name as confirming his Grant 
Ib. p. 318. . King Stephen also made his Donation to Godstow Priory by the Consent of his Bishops, who confirmed it 
Monast. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 526, 358. . Such Examples of Bishops signing, and so declaring their consent to the Kings Charters, are frequent in the Monasticon, in the Reigns of King Henry the First 
Ib p. 681. , King Henry the Second 
Ibid p. 360, 366, 390. , K. Richard the First 
Ibid. p. 558. , and King John 
Ib. p. 478. . And in many of Mr. S. his Instances, which he brings in as Lay-mens Arbitrary Grants without Episcopal consent, the Bishops are Witnesses to the Instrument: so here pag. 300. he cites a Charter of Henry the First, confirming the Grants of Alberic de Vere to Colm a Cell of Abingdon, An. 1111, as if it were made without any Bishops consent, whereas the very Charter is extant at large in the Monasticon, and is witnessed by two Bishops, yea and the Preface introducing it( cited out of Sir Robert Cottons Library) saith, Alberic de Vere got it confirmed by the Authority of the King and the Bishop Mauritius, in whose diocese it was 
Monastic. Angl. Tom. 1. pag 437. ; but this Mr. S. most unworthily conceals. So again, pag. 310. he pretends, Henry the First arbitrarily gave the half Tithe of Tarentford, and of Whales catched in the diocese of Rochester to the Priory there; but King Henry's Charter is extant in the Monasticon, and is directed to Archbishop Anselm, and signed by Two Bishops 
Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 30. ; so that it is certain it was not without Ecclesiastical consent. And pag. 311. William of Albeny's Grant of Elham and Bilsintune, is confirmed by King Henry's Charter directed to Anselm, in whose diocese they lay, and signed by Roger a Bishop and Chancellor 
Ib. p. 30. , which Mr. S. also conceals. The gift of Geoffry E. of Essex to the Nuns of Clerkenwell( produced by Mr. S. for an arbitrary Lay-grant, pag. 319) is extant in the Monasticon, signed by three Bishops ( l); 
Ib. Tom. 1. p. 433.  and Henry the Seconds Confirmation of Maurice of Totehams gift to the same Nuns, is signed by the same three Bishops 
Ibid. , Seld. p. 351. Henry the Seconds Confirmation to the Monks of Thetford, is yet extant, and witnessed by three Bishops 
Ib. p 667. , Seld. ibid. King Edward's gifts to Westminster( only confirmed by the Conqueror) were all signed by his Bishops, and allowed by the Pope before King William came in 
Ibid, p. 55, 60, &c. , Seld. 353. The Charter of Mannasses Arsick is confirmed by King Henry's Charter, to which the Bishop of Lincoln is the first Witness 
Ib. p. 574. . But Mr. S. takes no notice of all this, yet it utterly overthrows his pretence of arbitrary Lay Consecrations, because we see that ordinary Lay-mens Grants were confirmed both by the King and Bishop, and that the King himself gave not Tithes, unless the Bishops declared their assent at least by sealing and signing to his Charter: And we may be sure, the Bishops would not witness an Arbitrary Lay Grant, so contrary to the Canons, if their Consent were not first had thereto. I note also, that this Custom of the Bishops witnessing the Lay Grants, is a good reason why it is rare to meet with any special Charters of Bishops confirming Tithes granted to abbeys, especially before the year 1100: and now, if any shall think to excuse Mr. S. by saying, he did not know of this custom of the Bishops witnessing the Lay-grants, I can prove out of his own Examples that he did, for pag. 339 he produces a Charter of William Earl of Warren, signed by the Archbishop and three Bishops more. And pag. 346. King Stephens Charter to the Priory of Eye, is signed by the King, Queen, Prince and Ten Bishops( and no other) who also add an Anathema to their subscription, showing they were parties to the Confirmation: so that he purposely concealed this Evidence of the Bishops consent in many of his Instances, on purpose to make them seem Arbitrary.  
Secondly, There are yet extant very many Charters of Bishops, which both granted and confirmed such Tithes as were given to abbeys by Lay-men, all within the time between An. 1000 and a little after An. 1200, in which space Mr. S. pretends the Lay-granters never required any Bishops confirmation; a Catalogue of such Charters we will here set down out of the Monasticon, after we have first shewed, that divers such Original Charters are yet extant, which were made to confirm those very portions of Tithes, which he most unjustly produces here as Arbitrary Lay-grants. Among such Grants to the Priory of Rochester, he reckons Tithes of Strodes and Chealks, pag. 310. Bertrcy, pag. 313. Henhurst, pag. 314. Westbroc, pag. 315. Edintune, p. 316. Rundal and Tuang, p 317. and quotes the Chartularies of Rochester for it, whereas in those very Chartularies there is a large and full Charter of Gundulphus Bishop of Rochester, from An. 1077 till An. 1107, which actually grants the Monks all these Tithes lying in his diocese, and confirms the Lay-mens giving them, which, because it shows the use of the time nigh the Conquest, and totally confutes Mr. S. his pretences, I will here city at large, Gundulphus, Bishop of Rochester, &c.— perceiving the Christian Charity of our Sovereign King Henry, and some of his Nobles, to the Monks of S. Andrew— We do approve and ratify their devotion to these Monks, and give Episcopal Authority and consent thereto, conferring on them, and granting to them the Tithes which are in the Parishes of divers Churches within our diocese, viz. the Tithe of Strodes and Chealks in the Kings demesn, and by his liberality— the Tithes of Henhurst— Rundal and Thuang— Bertrey— Edintunc, Westbroc, &c.( reckoning up the Lay-donors of each parcel) And I will and command, that these Monks have and retain these Tithes arising out of the manors in our diocese, and by my Episcopal Authority I assign them unto them, commanding and ordaining, that they shall have them for supply of their provision for ever. This Charter Mr. S. must needs see, if he red over the Chartularies of Rochester; and we may judge of his integrity, in that he not only passeth it by in silence, but brings these Tithes by name as arbitrary Lay Consecrations without Episcopal consent. So also the gifts of Tithes to the same Monks in Bilsintune and Elham, pag. 311, Bugley and Gedding, pag. 312. Stalefield, pag. 313, Hainwold, Schrombroch, and Dodindale, pag. 316. and in Ysfield, pag. 317. are produced by Mr. S. as other instances of such Consecrations; whereas all these being under the Jurisdiction of Canterbury, are in the same Chartularies confirmed by the particular Charters of those who were Archbishops at the time of these several Grants, which Charters are still extant there, and this Record beside, The Tithes belonging to the Jurisdiction of Canterbury; Bilsintune, Elham,( and all the particulars aforementioned) are Canonically collated and confirmed by our Venerable Fathers, the Archbishops of Canterbury, Anselm,( Consecrated An. 1093) William, Theobald, Richard, Baldwin and Hubert, as by their Authentic Instruments doth appear 
Chart. Roffens. p. 215. . But Mr. S. pag. 318. fraudulently passing by the elder Confirmations of Anselm, William, and Theobald,( which are as ancient as the Original Grants of these Tithes) tells us, these Tithes were afterwards confirmed to them by the Archbishops of Canterbury, citing the Confirmation of Richard, An. 1176. and also of Baldwin and Hubert afterwards, as if these had been the first Confirmations, whereas these Tithes were some of them settled on them by the Archbishops consent above 80 years before. Pag. 315. It is not certain when Henry de Malmeins made that Grant of Tithes, cited by Mr. S. but it is confirmed in the Chartularies of Rochester by Walter, who was Bishop there An. 1147, that is, in all probability as soon as the Gift; but not a word of this in Mr. S. nor of those other Confirmations of this Walter, and of Gilbert, both Bishops there before An. 1200, whose Charters are yet extant, settling Tithes on these Monks by the words of Damus& Concedimus; and so are the Bulls of Pope Adrian and Alexander, also extant there, both which were Popes before An. 1200. Pag. 319. He brings in the gift of Tithes of Hamenesc by Walter Clifford, about King Johns time, An. 1200, and of Risebury by Robert Malherb to Leonminstre, as Original arbitrary Lay Consecrations; but there is a Charter of Richard Bishop of Hereford yet extant in the Monasticon 
Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 420. , which declares, That he had granted with his own hand, and confirmed to Redding, the Church of Leonminstre with all the Parishes pertaining to it, and particularly he names these two Hamenesc and Risebury, and this was An. 1123. viz. nigh 80 years before the confirmation of Walter Clifford, which though he cites here as an Original Consecration, is no more but a confirmation of what his Ancestors had presented to the Bishop to settle on that Church many years before. Pag. 330. Mr. S. speaks of Tithes confirmed to the abbey of Boxgrave, by William and Robert St. John, An. 1180, formerly granted by their Ancestors, but he dishonestly conceals the Charter of Hilary Bishop of Chicester, extant at large in those very Chartularies, which grants and confirms to those Monks— all their Possessions lawfully conveyed to them, and particularly the Churches of S. Mary of Boxgrave, of Hanton, Honestan, Brideham, Ichenore, Walborton, Bernham, and the Tithes of Tadeham, Chienor & decimas gabulorum totius Parochiae 
Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 596. ; all which Mr. S. brings in for Examples of arbitrary Lay Consecrations, yet this Hilary was Bishop of Chichester, An. 1133, which was almost as soon as the Monastery was built. And Pag. 332. Mr. S. grants some of these Tithes were confirmed to the Monks of Boxgrave by Seffrid, who was Bishop of Chichester at the time of the Foundation. Pag. 334. He speaks of Lay Consecrations of Tithes to the Priory of S. Neots; but in the Monasticon there are two Charters John Bishop of Norwich( circ. An. 1175,) and one of Hugh Bishop of Lincoln( circ. An. 1186) confirming those Churches and Tithes to them, which lay in their several dioceses 
Mon. Angl. Tom 1. p. 369, 370. ; but of these Mr. S. says nothing. Yet among his Examples, pag. 327. he cites a confirmation to the Monks of Tinemuth, of the Tithes within the Bishopric of Durham, by Hugh, who was Bishop there, An. 1195. and saith, they had the like from the Archbishop of York. And pag. 344. he produces one clear instance of the use of the time about An. 1100; for the Charter of William Giffard Bishop of Wincester( consecrated An. 1107) declares, That one Siward of Ealdested came into his presence, and upon the Altar offered the Tithe of Hludrake to the Chanons of Suthwerc by his consent, and the Bishop accordingly commands they shall enjoy it. And in the Monasticon there is another Charter of this same Bishop, declaring also, That the Patron and Parish Priest of Stokes came before him, and offered up the Tithes of Stoke to the same Canons, by a Knife laid upon the Altar 
Mon. Angl. Tom. 2. p. 86. . Whence we may infer, that all gifts of Tithes to abbeys in that time were passed through the Bishops hands, who by their Charters did so usually confirm them, that we shall here present a Catalogue of such Confirmations yet extant in the Monasticon, between the year 1000 and the year 1240, setting down the dates of the Charter, where they have dates, and where they have none, the time of the Bishops Consecration.  

A Catalogue of Bishops Charters extant in the Monasticon.  Name of the Monastery to which the Tithes were granted. The Bishop; name who made the Charter. The Date, or Year of his Consecration. The place in the Monastican where it is found. 1. Castle-acre Herbert of Norwich Consecr. 1088 Tom. I. Pag. 630 2 Eynsham Remigius Lincoln Dated 1091 ibid: p. 264 3. farewell Roger Chester consecr. 1119 ibid. p. 441 4. Cumbermere ibid. p. 765 5 Romburge Everard Norwich consecr. 1120 ibid. p. 404 6. Castle-acre ibid, p. 630 7. Luffield Alexander Lincoln consecr. 1123 ibid. p. 522 8. Leonminster Richard Hereford dated 1124 ibid. p. 420 9. de Lyra ( Normandy) Henry Winchester consecr. 1129 Tom. II. p. 986 Robert Hereford consecr. 1131 10. S. Marys York Adelwald Carlisle consecr. 1133 Tom. I. p. 399 11. Romburge Theobald Canterbury consecr. 1138 ibid. p. 404 12. Nutly and Kington Joceline Sarum consecr. 1139 Tom. II. p. 156 ibid. p. 888 13. Monkton Henry Murdac York consecr. 1142 Tom. I. p. 476 14. Durham William Durham consecr. 1143 Tom. II. p. 846 15. S. James Exeter Robert Exeter dated 1146 Tom I. p. 644 16. Bristal Robert Lincoln consecr. 1147 Tom. I. p. 588 17. Osulreston T. II. p. 276, 18. de Lyra Normandy Gilbert Hereford consecr. 1149 ibid. p. 986( 277. John Worcester consecr. 1150 ibid. p. 987 19. Nun-kelling S. William York must be dated 1153 Tom. I. p. 475 Roger York consecr. 1154 ibid. 20. Albemarle Robert Lincoln dated 1156 Tom. II. p. 999 21. Stoke-Clare Thomas Canterbury consecr. 1162 Tom. I. p. 1005 22. Denny Nigellus Ely dated 1169 ibid. p. 492 23. Romburge Galfridus Ely consecr. 1174 ibid. p. 404 24. Reinham John Norwich consecr. 1177 ibid. p. 638 25. Bingham idem dated 1181 ibid. p. 346 26. Luffield Hugh Lincoln consecr. 1186 Tom. I. p. 582 27. Malton Tom. II. p. 819 28. Reinham Hubert Canterbury consecr. 1193 Tom. I. p. 638 29. Monklane William Hereford consecr. 1186 Tom. I. p. 598 30. Southampton Godfrey Winchester dated 1204 Tom II. p. 110 31. Parco Walter York consecr. 1217 ibid. p. 290 32. Bristall idem dated 1220 Tom. I. p. 580 33. Barnstaple William Exeter dated 1233 ibid. p. 1025 34. Selburn Peter Winchester dated 1233 Tom. I. p. 343  
Thirdly, But though the Original Bishops Charters granting divers of these Tithes mentioned by Mr. S. at the very first donation of the Lay Founders, be now perished by length of time, yet we may be assured there was such Charters by these following undeniable proofs.  
First, Because it is recorded, that the Bishops( who generally were taken out of Monasteries, and so were great Friends to the Monks) did advice and persuade the Lay Donors to make Grants of Tithes to abbeys. So Pag. 306. the Charter of Robert d'Oiley( out of which Mr. S. reckons up those gifts of Tithes to the abbey of Osney, as arbitrary Lay Consecrations) saith expressly, That he founded this very abbey, Consulente& confirmante Alexandro Dei gratiâ Lincolniensi Episcopo 
Mon. Angl. Tom. 2. p. 137: ; so that it is plain he advised Robert d'Oily to found it, and confirmed the endowment at first, though his Charter be not now extant. And the Monasticon cites another old Record saying, Robert d'Oily founded this Church by the approbation of Theobald Archbishop of Canterbury, and Alexander Bishop of Lincoln 
Monast. ib. . Also that other Charter of the same Robert d'Oily( cited by Mr. S. pag. 307) expressly saith, The Bishop of Lincoln advised and confirmed it, and Theobald Archbishop of Canterbury, is the first Witness to it 
Monast. ib. pag. 138. ; yet this he falsely produces for an arbitrary Lay Consecration, and basely concealing these old Testimonies of the Bishops consent to, and confirmation of the Founders Grant( which he must needs see, while he transcribed so much of the Charter;) he tells us, this was confirmed long after by Richard( it should be Robert Grosthead) Bishop of Lincoln, An. 1250, as if this had been the first Episcopal confirmation, whereas 'tis evident he knew it was confirmed by his Predecessor from the first foundation, viz. 120 year before, what credit can be given to such a Historian? Pag. 325. The Tithes belonging to Tinemouth, confirmed by Henry the First to S. Albons, were given before to that abbey by Roger de Mowbray, By the leave of the King and the Archbishop Lanfranc( saith M. Paris in the place cited by Mr. S. 
M. Paris. vita Pauli Abbatis pag. 51. ); and a little after By the Counsel of Archbishop Lanfranc, Id. ibid. Pag. 333. The first founder and endower of the abbey of Lewis was William, the first Earl of Warren, whose Charter yet extant declares, he did it by the advice of Lanfranc the Archbishop, and this Charter is signed both by the King and his Bishops in a Council at Winchester 
Monastic. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 615. . And the Monasticon affords several such Examples: Walter de Gaunt confirms and endows Bardeney abbey, Consilio Radulphi Cantuariensis 
Ib. p. 142. . Robert de Toteney gives Tithes to a Cell of S. Albans, Consilio D. Lanfranci Archiepiscopi 
Ib. p. 327. . Roger de Montgomery founds and endows the abbey of Shrewsbury, Consilio Roberti Episcopi, who also witnesses his Charter 
Ib. p. 376. . Robert Fitzwalter gives Tithes to the abbey of Horsham, by the order and consent of Herbert Bishop of Norwich 
Ib. p. 416. . Alberic de Vere gives the Church of Hegeham to the Nuns there, at the desire of Richard Bishop of London 
Ib. p. 1020. , with many more like Examples 
Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p 650, 729, 764.& T. 2. p 86, 92, 96, 274, 298, 307, &c. . Now if they desired, advised, and ordered the Patrons to make these Grants, what question can there be, but they confirmed them?  
Secondly, Even where the Original Charters are lost, there is clear Evidence yet extant, that the Lay-granters had the consent of the Bishops, and did assign them by their Authority: So the Charter of Alberic de Vere; in Mr. S. pag. 300. concerning the sounding of Colm a Cell of Abingdon, is recorded to have been confirmed by the Authority of the King, and of the Bishop of the diocese, Mauricius 
Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 437. . Pag. 308. Mr. S. confesses the Tithes of Wauretun, granted to Osney by Hugh de Crofts, An. 1192. were confirmed by William Bishop of Hereford, who was consecrated An. 1186, and so was Bishop there at the time of the first Grant. Pag. 313. The portion of Tithes in Halegele, given by Henry de Port, for the love of Ralph the Bishop of Rochester, An. 1108. undoubtedly had his confirmation, who was consecrated Bishop there that very year. Pag. 323. The same Historian which mentions the assignations of Tithes by Hugh de Trottesclive, Abbot of S. Augustines, saith of the same Abbots donations, They were confirmed by the Letters Patents of Theobald the Archbishop 
Chron. W. Thorn. A. Dom. 1128. col 1779.& col. 1828. . Pag. 343. The grant of Tithes of Wlhaveshull to the abbey of Persore, by John de Muchgrosse in King Johns time, is but a later confirmation of an elder Grant; but upon the burning of that abbey, and loss of their Evidences, divers persons upon an Inquest do swear, That all their Tithes were confirmed to them by the Bishops of Canterbury, and by John Bishop of Worcester( consecrated An. 1140) long before this Grant 
Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 206. . But the plainest instance of this kind is, that Charter of W. Peverel to the Monks of Hatfield, which Mr. S. brings in as an instance of arbitrary Lay Consecrations, pag. 329. but durst not city it at large, because it quiter overthrows his false Opinion; the words of it are, To the Reverend Lord, R Bishop of London, to all his Archdeacons and Prebends, especially to W. the Dean, W. Peverel sendeth Greeting—( and after the recital of the several Churches and Tithes he had granted, the Charter ends thus)— which Donation and Constitution I entreat you graciously to grant and consent to, as I am Lord of the place, and your Friend, circ. An. 1120. 
Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 330.  What can be plainer than this, to show that Lay Patrons had no power to grant Tithes of themselves? but were forced to petition the Bishops to confirm them. So in the Chartularies of Rochester, the Tithes confirmed by Walter, Bishop there, are said to be Tithes which Gundulphus his Predecessor had given and granted them by the gift of the Patrons, and the Rectors consent 
An. 1150. Chart. Rossens. p. 23. ; and Johannes Sarisburiensis speaks of the Church of Effingham, which at the Patrons request the Bishop of Winchester gave the Monks 
Job. Sarisb. Ep. 28. p. 504.& Ep. 84. p. 521. . But if we look into the Monasticon, there are very many Evidences in the very Lay-Charters of the first granters of Tithes, to prove that these Grants were confirmed by the Bishops Authority and consent( though the Bishops Charter be not now to be found.) So William de Percy declares, that Thomas Archbishop of York( An. 1109) was a granter and a witness of his donation to Whitby 
Monastic. Tom. 1. p. 73. . Leofric, founder of Coventry, got a Licence from the Pope before he made his own Charter 
Ib. p. 303. . Roger Montgomery founded and endowed the abbey of Shrewsbury, by the Grant of the King of Lanfranc the Archbishop, and Peter Bishop of the diocese 
Ib. p. 376,& 381. . Radulphus Pincerna in endowing Alcester, saith, He did follow the Authority of Theobald Archbishop, and of Simon Bishop of Worcester, and other Bishops 
Ib p. 470. . Wil. de Breosa granting Tithes to Abergavenny, engages he will procure the Charters of King Henry the Second, of the Archbishop, and of the Bishop of Landaffe, to confirm his Grant 
Ib. p 558. . Nigellus of Munnevile declares, he had Anselms consent to his Grant of Churches to Folkeston Priory, An. 1095. 
Ib. p. 560.  Robert de Lacy and Hugh de Val, had Thurstan Archbishop of Yorks consent to their Grant of Tithes to Pontefract 
Ib. p. 649. . Simon, Earl of Northampton, in his Grant of the Church of Saltry to the Monks there, engages to secure them from the Bishop of Lincoln, and the person of the place 
Ib. p. 850. . Picot, and Hugolina his Wife, declare, they had given two parts of their Tithes to a Monastery, having first had the consent and allowance of Remigius Bishop of Lincoln( who was consecrated An. 1070) 
Monastic. Tom. 2. p. 29. . Nicholas de Gresely gives a Church to Kenilworth, by the assent of Roger Bishop of Chester 
Ib. p. 119. . The Earl of Buckingham desired Joseline Bishop of Salisbury to grant the Church of Bradly, with the Tithes, to the Priory of Nutley 
Ib. p. 156. . William Earl of Sussex gives Lands and Tithes to Buckenham Priory, by the advice of William Bishop of Norwich( consecrated An. 1151), and that his Grant may be valid, he preys it may be confirmed by Royal and Ecclesiastical Authority 
Ib. p. 274. . Robert Earl of Mellent endows the Priory de Prato with Lands and Tithes, by the Grant of King Henry the First, and Robert Bishop of Lincoln( consecrated An. 1107) 
Ib. p. 313. . And is it likely all these Great men would be thus careful to get the Bishops assent and confirmation, if it were not necessary? I might give many more Examples 
Monastic. Tom. 1. p. 22, 419, 440, 644, 729.& Tom. 2. pag. 145, 220, 352, 423, 462, &c. , but these are sufficient to show, that though the original Grants of Bishops be now lost, yet the custom of the Age made it necessary to procure them.  
Thirdly, Where the old Charters of Bishops confirming the first Grant are not to be found, yet there are later Confirmations which refer to former Grants, and clearly enough prove there were such extant in ancient time. Thus those Tithes which Mr. S. out of the Chartularies of Abingdon, pretends were arbitrarily consecrated by Lay-men, are confirmed by Pope Eugenius( not An. 1152, as Mr. S. mistakes, but) An. 1146. where there is name the Tithes of Lakin, Offinton, and Weckenfield, which, with all the Possessions and Goods, which they then justly and Canonically possessed or could hereafter acquire by just means, the Pope doth there confirm to them 
Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 107. ; whence we may conclude, that Abingdon did then possess Lakin, Offinton, Weckenfield, and other Tithes( not by arbitrary Lay Grants, but) by Bishops Charters and Confirmations, for this only in the Popes account was a just and caconical way of possessing Tithes. And note here, That all Popes Bulls ever have this clause, and confirm no Possessions to Monasteries, but such as they possessed justly and Canonically; whence it is probable the Monks must show their Bishops consent to the first Grant, or else no Bull from Rome could be obtained. And for Abingdon, there is a Charter of King Henry the First, confirming divers possessions to it, signed by himself, his Son William, his Queen, and the two Archbishops, with the Bishops of Exeter and Winchester 
Ib. Tom. ●. p. 105. , which Charter must be made before young Prince William was drowned, that is, before the year 1121; and therefore there was Consent of Bishops to this abbeys Possessions long before the Popes Bull. So pag. 309. for the Tithes given to the Priory of Giseburn, about the year 1240, there is a Charter of Richard Bishop of Durham, dated An. 1311, relating, That Hugh his Predecessor( An. 1154) had anciently confirmed the Tithes given to that Priory which lay in the diocese of Durham, and other of his Predecessors had done the like 
Monast. Tom. 2. p. 14●. ; and in all probability the Archbishops of York had done the like for what lay in that diocese; and so none of these were Arbitrary Consecrations. Pag. 311. The Church of Waltun( saith Pope Adrian's Bull in the Chartularies of Rochester) was given by Roger Bigod and his Heirs, and granted by the Bishops of Norwich, Herbert,( Consecr. 1088) Everard, and William: so that this could be no arbitrary Lay Grant, since Herbert Bishop of Norwich lived at the same time with Roger Bigod the Founder ( which was not temp. Rich. 1. as Mr. S. grossly mistakes, but) An. 1088, who was first Earl of Norfolk, and with his Son Hugh gave this Church to Felix-stow, a Cell of S. Andrews, Rochester, as may be seen by the Charter of King William Rufus, directed to the Bishop of Norwich for confirmation of this Grant 
Ib. p. 29. . Pag. 335. Saher de Quincy, An. 1203, did but confirm a former Grant of the Tithes of Eynesbury to S. Neots, for those Tithes had been confirmed to that Priory some years before, viz. A. 1194, by the Bull of Pope coelestine 
Monast. Tom. 1. p. 370. . But the Monasticon will fully clear this matter. The Confirmation of Bartholomew, Bishop of Exeter( An. 1159) assigns divers Churches and Tithes to the abbey of Tavestoc, according as the Charters of his Predecessors, made to this purpose, did more fully testify 
Ib. p. 998. . Walter, Bishop of Coventry, confirms Churches and Tithes to Lilleshull, formerly granted by" Pope Eugenius, by the Archbishop, and by Roger his Predecessor 
T. 2. p. 145. ; which Roger consented to the Founders first foundation. Hugh Bishop of Lincoln declares, that his Predecessors had confirmed all those Churches and Tithes to the abbey of Bardeney, now confirmed by him 
Ib. p. 850. : So Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury saith, The Tithes he confirmed to Cumbermere, had before been confirmed by his Predecessor Baldwin, and by Richard Bishop of Coventry 
Ib. p. 914. . Richard Bishop of Winchester confirms a Church to S. Mary Overies, formerly confirmed by William his Predecessor( consecrated An. 1107) 
Ib. p. 940. . The Founder of Pontefract gave some Tithes to it, and these benefice were confirmed by the Authority of Thomas the elder Archbishop of York( An. 1070) 
T. 1. p. 660. . Pope Gregory also confirms Churches and Tithes to the Priory of Catesby, which our Reverend Brother, Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln, and his Predecessors have granted 
T. 2. p. 897. . Wherefore we must not argue, that there were no elder and original Bishops Charters to confirm the first Grants of Tithes, because only some later Confirmations are extant at this day: yet this is a fallacy which Mr. S. frequently, and( I fear) designedly useth.  
Fourthly, The Custom of Lay-mens presenting their donations of Tithes to their Bishops, that they might give them to Monasteries, either at the first Consecration of abbey Churches( always done by a Bishop) or afterwards, show their consent was had. Both these Customs are remembered by Mr. S. for pag. 324. those Tithes offered at the building of Crowland Church, no doubt were confirmed by the Bishop who consecrated that Church: and pag. 350. The renewed Donations to the new Nuns of Ambresbury, were confirmed by Richard Archbishop of Canterbury, and the other two Bishops who introduced them 
Hoveden. An. 1177. pag. 320. . But the Monasticon will more fully show this Custom. The Tithes given to the abbey of S. Werburg, by Hugh Earl of Chester and his Knights, were presented at the dedication thereof by Anselm, and Hervey Bishop of Chester 
Monast. Tom. 1. p. 201. . William de Albeny, by offering his Knife upon the Altar of Wymundham, gave Tithes to it at the Dedication thereof by Everard Bishop of Norwich 
Ib. p. 339. . The Founder of Hurley Priory declares, that at the Dedication, Osmond Bishop of Salisbury, by Episcopal Authority confirmed all his Donations 
Ibid. p. 363. , and this Bishop died An. 1099. Alan Earl of Richmond endowed Romburg with Tithes, in the presence of Everard Bishop of Norwich, whose Charter confirming them is yet extant 
Ib. p. 404. . At the Dedication of Cadwell Church, the Inhabitants give the Tithes of Penbray and Pennaltb, by the exhortation and assent of Roger Bishop of Chester, who consecrated it 
Ib p. 424. . Robert Fitz-martyn solemnly offers divers parcels of Tithes to a Priory in Wales, when F. the first Abbot was installed by Bernard Bishop of S. Davids, the said Bishop granting, whatever of my Tithes I had given to that Abbot, as his Charter speaks 
Ib. p. 445. . Geoffry Earl of Essex endows Walden with divers Churches," in the hearing, and by the assent of the three Bishops of London, Ely, and Norwich 
Ib. p. 449. . Miles, Constable of Gloucester endows Llanthony with a Church, and divers portions of Tithes, by the hand of Robert Bishop of Hereford, on the day and hour when the Church was dedicated, An. 1137. 
Tom. 2. pag. 70.  The Grants of Robert Earl of Mellent to the Priory de Prato, were all confirmed by Robert Bishop of Lincoln, when he dedicated the Church, An. 1107 
Ib. p 313. ; all which doth still plainly prove, the Bishops ratified the first Grants of Tithes to abbeys.  
And for such Tithes as were given afterwards, Mr. S. hath shewed pag. 344. by the Charter of the Bishop of Winchester, that the custom was to come and present them to a Bishop, and by his hand to make the Oblation; and the Monasticon largely confirms this usage. Joel Fitz-Alured gives Churches and Tithes to Barnstaple Priory, by the hands of William Bishop of Exeter( An. 1107) 
Monastic. Tom. 1. p 684. . A like Gift is made to the Priory of S. James at Exeter, by the hand of Robert Bishop of Exeter 
Ib. p. 645. . Henry Bishop of York( An. 1142) in his confirmation of Tithes to Monkton, declares," they were given in his presence 
Ibid. p. 476. . Richard de Wicha offers up his Charter of the Tithes of Sally upon the Altar at Tavestoc, and the Bishop receiving it said, I as Diocesan Bishop, do by my Episcopal Authority confirm the aforesaid Donation 
Ib. p. 1002. . The Patron of the chapel of Alswic offers it, with its appurtenances, on the Altar of the Holy Trinity," in the presence of Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, and gave it to those Monks by his hand 
T. 2. p. 80. . So the Church of Stanes was given by the Patron to the Priory there, in the presence of Roger the Bishop, into whose hand he put it, and then the Bishop confirmed it 
Ib. p. 127. . William de Vesey gives the Church of Ancaster to the Canons of Malton, by the assent and counsel of Robert Bishop of Lincoln, and put this gift in his hand, and confirmed it by his Testimony 
Ib. p. 817. . Philip de Kyme gives Sothy Church to Bardeney, putting it into the hands of Robert Bishop of Lincoln, humbly praying that he would make that Act valid, and confirm it by his Authority 
Ib. p. 850. . But Mr. S. himself hath a famous instance of William Earl of Warren, who, by the Bishop of Winchester's cutting of his Hair before the Altar, in the presence of four other Bishops at a renewed dedication of S. Pancratius Church in Lewes, gave all his Tithes to that abbey, pag. 340. And whoso desires more Examples of making these Grants in the Bishops presence, and by their hands, may consult the places in the margin 
Mon. Angl. Tom. 2. p. 234. ibid. 245. . And note here, that Lay Patrons were so far from thinking they could arbitrarily consecrate their Tithes to what Monastery they pleased, that it is evident they petitioned the Bishops to confirm them. Agnes de Arches having given a Church to Nunkelling, beseeches William Archbishop of York to grant and confirm it 
Monastic. Angl. T. 1. pag. 475. . Earl Baldwin petitions Robert Bishop of Exeter to confirm his Grant to the Priory of S. James, An. 1146. 
Ib p. 644.  William Earl of Warren humbly preys the Bishop of Norwich, to grant the Church of Melewd to Castle-acre 
Ib. p. 638. . Avice de Romelli directs her Charter to the Bishop of Lincoln and Archdeacon of leicester, beseeching them for the love of God to make her Act valid, and to confirm it by their Authority 
T. 2. p. 97. . And many more such Petitions are to be found 
Tom. 1. p. 1025,& T. 2. p. 127, 230, 276, 277,& 893. , which shows how untruly Mr. S. pretends, that Bishops confirmations were never desired nor needed by Lay-Patrons, but only procured by the Monks afterward, for their own security against the Canons of the Church. I hope it is now very evident, that Lay-Patrons desired and procured them, and whether the first Charters be now extant or no, that undoubtedly there were such Charters obtained to all these Grants.  
Wherefore as to the rest of Mr. S. his Instances, we shall only make some brief remarks on them and so dismiss them. And, First, divers of these which he calls arbitrary Lay Consecrations were granted by Charters directed To the Archbishops and Bishops, or elso to the Bishop of the diocese; and that intimates, that the Bishop was to confirm this Charter afterward. So pag. 309. the Tithes of Lyum are given to Gisburn Priory by a Charter of Robert Brus, the Founder, directed To the King of England, and the Archbishop of York 
Monastic. Tom. 2 p. 147. , because both the King and Bishop were to confirm the Grant. Pag. 310. The half Tithe of Tarentford is granted to the Monks of Rochester, by King Henry's Charter, directed to Anselm the Archbishop, and signed by two Bishops 
T. 1. p. 30. . The same Kings confirmation of Eltham and Bilsintun( mentioned in Mr. S. pag. 311) is directed to Anselm also, and attested by a Bishop 
Ibid. . Pag. 319. Geoffry Earl of Essex, his Charter to the Nuns of Clerkenwell is directed to the Archbishops, and signed by three Bishops 
Ib. p. 433. . Pag. 345. Mr. S. himself produces a Charter of Geoffry Fitz-Robert, granting Tithes to Ipswich( An. 1152) which is directed To William Bishop of Norwich, who no doubt was to confirm it. Pag. 352. Henry the First's confirmation of Tithes to the Priory of montague, is directed To John Bishop of the diocese 
Ib. p. 668. ; and Henry the Second confirms the same, by a Charter directed to the Archbishops, and signed by four Bishops 
Ibid. : But of this, Instances are so very many, it is needless to be particular 
Ib. p. 142, 354, 380, &c. ; yet this shows, that the Consecration of Tithes were not arbitrary, for if so, why should the Gra●ts be directed to the Bishop.  
Secondly, Some other of Mr. S. his Instances of Arbitrary Consecrations are the Acts of Bishops, who no doubt acted agreeable to the Canons, and so if they were not Bishops of the diocese themselves, had undoubtedly the Diocesans consent. So pag. 310. there is a grant of Ralph Archbishop of Canterbury( An. 1114) among his arbitrary Consecrations; but indeed it is a Confirmation of Tithes given by others in his diocese. Pag. 316. The Tithes of Wickham were first given by Gundulphus Bishop of Rochester, whose Fee that Town was, and when he granted the Land to godfrey de Talbot, he reserved the Tithes to the Monks of Rochester; from Talbot the Land came to Columbers, who( upon a svit between the person of Frendesbury and the Abbot) only declares what he found in his Deeds( as the Chartularies of Rochester show,) yet Mr. S. hath the confidence to produce this as an arbitrary Lay Consecration. Pag. 321. The gift of Odo, who was Bishop of Bayeux; and p. 337. that of Ael Bishop of Carlisle, were undoubtedly caconical Grants, and so ought not to be produced by Mr. S. among arbitrary Lay Consecrations.  
Thirdly, There are others of his Examples, which he produces as if they were Original Consecrations of Tithes, when indeed they are only the Confirmations of the Lay-donors Heirs, obtained by the Monks after long possession of Tithes, confirmed to them by Ecclesiastical consent many years before, some of which we have already taken notice of; and such is the Tithe of Tarentford, pag. 310, confirmed by King William Rusus 
Monast. Tom. 1. p. 29. , yet produced by him, as if Henry the First originally confirmed it. So pag. 316. the Tithes of Wickham Canonically given by Gundulphus, are by him produced as a Lay Consecration of Columbers. Pag. 319. Walter de Clifford's confirmation of Hamensec, &c. An. 1200, was given long before, and confirmed by the Bishop of Hereford at least 70 years before 
Ib. p. 420. . Pag. 324. The Abbot of S. Albans gift of Caysho and Watford Tithes, An. 1235. was no other but a grant of Tithes, confirmed to them by Pope Honorius, An. 1218; which Bull of Honorius mentions Eight preceding Popes confirming their Possessions to them, and the first was Calixtus, An. 1120 
Ib. p. 59, 60. : so that these Tithes were settled in the abbey above an hundred years before. Pag. 325. The Tithes belonging to Tinemouth, were given to S. Albans by Roger de Mowbray, by the leave of the King and Archbishop Lanfranc, as Math. Paris shows 
Vit. Pauli Abbatis, p. 51. , and were confirmed by a Charter of King Williams, directed to the Archbishop, and to the Bishop of Durham 
Monast. Tom. 1. p. 334. , long before King Henry came to the Crown; whose Confirmation of this old Grant, settled by Ecclesiastical consent before, Mr. S. produces for an Arbitrary Consecration. Other such like wilful mistakes are those Confirmations of S. John to Boxgrave, Seld. p. 330. That of Muchegrosse to Persore abbey, pag. 344. and of King William the Conqueror to Westminster, p. 351.  
Fourthly, Others of his Examples are too late in time, and were made long after the year 1200, and so could not be Arbitrary Consecrations, because he grants Parochial Right was then so firmly settled, that the Laity( by his own confession) could not so dispose of their Tithes. Under this Head we may reckon the Grants of Peter de Brus to Gisburne, An. 1239, 1242, 1246. 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 11. p. 309.  That of Maud de Mandevil Countess of Essex, to Clerkenwell 
Ib. p. 320. ; for she was not Countess of Essex, till An. 1227. That of the Abbot of S. Albans, An. 1235 
Ib. p. 324. , and that of the Prior of Lewes, An. 1260 
Ib. p. 344. ; the custom of the Time acknowledged by Mr. S. shows all these were impertinently alleged here.  
Fifthly; Many of his Instances are not concerning Parochial Tithes, as that of Geoffry Earl of Essex is a Grant of the Tithe of Meat used at his Table 
Ib. p. 320. . That of William Earl of Warren, is of the Tenth penny of his Rents in money; and it was for detaining of this that the Archbishop blames his Widow 
Ib. p. 342. . So also the Tithes of Venison may be reckoned an extraordinary Tithe 
Ib. p. 352. , as well as that of Whales 
Ib. p 310. ; yet most of these Grants were by Ecclesiastical consent, as is shewed before. And for all those Grants of Abbots and Covents( which did dispose of Tithes sometimes, anciently settled on them by Bishops Charters and the Popes Bulls) they cannot be reckoned Lay Consecrations; and besides they were not arbitrary, for his own Historian, Thorn, who writes the History of S. Augustines Canterbury, assures us, That the Abbots there use to have the confirmation of the Archbishops, even to these dispositions of their own Tithes 
Chron. W. Thorn. col. 1779& 1828. . And he brings divers of these Abbots Leases of Tithes settled Canonically on their abbeys, among his Arbitrary Consecrations 
Hist. Tithes, p. 322, 323. ; and that which he falsely calls a grant of Tithes from Alexander Prior of Stanesgate to Clerkenwell 
Ib. p. 319. , is a plain Lease of Tithes under the yearly Rent of Ten shillings, as the dead yet extant shows 
Monastic. Tom. 1. p. 623. . So that I hope now I may conclude, that Mr. S. hath brought no sufficient proof of any common use of Arbitrary Lay Consecrations, for I have particularly disproved almost every one of his Instances, and fully proved the custom of that Age could not admit any such kind of Consecrations; so that if( for want of Books and Records) there be five or six among Mr. S. his vast heap, which are not disproved by name, yet it is plain enough they also were confirmed as the rest were. But lest any scruple should remain, I will add two Arguments to prove there could be no Arbitrary Lay Consecrations in this time.  
First, Because Lay-men could not give Parochial Tithes without Bishops consent, in regard Parochial right was so firmly settled all the time when these very Charters( which Mr. S. produces for Arbitrary Consecrations) were made, as I will prove out of him. Faricius Abbot of Abingdon, An. 1158. would not receive a gift of Tithes from Offinton," lest he should diminish the ancient right of the Parish Church; and till they had agreed to let the Parish Rector have Twenty four Sheaves out of every Acre,( which is a full Tenth part in ordinary Land) according as he used formerly to receive, he would not accept of a second Tithing to the abbey, which here we see was paid beside Parochial Tithe 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 11. p. 302. ; and thus we must understand those second Tithes of Fruits and Corn, at Staves and Sandford, given to the Nuns of Kington 
Monast. Tom. 2. p. 288. , viz. of Tithes paid over and above Parochial Tithes. And I appeal to any impartial Reader, if the settled right of Parish Tithes be not plainly declared in these Phrases, so often occurring among these very Instances of Mr. S. viz. De rebus quae Decimari solent 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 11. p. 305, 306, 307, 324. ; Quae Decimari possunt& debent 
Pag. 308, 336. ; De omnibus unde Decimae dantur 
Pag. 319. ; De quibus Decima danda est,& datur 
Pag. 328. ; De quibus Decima rectè datur 
Pag. 328. ; Quae Decimari debent more catholicon 
Pag. 359. ; Undecunque Decimae S. Ecclesiae spectant, aut provenire debent 
Pag. 333. ; Decimam quam Parochiani daunt 
Pag 339. ; Quae Parochiani debent reddere,& facere suae matrici Ecclesiae 
Pag. 320. ; Ecclesiam cum rectitudine sua 
Pag. 302.  &c. All these plainly show that Parochial Tithes were usual, and due to be paid by parishioners to their Parish Church, and were a right belonging thereunto, settled by Law, Prescription, and ancient custom; and if so, how then could any Arbitrary Consecrations be made out of them? We see by that svit between the person of Frendsbury and the Chantor of Rochester, that Parochial right was sued for, before the year 1200, for the Parsons claim was grounded upon Parochial right 
Hist. Tithes, p. 317. . And the Parsons consent was necessary to the Patrons alienation of Tithes; so that allured, Priest of Stokes, about An. 1120, joins with the Patron in the gift of that Church to the Canons of Southwark 
Monast. Tom. 2 p. 86. , and Robert Priest of Walborton, and William Priest of Bernham, are Witnesses to the Grants of their several Churches, An. 1180 
Monastic. Tom. 1. p. 595. ; yea, Sarisburiensis informs us,, that Jus Parochiale cum Decimis, was judicially adjudged to Robert de Ungot before the year 1150. 
Sarisb. Ep. 21. pag. 503.  Which proofs, with very many in the former Chapter do so fully assure us, of the settlement of Parochial right long before these pretended Grants, that this reason alone might suffice to show they were not Arbitrary.  
Secondly, If the Laity could have made any such Grants of Tithes, the Monks durst not have received them, for fear of displeasing the Pope and the Bishops; for Mr. S. tells us, The Decrees both of the Pope and General Councils were anciently against it— and the Provincial or National Synods here had like Canons forbidding it, viz. An. 1103, in a Council under Anselm, Monks are forbid to receive Churches, unless from the Bishop 
Spelm. council. T. 2. p. 34. . Another under the Popes Legate, An. 1125, ordains, That no Abbot, Prior, or Monk, shall take a Tithe or Ecclesiastical benefit of a Lay mans gift, without the authority and assent of their own Bishop, and if he do, the donation is declared voided 
Spelm. ibid. pag. 36. — and the King( saith Mr. S.) gave some allowance to these Canons 
Hist. Tithes, pag. 375. ; but if he durst have  told the truth, That King Henry the First confirmed these Canons by his Royal Authority, and therefore is it likely this very King should confirm so many arbitrary Lay Consecrations, as Mr. S. pretends? or can any think the Monks durst( in despite of the Popes Decrees, and Bishops Canons, and the Kings Confirmation added thereto) frequently receive such Consecrations? I make no question they dared not to do it without the Bishops consent, and therefore there was no Lay arbitrary Consecrations in or about that Age, at least no common use of them.  
§. II. This large and full proof will make it unnecessary to be very particular in answering the remote Conjectures which Mr. S. still brings to establish his false Opinion. The ancient Writ which he urges out of the Register of Fitz-herbert 
Hist. Tithes, pag. 353. , he confesses to be a single Example, not seconded in any Law-Books elsewhere, yet against all reason he would have it refer to the common use of arbitrary Grants; but if any such use had been common, there would have been more Examples of such kind of prohibitions. Besides, if this were not till King Johns time( as Mr. S. guesseth) then this H. Bishop of Lincoln, was Hugh walls, who died not till 1234, and so it comes too late for the time he limited before. As for the Writ itself, it prohibits a Cause of Tithes to be tried in the Spiritual Court, between the Precentor of Lincoln( on whom the Bishop of Lincoln, after the custom of his Predecessors had freely collated these Tithes) and the Prior of S. Katherines, who claimed them as due to one of his Parish Churches; and the reason of the prohibition is, Because the collation of these Tithes might devolve to the King by reason of custody or escheat, since the King and many of his Nobles used to confer such Tithes in some of their demesnes. But if this were a special privilege of the King, and of many( not, all) his Nobles, and in some of their demesnes only, then doubtless it was no Common right belonging to the Lord of every Mannor, as Mr. S. hath pretended, pag. 366. Exceptio firmat regulam, this special privilege utterly destroys his universal liberty. Besides Mr. S. fallaciously puts in the word [ libere] pag. 355. where he is speaking of the King and his Nobles power to collate unto these Tithes, since the Writ apparently makes a difference between the Bishops Power, and the Kings or his Nobles, in this particular, saying, Episcopi loci praedicti liberè confer consueverunt; but of the King and his Nobles it only saith, Conserimus( not, liberè conferimus) the reason of which difference is easily this, That Bishops might collate to them without the leave or consent of any other; but both the King and his Nobles must have the Bishops consent. And if( as he thinks, pag. 55.) these Tithes were Decimae separatae, i.e. a portion taken out of some Parish Tithes, then we can prove, that the King and his Nobles had this privilege ( here claimed) by the Bishops consent at first, because Bishops did separate such Portions by their Authority, as appears by Chartularies of Rochester, where it is said, The separate portion of Crankburn Tithes in Hadlo Parish, was by the Bishops consent; and therefore at the Institution of a person of Hadlo the Bishop used to accept those separate Tithes. Now if the King or Nobles had any such privilege from the Bishop at first, it secures the right of the Clergy in disposition of Tithes, and makes not for Mr. S. his purpose. I am sure the Tithes of Harewell in his next example of a Prohibition 
Hist. Tithes, pag. 357. , were given to the abbey of Osney by the Founder, and are name in his Charter, An. 1129, as given by the advice and confirmation of the Bishop of Lincoln 
Monast. Tom. 2. p. 137. , and therefore whatever privilege edmond Earl of Cornwall( then Patron of the abbey in all probability) or the King upon the wardship or escheat of that Family, might pretend; they had it at first by a Bishops Grant, and so this Prohibition doth not disprove the Bishops power of disposing Tithes; and withal, since these Tithes were of old, viz. 150 year before this Prohibition( which was but An. 1279) settled Canonically on the abbey of Osney, we may be confident The collating of Tithes here spoken of, could not mean arbitrary giving them to what place or person they pleased, but only the collating either of an Abbot to the whole abbey, or else of a Vicar to this Portion of Tithes, and neither of them do hurt our Opinion. Again, The special privilege of Story, To build a Church in his Demesn, and to sand his Tithes to what Church he pleased 
Hist. Tithes, p 36. , shows, this was no Common right; and by the use of the time we have reason to believe, this Privledge was granted him by the Pope and Bishop of the diocese; for if it were granted from the Secular Power, it could only allow him to do it without the Licence of any Secular Superior, but doth not exclude the Bishops assent. And it is very strange that Mr. S. should first say, It is specially found, of this one man, and then infer, that this liberty was common to all.  
§. III. As for the liberty challenged by Bishops and Barons in King John's time, to erect new Churches on their Land 
Ib. p. 361. , it will not prove a liberty of Arbitrary Consecrations in Lay-men, because the Bishop of the diocese must dedicate this new Church, and ratify the endowment thereof, or else the building was no Church, nor did the endowment legally belong to it; nor did this destroy Parochial right, but divide those Tithes between two Churches by Ecclesiastical consent, which were formerly enjoyed by one, both for convenience of the Parishioners, and encouraging of Devotion. And the Decretal of Innocent, cited by Mr. S. to prove this right of the Barons, doth not say, They challenged this right without Episcopal consent. The Bishops of England, in their Letter to Innocent about this matter, say, By the Custom of England, Tam Archiepiscopi, quam Episcopi, quam etiam Laici, authoritate Diocesani Episcopi possint Ecclesiam conventionalem in suo construere fundo. Gervas. Dorobern. col. 1612. And the Bishop of Canterbury, for his new erection at Lambeth had the Confirmations of two preceding Popes, Lucius and Urban, and if the Archbishop did not challenge such a right without Ecclesiastical Licence, why should the Lay-Barons do it 
Innocent. 3. Decret. l. 1. pag. 288. ? And if Lay Barons did challenge a right of building Churches without consent, yet still the Consecration and Ratification of the endowment made the Bishops consent absolutely necessary before the design could take effect. Again, the Cases about Tithes in Johannes Sarisburiensis do show, that when two Churches contended about Tithes, he that proved Jus Parochiale, carried them 
Sarisb. Ep. 21. p. 503.& Ep. 84. p. 521. . And in the latter Example, Parochial right is proved by endowment at the Consecration, Episcopo Londinense present& approbant( saith that Author:) so that An. 1150. Parochial right was a good plea in Law, and Endowments were made valid long before that, by Bishops at the Dedication. The Donation of William Earl of Warren, which he here calls an Arbitrary Consecration 
Hist. Tithes, p. 362. , he himself shows was made in the presence, and by the consent of divers Bishops 
Ib. p. 340. . Nor was there any need for Mr. S. to run so low as An. 1265. to find an instance of Tithes sued for upon this ground, because they were arising within the Parish; for his former Instances out of Sarisburiensis, and divers others, confessed by him, and by me produced both in this and the former Chapters, abundantly show that Suits upon that Title were far more ancient, and that his English Monks either are sadly mistaken in fixing the beginning of Parochial right, or he grossly misinterprets them: see Chap. X.§. ult. And surely the person of Gillingham, An. 1278 
Hist. Tithes p. 364.  durst not have complained of the King himself, in Parliament, for detaining Tithes due to him( as growing within his Parish) De jure communi, if the Parochial right had not been settled long before; and this complaint shows the injury was very unusual, and the person very confident of his right, which doth no way hurt, but strengthen our Opinion.  
§. IV. From the preceding evidence it is very plain, that whatever was done contrary to Parochial right, under pretence of either Common or Canon Law in this Age, it was an Innovation and a Usurpation upon that ancient right, which was settled here long before the Conquest; but neither before the year 1200, nor afterward, was it lawful to dispose of Parochial Tithes without the Bishops consent. And for the Tithes of vast Forrests, and land not lying within the limits of any Parish, the Canon Law determines, they belong to the Bishop 
Decretal. l. 3. Tit. 30. pag. 1332. ; and Herle, an ancient Common Lawyer, An. 1333, is of the same Opinion 
Hist. Tithes, p. 368. . But it seems the King, by virtue of his Prerogative, challenged a peculiar Power to dispose of these Tithes to what Church or Monastery he pleased, as King Henry the First did the Tithes of Inglewood forest to the Priory of Carlisle; yet let it be observed, That Henry the First( as is proved before) generally made his Grants of this kind with the Bishops consent, and so in all probability he had such consent to this gift; but however it is evident these Grants were so little used, that both the person of the adjacent Parish, and the Bishop, severally claim these Tithes, and sue the Prior for them, which shows that it was not yet determined in Law, whether these Grants of the King were good or no, nor yet to whom the right of these Tithes belonged. And if we grant to Mr. S. all he desires, yet the special privilege of the King, is no proof of any Common right in the Subjects; nor are Tithes of vast Forrests ever limited to any Parish, a fit parallel for Parochial Tithes, which after all his pretences do still appear so anciently and firmly settled, that the Laity could never arbitrarily dispose of them, and so we dismiss this tedious Chapter.   

CHAP. XII. Of Appropriations.  
§. I. IN the next place Mr. S. makes a like unfortunate attempt to prove, that Lay Patrons did arbitrarily Appropriate whole Churches and Tithes to Monasteries. In the Saxon times, he saith, the Charters conveying them have usually nothing but Ecclesias, with some Land or Rent annexed 
Hist. Tithes, pag 370. . The reason whereof may be, either because only the Patronage was then conveyed, or rather, that Tithes and Churches were so constantly annexed in those times( before Bishops had consented to so many Grants of Tithes disposed from the Parish Church) that it was not necessary to name more than the Church, since no Tithes were then separated from it. But those Appropriations of Bertulph, Beorred, and Edred, Saxon Kings, which he cites out of Ingulphus 
engulf. hist. p. 490, 492, 498. , have the Subscription and Ratification of divers Bishops, yet extant in that Author, and so were made with Ecclesiastical consent ( as all such Donations in that Age were) and therefore they are no Arbitrary Lay Appropriations. Nor were there any such after the Conquest, for that Covenant, generally used in all these Conveyances, That the Incumbent of the Appropriate Church was to answer to the Monastery for Temporal Profits, and to the Bishop for Spiritual Jurisdiction, shows the Bishops joined in the Conveyance, and so took care to secure their own Jurisdiction. And when we might have expected some Charters of Arbitrary Lay Appropriations, Mr. S. here sets down a Bishops Confirmation of Appropriate Churches within Seventeen years after the Conquest; and the Historian saith, it was by the Kings express order, 
Hoveden, part. 1. p. 263. An. 1083.  and the Bishop there grants them by the words of Do& Concedo. And if the Conqueror could do this by himself, why did he order the Bishop to do it? If it be objected, The Priory of Durham was possessed of these Churches before: I answer, Whenever they were given in any time of the Saxons, the custom ever was for the Bishops to sign the Grants. But let it be noted, that all the Churches given to Monasteries in that Age were not conveyed to them pleno jure, so as the Monks could take the Profits in usus proprios, and so they were not strictly Appropriations; the abbey at first only had the Patronage, and so presented a Clerk to the Bishop, who anciently had all the Profits, till first the Monks charged their Churches with Pensions by the Bishops connivance, and afterward got them wholly Appropriate to them by Bishops Charters, reserving only a Competent portion for the Vicar, which is usually set down in the Instrument of Appropriation: but to make it plain, that no Lay-man could make a Church to be Appropriate, let us consult the Monasticon, where there are very many forms of Appropriations yet extant. One by John Bishop of Norwich( consecrated An. 1177) confirmed by Hubert the Archbishop 
Monast. Angl. Tom. 1. p 638. . Another Appropriating the Church of Gargrave to Sally, by William Bishop of York, An: 1121. Six Churches together are appropriate to Tavestoc in one Charter, 
Ibid. p. 842.  by Bartholomew Bishop of Exeter, An. 1159. 
Ibid. p. 998.  Three more Churches appropriate by the Archbishops of York, two of them by Turstan( consecrated An. 1119) 
Tom. 2. p. 103, 104.  with many other Examples after the year 1200. 
Ib. pag. 57, 208, 433, &c.  And the form of proceeding was this, First the Patron usually petitioned the Bishop to appropriate the Church, as appears by a Charter of Roger Bishop of Worcester( consecrated An. 1170) 
Ib. p. 409. : Then the King also gave Licence to the Monks,— quantum in nobis est( as his Charters speak) 
T. 1. p. 493.& T. 2. p. 319. , that he who had power to unite and appropriate might do it 
T. 1. p. 493.& ibid. 489. : And then the Bishop made his Charter of Appropriation, and sometimes the Popes confirmed it, and made the Monks pay well for it 
Tom. 1. pag. 898. . And if the King himself gave the Church, they were first to resign it to the Bishops disposal, and he gave it back by his Charter of Appropriation 
T. 2. p. 665. , only reserving still what portion of the Tithes or Profits he thought fit, for the Vicars maintenance 
Tom. 1. pag. 506,& Tom. 2. 265, 656, &c. ; all which abundantly proves, that Bishops only could appropriate Churches: Which yet may further appear from that Article of enquiry in the Visitation of the Bishop of Lincoln, An. 1230, Whether any Monks had appropriated Tithes or Churches to themselves, without the Diocesans Licence, or somewhat of that nature 
Spelm. council. Tom. 2. p. 193. . And a Synod at Worcester, An. 1240, decrees, That all Religious Persons shall show by what Title they possessed Tithes, contrary to the Jus commune 
Ib. p. 254. . And therefore the Monks of Stanlaw prove their Title to the Church of Whally by the Patron's Gift, the Diocesan's Confirmation, and the Pope's Appropriation 
Monastic. Tom. 1. p. 902. . William Archbishop of York, requires the Monks of Shrewsbury to prove their right to the Church of Kirkham, by the donation of the Earl, and the confirmation of the Archbishop 
Ib. p. 380. ; and the Abbot of S. Maries York is summoned to show, by what Title he receives Parochial Tithes against the tenor of the Jus commune; and they producing the Popes Bulls, and the Archbishops old Charters, the present Archbishop confirmed them 
An. 1344. Tom. 1. p. 392. . A like summons there is from Walter Bishop of Coventry, to all the Religious Houses in his diocese 
An. 1319. ibid. p. 1022. , and another from Richard Bishop of Worcester 
An. 1404. Tom. 2. p. 856. . Sometimes also the King ordered Inquest to be made, and then the Monks were to prove their Churches were Canonically appropriated to them 
Ib. Tom. 2: p. 803. ; and if their Evidences were burnt, they confirmed it by mens Oaths, who had seen the Bishops Charters 
T. 1. p. 207. Tom. 2. p. 92 . Whence it is as clear as the Sun, that no Lay-man could ever make any Appropriation. And indeed, the Lay-granters do express as much in their very Charters: Rees, a Prince of Wales, gives some Churches to Tallach abbey, Quantum ad Dominum fundi pertinebat 
Monast. Tom. 1. p. 466. . Nigellus de Munevil gives all the Churches of his demesnes, with their appurtenances, &c. to the Monks— as far as a Lay-man had right to give Ecclesiastical Profits, Anselm the Archbishop giving his assent and Authority to the gift, An. 1095. 
Ib. p. 560.  Eustachius Fitz-John, An. 1150. gives a Church to Malton, As far as it was lawful for a Lay-man 
T. 2 p. 816. ; and the same phrase is used by Roger de Flamvil in a like gift 
Ib. p. 818, 819. . Richard de Heriet gives Somerford Church to the Nuns of Kington, As far as pertains to the Patron, in the presence of Herbert Bishop of Sarum, An. 1196. 
Ib. p 887.  William Bishop of London, An. 1219, confirms Churches to Monks, which they had by the gift of Geoffry de Mandevil and his Heirs, as far as was in a Lay-mans power to give them 
T. 1. p. 364. . Now, though all this be so plain, yet Mr. S. proceeds to search for occasions of Cavil.  
§. II. And first he saith, that in elder Appropriations the Church and Tithes passed from the Patron by his gift, as a freehold passeth by dead and Livery: Neither was confirmation or assent of the Ordinary necessary, as of later time. And this he proves by one Example only, of Robert Dane, who about King Henry the Seconds time, appropriated the Church of Waldrene to the Priory of Lewes in Sussex 
Hist. Tithes, p. 373. . But I have given nigh an hundred Examples and evident Proofs, that the Ordinary's consent was necessary, both before Henry the seconds time, in it, and after it; and this one Example of his, is neither ancient( being but about An. 1160) nor is it any Appropriation at all; for Robert de Dene only gives the Patronage of Waldrene Church to the Prior of Lewes, with a Pension of Six shillings eight pence out of the whole Profits, to be paid by the Incumbent, whom he obliged to live single, or to forfeit the place, and the Prior to present another; but then let it be considered, the Bishop must institute this person of Waldrene, and so consent to these Covenants, or else they were not good in Law; and though Mr. S. have not produced the Bishops Charter, yet the practise of the time makes it probable there was one; however, being only a conveyance of the Patronage, and a very small Pension, it is impertinently brought for an instance of an Appropriation. He adds, Very many are extant, so made as well by Common Persons, as Kings in the Saxons time and since, without Confirmations 
Ib. p. 374. . I answer, If many were so made, it is wonder he could not produce one; and for the Saxon Times I never saw one, but it was subscribed, signed, and ratified by the Bishops; and afterwards, when the Bishops by special Charters did appropriate Churches, there are innumerable of them extant, and if some be lost, it is no strange thing, considering many Lay-grants are lost also, for in some Foundations all the Lay-Charters are lost, and only the Bishops Confirmations remaining 
Mon. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 476. 404, 420, 442,& Tom. 2. 432, 433, &c. ; yet as I will not be so vain as to argue, there never were any Lay-grants, because none are now extant: so Mr. S. must not say, there were no Bishops Confirmations, because none now are to be found. He tells us, The King and superior Lords confirmed ordinary Lay-mens Grants, and some say, the King did it as supreme Ordinary. I answer, That the Kings and Superior Lords Confirmations are generally directed to the Bishop, and many Bishops Charters were made to confirm these Confirmations, by the Kings and Superior Lords special request; yea the King himself did not give Tithes and Churches, but by the consent of Bishops. King Henry the First, in his Charter to Tewksbury, An. 1106. saith, All these Gifts my Barons confirmed with me( naming) Girard Archbishop of York and four Bishops more 
Monast. T. 1. p. 162. . His Charter to Eynsham was made, by the assent and counsel of his Bishops and Barons 
An. 1●09. ibid. p. 265. . His grant of Tithes to Cirencester was, by the consent and authority of Pope Innocent, and by the counsel and approbation of his Archbishops and Bishops 
An 1133. Tom. 2. p. 89. . King Henry the Second, gives Tithes to Dodford by the advice and at the request of Baldwin the Archbishop 
Ib. p. 3●7. ; and of this we might bring many more Examples. And since he confesses, there were two Councils in the time of Henry the First, both confirmed by that King, to prohibit Lay-men from giving Churches to Monks without the Bishops assent( both cited before) 
Ch. xi.§. 1. in fine. . We may conclude, no such Lay Appropriations were then made, the Chartularies of Rochester have one clear Example of the use of that time, viz. about An. 1140; for it is recorded, That Alice de Elsings requested Theobald the Archbishop, to grant the Church of Elsings, built upon her Land to the Priory of Leeds, for she( as far as in her lay) had given the Temporalities of it to them for ever. And Mr. S.( for all his brags) hath not one Example of the contrary, but flies to remote Conjectures about other matters; for the Preamble of Alexanders Decretal 
Append. ad council. Later. par. 28. c. 11. ap. been. Tom. 3. p. 2. pag. 620.  concerns not Appropriations, only it condemns a wicked and enormous Custom of investing Clerks with Churches without Institution from the Bishop; but the Decree doth excommunicate the Receiver, and all the other Decretals here cited declare the Donation to be voided 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 38. cap. 10. pag. 1443. item cap. 11,& 21. . I will not enter into the dispute about Investitures, but keeping close to the business of Appropriations of Parish Churches to Monasteries, shall note, that Mr. S. offers but one Example of a person that was Instituted by a Lay-man, Legitimè institutus à W. Nobili viro 
Hist. Tithes, pag. 378. ; and this is so notorious a forgery that he may well be ashamed of it; for the Decretal he cites hath no such matter in it, speaking only of a person E. who( as the Bishop of Exeters Letter informed the Pope) was legally instituted by R. his Predecessor of happy memory 
Append. ad council. Lat. par. 8. c. 14. been. Tom 3. par. 2. p. 589. , that is, by Robert Bishop of Exeter; and this W. the Noble man, would have put this E. out of the Living, though he had been so instituted, upon pretence that E. had resigned it to his Lords Chaplain, now deceased, and so the Church( as W. the Noble man and Patron pretended) was voided, and he would have presented another. So that this shows the use of Institutions as early as Robert of Exeters time, An. 1150. and manifests how bad a Cause Mr. S. manages, since it needs these base supports of manifest false quotation.  
§. III. The Grant of Rents and Pensions out of Rectories by Patrons, would show somewhat of arbitrary disposal of part of the Church Revenues, if it could be proved to be done without the Bishops consent. But the Grant of six Marks per Annum to S. Noete out of the Church of Wimbish, by Robert Fitz-Walter in King Johns time 
Hist. Tithes, p 378. , plainly supposes the Bishops consent, because the Charter saith, Whatever person upon his or his Heirs Presentation, shall be instituted to Wimbish, he shall give security to the Monks for this payment. Wherefore, since the Bishop was to take security at his Institution, we may be sure he allowed of the Pension. And the Chartularies of Rochester will more fully explain this, where Gilbert de Glanvil( about An. 1200) grants to the Priory of Leeds, by the will and consent of Roger de Mereworth, Patron, and Martin, person of Mereworth, Forty shillings in the name of a perpetual bnfice, to be received from the said Martin while he lived, and afterward from his Successors— and the said M. swore, to make this payment in the Bishops presence. So that we see these Grants were made before the Bishop, and he confirmed them; yea, and the Incumbents consent was necessary also, for in the same Records, William person of Frendesbury consents to make Strodes ( formerly one of his chapels) to be a Parish Church. And the Monasticon hath many full instances of the Incumbents consent to all Grants concerning the Tithes of his Church. Maud, Countess of Warwic, gives Tadcaster to the Monks of Sally, Nicholas person of that Church being present, and consenting 
Monastic. Tom. 1. p. 843. . And the Patron undertakes to satisfy the person of Saltry, when he gives that Church to the abbey 
Ib. p. 850. . The person also did consent 
Ib Tom. 2. pag. 80. , and if not, the Patron and Bishop both in their Grants are forced to save and except to them their possession during their life 
T. 1. p. 638. Tom. 2. p. 97. pag. 409. ; yea Mr. S. confesseth at last, pag 381. That the assent of the Patron and Bishop was sometimes had, and he proves it by a full instance, An. 1196. and though he say, he never met with an instance wherein the Incumbent was Grantor, yet the Register of Rochester hath two Charters; the first of which, made by Gilbert person of Sutton, declares, That the Bishop of Rochester, by his consent and will, had made a Grant of Tithes out of new Tillage in his Parish, to the Monks of Rochester, and to confirm it as far as concerned him and his Church of Sutton he seals this Grant, An. 1192. And in another Charter, Thomas person of Koclestan, grants to the Hospital at Strodes, Ten shillings out of his Church yearly, assigned to the said Hospital by Gilbert Bishop of Rochester; and that this may be firm for ever, the said person sets his Seal to it. Where we see both Bishops and Incumbents joined in the Grant of Rents and Pensions out of Rectories, and so it was no arbitrary Act of the Patron. As for the Fine he cites 
Hist. Tithes, pag. 379. , An. 1184, it seems the Church of Budcketun was made voided at that time when the Patronage was in dispute, and therefore no Incumbent is name; but since the Prior of Lewes quits his whole claim for a Pension of 4 s. per An. we may reasonably believe it was only an old Pension renewed, or else the Prior would scarce have taken so small a compensation for his claim. However, it is sure the Patron and Prior both were sure of the Bishops consent, because they agree the person, Qui in eadem Ecclesiâ, per ipsum R.( the Patron) aut haeredes suos instituetur, post institutionem suam coram Episcopo fidelitatem praestabit, &c. that he will pay the aforesaid Four shillings. Nor need we be startled at the word Instituted, which is here used for the Patrons presenting, since the Incumbent was to go to the Bishop for admittance after such presentation by the Patron, and then he was to give security to the Bishop for this payment, because indeed the Grant had been voided, if not made with his consent. The like may be said to his other instance of the Church of Kirkham 
Hist. Tithes, p. 381. , An. 1196. since there also the Incumbent was to give Security before the Bishop for true payment of the Pension. And indeed Mr. S. begins now to abate of his confidence, and( after a confession, that the person and Bishops assent was sometimes had) he only says now, It may be strongly conjectured, it was not thought altogether necessary; but our express Proofs show it was necessary: to which we may add, The Confirmation of Benedict Bishop of Rochester( An. 1214) of a Pension of Forty shillings per An. out of the Church of Chealks, to the Monks of Norwich. And another of Five pound per An. to the same Monks from the same Church, Confirmed by Richard Bishop of Rochester, An. 1260. Both extant in those Chartulary Pensions, therefore were then confirmed by Bishops: And for the Bishops use of Instituting, he grants pag. 382. They most usually Instituted also where Lay-men were Patrons, after Anselm's time( An. 1114); And this he proves by Turstan Archbishop of Yorks granting power to the Archdeacon of Richmund to Institute( An. 1120) 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 8. cap. 6. p. 1163. ; and by two Decretals, one of which orders the Incumbent at his Institution by the Bishop, to swear he will pay the caconical Pensions 
Ib. l. 2. Tit. 24. c. 11. p. 874. . The other Decretal gives the Bishop power to refuse him that is presented, if he judge him unfit 
Ib. l. 3. Tit. 38. c. 24. pag. 1452. . And both a Chief Justice Glanvil, and a Learned Church-man, are here by Mr. S. brought in for evidence, of the Bishops usual Instituting in the time of Henry the Second, which utterly confutes his false Assertion, That Lay Patrons did arbitrarily fill their Churches; for they could not do it without the Bishop liked their Clerk, and ratified the Presentation by his Institution. As for the scruple he raises about the Archdeacons Instituting, and not the Bishop 
Hist. Tithes, p. 383. , it is well known that the Archdeacon is Oculus Episcopi, and but his Vicar in this Act 
Fulberti Ep. 34. Sarisb. ep. 1. pag. 499. ; and in the vacancy he may suspend 
Idem Ep. 3. , receive Resignations 
Id. Ep. 5.8. Ivo Ep. 1. , or excommunicate Intruders 
Ivo Epist. 131. ; but they are forbid to do these things Propriâ Autoritate 
Append. ad council. La●er. par. 24. cap. 2. been. T. 3. par. 2. p. 614 . And for Mr. S. his Instance of a Writ directed to the Archdeacon for filling of a Church in Lincoln diocese, An. 1207 or 1208, it is certain there was no Bishop of Lincoln at that time, for William of Blois died An. 1206, and Hugo walls was not Consecrated till An. 1209 
Godwin. de Vit. praesul. pag. 347. ; in this Vacancy therefore the Writ must needs be directed to the Archdeacon. And for the Institutions he speaks of pag. 385. by the Archdeacon of Leicester, An. 1221. they were either by Commission from the Bishop, or else during the time that Hugh de walls was excommunicated by the Pope 
Ib. p. 347. , for Lincoln was not vacant then. And for Induction, we are sure it hath been given by the Archdeacon ever since the time of Pope Adrian, An. 1156 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 8. c. 6. p. 1163. , and Johannes Sarisburiensis 
Sarisb. Ep. 1. : so that after all this dust raised, our great Antiquary can find nothing yet, to disprove the Bishops consent to all fair dispositions of Church Revenues.  
§. IV. Another Argument of Patrons disposing Churches without the Bishops consent, Mr. S. takes from two Canons, forbidding the Sons of Priests to inherit their Fathers benefice 
An. 1103. Spelm. council. Tom. 2. p. 24. , or to claim them by succession, or for any Incumbent to appoint his own Successor 
An. 1125. p. 34. ; which he supposes could not be done, if the Bishop had then Instituted upon presentation, as is now usual. But I reply, The very Bishops sometimes consented to such Succession, which occasioned that Canon in a London Council to forbid them to consent to it 
An. 1237. ib. p. 226. ; yet above four year after the first Canon, the Pope by a Decretal to Anselm, allows him to admit the Sons of Priests into Churches, since the most and best of the English Clergy then were such 
An. 1107. ib. p. 29. . But several of Mr. S. his Quotations here out of the Canon Law, do show that the Bishops did institute Priests Sons into their Fathers benefice 
Hist. Tithes, pag. 386. . His third Quotation speaks of a Priest, the Son of a former Incumbent, who had Canonically got the Living, and enjoyed it Thirty year, about An. 1150. 
Decret. l. 2. Tit. 20. cap. 7. pag. 766.  The fourth is the same Case, saying more plainly, That he who possessed the Church of C. Jure haereditario, did Canonically obtain it, i.e. by the Bishops Institution 
Append. ad council. Later. par. 8. cap. 22. been. T. 3. par. 2. pag. 590. . The Eighth Quotation shows, that Incumbents of Livings belonging to abbeys, promised Pensions to the Monks on condition they woul present their Sons after their decease 
Ib. par. 28. cap. 8. p. 620. ; which implies, the Bishops would allow such Successions till the Pope here forbid it. The last Quotation directs the Bishop, in what case he may admit Sons 
Ib. par. 49. c. 14. pag. 640. . These therefore do expressly show, that Priests Sons did often succeed their Fathers by the Institution of Bishops, and therefore such succeeding in benefice is no good Argument, that the Bishops did not Institute in those days, or that Patrons without their consent could dispose of their Church Livings. His Second and Seventh Quotations, forbid Bishops to admit such Incumbents as Patrons nominated, on condition of others to succeed them 
Decret l. 1. Tit. 35. cap. 5. pag. 484. , and his Sixth Quotation expressly mentions the Patrons presenting to the Bishop 
Append. ad council. Later. par. 19. cap. 1. been. p. 609. : yet these Mr. S. brings in( hoping they would never be examined) to prove Patrons giving Livings to Priests Sons without the Bishops consent, which is flatly contradicted by Seven of his Nine places brought to prove it, and the other Two places neither affirm nor deny the Bishops consent. As for the Verdict, An. 1195, of a Priest that gave a Living to his Son, according to the Custom of Cambridge then, let it be noted this Priest was both Patron and Incumbent, and so might well be said to give his Son the Living, if he gave him only a Presentation to it, to entitle him to the Bishops Institution; and those words, According to the Custom of Cambridge then, are put in, because of old, Priests Sons there might have succeeded their Fathers, though now when this Verdict was given, such Succession was not allowed. But suppose Mr. S. could find some few irregular Patrons and Priests, who in contempt of the Bishops ancient right, and the Laws did dispose of their Livings without his consent; yet we see this course was illegal, and the more usual custom was in all times to get the Bishops consent.  
§. V. We have proved, that Bishops alone admitted all Clerks to Churches in the first Ages, and when Patrons were allowed to nominate, still the Bishop was to approve, Chap. VI.§. 3. and we have shewed, that Bishops did Institute here long before the year 1200; so that we do not thank Mr. S. at all for granting, That after this time, neither Kings nor other Patrons filled their Churches otherwise, than by Presentation to the Bishop 
Hist. Tithes, p. 387. ; for we may be sure Bishops Instituting was long used here, before the Law of Lapse( which is grounded on it) was made: yet he truly cites Hoveden to show this Law was made in Alexander's Lateran Council, An. 1179 
Hoveden pars poster. p. 336. ; and he might have found in the same Author, that the Dean of York did pled this very Law of the Lateran Council, for his refusing an Archdeacon of the West-riding, presented by the Archbishop after the Six Months was expired, An. 1195 
Ib. p. 430. b. ; and therefore we need not wonder it was alleged here in Courts of Justice very anciently, and become Consuetudo regni Angliae 
An. 1281. Hist. Tithes, pag. 390. , when it had continued above an hundred years. But Mr. S. wanting better Arguments, falls to criticise upon the old form of the Writ of Quare Impedit, hoping to squeeze somewhat but of it to prove, that Lay Patrons anciently invested Clerks into Parish Churches without the Bishop: but I think this Writ will prove the contrary, for first, this Writ could not be older than the Bishops power of refusing Institution to Incumbents, and the form is, to order the Bishop, That he justly, &c. permit the Patron to present a fit Person to such a vacant Church belonging to his donation. Here the word [ Permit] declares it must be done by the Bishops leave, and he also is Judge whether the person be fit or no. The word [ Donation] implies no more than giving a Title, and [ Praesentare] signifies no more than to Present a Clerk to the Bishop, no not in the Decretals he cites, where Representare is also used in the same sense 
Decret. l. 3. Tit. 39. cap. 11. p. 1467. Et ib. Tit. 5. cap. 31. p 1150. Et l. 5. Tit. 33. cap. 3. pag. 1962. , as any man may see who will examine the places: And to say, that [ Praesentare] is taken for constituting a Priest in that sense that Timothy and Titus did[ {αβγδ}] Ordain Elders in every City, Titus I. ver. 5.( as Mr. S. very absurdly affirms) is to make Lay Patrons Bishops, and give them power of Ordination. And if he that only hath the bare nomination of a Clerk, be said [ Praesentare;] then surely to Present cannot signify Investing, or complete putting into possession; for Mr. S. saith, pag. 86. The Patrons at this day have no more power but of Nomination, which gives no interest or possession. And yet Patrons have now as much power as they had of old, for Mr. S. confesseth here 
Hist. Tithes, pag. 393. , that {αβγδ} is the oldest word used in this matter, even in Justinian's Law, which he here cites; by which it is plain, that of old Patrons had no power but of bare Nomination, and if they have exercised any more since, it hath been by Usurpation. But the strangest thing of all is, that Mr. S. should city Cicero's Epistles to prove, that Nominatio signifies, to invest with an Office: When Brutus there, upon the Vacancy of the Consulship, desires Cicero( who, as being Augur, was to name the Candidates for vacant Offices) to name Bibulus, Neque enim( saith he) digniorem nominare potes quam Bibulum 
Review, p. 471. ; but though the Augur name the Candidates, the People in Comitiis choose whom they pleased; and it was not the Augur's naming( no more than it is the Patrons presenting) that put them into the Office, but the Peoples approbation; and though 'tis like Cicero did name Bibulus, yet History shows he did not get the place: so that Nominatio doth not at all signify to invest into an Office, in Cicero, nor had the Patrons ever any such Power legally vested in them. All which strongly proves, that the Church Profits were always, and ought to be disposed by the Bishops consent.   

CHAP. XIII. Of infeudations and Exemptions.  
§. I. BY all the foregoing Confutations of Arbitrary Consecrations and Appropriations, it may appear that the Conveying Tithes into Lay-hands at the Dissolution of abbeys, was not grounded upon any Ancient practise, but was an unprecedented Act; and Mr. S. himself thinks, the Tithes so conveyed can scarce be enjoyed with a safe Conscience 
Review, pag. 471. . Nor was there any Law of this Kingdom in Henry the Fifths's time, to enable him to have made infeudations to the Laity of Prior Aliens Tithes given him by Act of Parliament, wherefore that Prince justly disposed of them to other Ecclesiastics, which pattern if King Henry the Eighth had followed, his proceedings had been far more justifiable. As for infeudations, before the dissolution Mr. S. grants there is no certain Testimony of them in England, and the Proofs he brings are, at best, but remote Conjectures. Those Tithes which Odo, Bishop of Bayeux and Earl of Kent, confirms, viz. Decimas quas fideles ejus habebant. Hist. Tithes, Chap. xi. pag. 1. seem to be no more but the Tithes of their Land, which they desired to give to the Monks of S. Augustines: and pag. 331. The Tithes given to Robert Saint-John by his elder Brother William, and by the said Robert given to Boxgrave, were no Parochial Tithes, but Decimas gabulorum, the Tenth part of his Tolls, or his Rents in money. The Tithe of Nicholas de Stodeham was enjoyed by a Clergy Man( Curate of the place it is like) till he gave( and his Lord d'Oily confirmed) it to Osney, by the advice and consent of the Bishop of the diocese( as we proved before:) And if the story be true of Roger d'Oily's giving his Tithes yearly sometimes to one Servant, and sometimes to another, it is no example of an Infeodation, but an illegal, impious and wild sacrilege; but Mr. S. gives little credit to this Author, pag. 401. As for Hern and Pigot's case, he himself tells us, pag. 407. That continual consideration was given to the Church for the Tithes enjoyed by this Lay-man; so that this was a Composition or Tenancy, rather than an Infeodation. Wherefore there were anciently no infeudations in England, nor would they be allowed( saith Mr. S.) at this day, unless they could derive them from the Grant of the Patron, person, and Ordinary; that is, unless they came from the Church, as we have fully proved they did in other Countries, Chap. VI.§. 4. and not only the Author of the Book of Osney, but Lindwood also is cited by Mr. S. to prove the truth of that Opinion 
Tit. De locato& condacto, c. licet bona, verb. Portiones. ; and if there were infeudations here granted first from the Church, though the Grantors were faulty, yet still all Church Revenues were disposed by the Church. The phrase in Domus-Dei Book, that such a Lay-man tenet Ecclesiam, and sold it to such an one, is only meant of the Patronage, which also was forbid to be sold a little after 
Append. ad council. Later. cap. 15, 16, 17. been. Tom. 3. par. 2. pag. 603. ; and the phrase of Decimas aut Ecclesiam, is to denote the Profits and the Patronage 
Ib. c. 18. . The Kings having a share in the Oblations at the Church of Mosely, reaches not the matter of Tithes: so that neither his Examples nor his Arguments do show there were any infeudations in England.  
§. II. Since all Exemptions come originally from the Church, and are granted to such as were reckoned of old among the Clergy, though the Pope did ill to grant them, yet it no way makes for Mr. S. his Opinion of Lay-mens arbitrary retaining or disposing Tithes, so that we need say nothing concerning them: Only, since these Exemptions from Tithes are grounded upon an unjust exercise of Papal power, and that also to such as were accounted of the Clergy, surely they are but a slender security to a Lay Protestants Conscience, who rejects the Popes Authority, and yet by virtue of that Authority retains what is due to the Parish Minister by the Law of God, with which no Earthly power can dispense. Mr. S. tells us, The Parliament itself thought them so unjust, An. 1399, that by a Statute 4 Hen. 4. c. 4. whoever procured any Bull for such Exemptions should be liable to a Praemunire 
Hist. Tithes, p. 407. . Nor do our present Laws allow any Prescription( saith Mr. S.) De non Decimando, unless where the Prescription began in a Church-man; and yet if it continue not still in the hands of a Church-man, the reason for which it began is ceased, and therefore( one would think) the privilege De non Decimando should cease also. But our Laws do allow Compositions and Prescriptions of a Modus Decimandi, though made at first by the power and policy of the Laity, and confirmed by the negligence or corruption of the Clergy, and though the quantity paid be never so disproportionable to the original and just due: yet they who can claim such a privilege, ought to consider, whether the allowance of Secular Laws be a sufficient Rule for conscientious Christians to walk by in all cases; and whether Custom can make an ill thing become good, as also, whether any Incumbents ill bargains( who have but Estates for life) ought to be stood upon to the prejudice of their Successors; especially where these Compositions have made some Livings so small, 
See Mr. his Review, pag. 476, 477.  that they have not left the Minister that competency, which all Men grant to be due by the Law of Nature as well as by the Law of Christ. If private gain did not pervert mens Judgments, they could not but discern they are obliged in Conscience to make some compensation at least for this injury, though Custom and human Laws secure them from being compellable thereunto.   

CHAP. XIV. Of the Jurisdiction of Tithes.  
§. I. THE matter of this Chapter doth so properly belong to Mr. S. his Profession, that I shall not contend with him therein, nor is it much material in what Courts the right of Tithes be determined, provided such as are injured may find due remedy: Yet Mr. S. grants, That regularly the Jurisdiction of them, both here and in all other States of Christendom, belongs to the Spiritual Court 
Hist. Tithes, pag. 411. . And though this Court was anciently here the same with the Shire-mot, or County Court, yet we may gather from the Capitulars( whence many of our Saxon Laws are taken) that the Bishop only judged of these matters, and the Sheriff was there only to distrain and force obedience to the Bishops Sentence 
Leg. Longob. Tit. 3. c. 7. Capit. Addit. 4. cap. 37. Conc. Mogunt. sub Raban. c. 7. , which is the meaning of that passage in the Confessors Law— he shall be compelled to restore his Tithe by the Justice of the Bishop, and if need be of the King also 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. viii.§. 13. ; for which cause, when William the Conqueror separated these Courts by that Charter cited by Mr. S. here pag. 413. he left the Trial of Tithes solely to the Bishop.  
§. II. Nor is there any reason to Mr. S. for say, There is little proof that the Spiritual Court had then the Jurisdiction of Tithes 
Hist. Tithes, pag. 414. ; for he brings divers Proofs himself, viz. of the Monks of Northampton recovering two parts of the Tithe of Wollaveston before Robert Bishop of Lincoln, An. 1150; and the Epistle of Johannes Sarisburiensis, An. 1140, mention very many Suits for Tithes in the Bishops Courts, not only in his own time, but had and determined there long before 
Sarish. Ep. 11,& 21, 84. 92, 109, 13●, &c. . To which may be added out of the Chartularies of Rochester, that William, Archbishop of Canterbury, confirms the Tithes of Modingham to the Monks of Rochester, for which they were sued before him by the person of Eltham, but he by advice of Council had adjudged them to the Monks. Archbishop Theobald, about the year 1140, confirms the Tithes of Summerfield to the Priory of Leeds, which they had recovered before him in a Synod at Canterbury. Richard, the Archbishop also, An. 1177, confirms the Portion of Geddings, recovered in a svit before him; with many other instances, which we will pass by, since Mr. S. confesseth, That the old Common Lawyers, Fleta and Bracton,( in Henry the Third's time) declare, That the Jurisdiction of Tithes belonged to these Courts 
Hist. Tithes, pag. 428. ; only we note, that Mr. S. his Example cited out of the Lateran Council, to show that this Court judged also of Arbitrary Consecrations, is grossly mistaken 
Hist. Tithes, pag. 415. , for there is not one word of any Arbitrary Consecration, only a svit between Two Parsons for a bnfice twice granted by the Patroness, and confirmed to one of the Parsons by the Bishop, and to the other by the Archdeacon 
Append. ad council. Later. par. 47. cap. 5. been. T. 3. p. 2. 636. ; and of this the Spiritual Court judged in Pope Adrian's time, An. 1155. But Mr. S. undertakes to prove, that Original Suits for Tithes were held in the Kings, as well as in the Bishops Court, before King Henry the Seconds time 
Hist. Tithes, pag. 416. : But his first instance of a Plea at Fulcardimont in Normandy, is no evidence of English practise; and in the Conqueror's time, for some years the Kings Court and the Bishops were all one. The Writ of Henry the First to Manasses Arsic, is no more but a strict Injunction to him to pay Tithes, and is no determination of right, but only( in pursuance of his own Law 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 8.§. 17. ) an order to punish him, if he would not do justice in this matter: So also is the same Kings Writ for payment of such Tithes, as by custom and good proof were due to the Church of Beverley. The Precept about the Tithes of Pocklington and Driffield, is only to confirm the Bishop of Carlisle's Grant 
Hist. Tithes, Ch. 11. p. 337. , and by adding Secular Authority thereto, to take care it be duly executed. His next Instance is after the time above prefixed( viz. 6. of Henry the Second) yet the Sheriff is only ordered to inquire of matter of Fact, and thereupon to see right done: but none of the Instances expressly mention any svit for the right of Tithes in the Kings Courts, only where the right was tried elsewhere, or well known to many Witnesses, the Kings Writs compel Offenders to pay their deuce. Sarisburiensis indeed doth charge the King and his Lay Subjects with intermeddling in judging of Churches and Tithes 
Sarisbur. Epist. 59. ; but he is wont to represent all things hard on the Kings side, and neither M. Paris, nor any other good Author, do reckon this among the Statutes of Clarendon, so that the truth of the Complaint may be doubted; and if these Suits for Tithes had been usual, surely more Testimony would have remained concerning them.  
§. III. Concerning the Antiquity or Equity of Prohibiting proceedings in the Bishops Courts, where Tithes are demanded of things not ordinarily paid, I shall not now dispute; only observe, that his first instance of such a Prohibition is but An. 1124, and that it was complained of as a great injury, in a National Synod, very soon after, viz. An. 1237. 
Hist. Tithes, p. 422, 423.  He tells us also, that( because the Common Law useth to judge of Advowsions, and the rights of Patronage, since the year 1285. the Judges have ordered all Trials in the Spiritual Court to be stopped, where the fourth part of any Churches Tithes are claimed, upon pretence, lest the Patronage be damnified: But he confesses, that neither Lindwood 
Constit. Provinc. Tit. De foro competent. cap. Circumsp. verb. Quarta pars. , nor Robert Grosthead, the famous Bishop of Lincoln 
Hist. Tithes, pag. 430. , nor the National Council of London 
Ib. p. 429. , did think this a good reason for removing this Trial to the Common Law; because since the Patron cannot justly claim any interest in the profits of his Church, therefore his Patronage is not impaired by adjudging some of the Profits( hitherto wrongfully enjoyed) to belong to another Church; which reason is clear enough to those who are not made partial by prejudice. However, Mr. S. declares, that the Writ of Indicavit, only stops proceedings till the Common Law hath discussed what concerns the Advowsion, but the final Sentence is to be given by the Spiritual Judge 
Ib. p. 426. : wherefore the right of Tithes is properly determined in the Spiritual Court, where the svit is both begun and ended.  
§. IV, V, VI. The Writs of Scire facias( to call men to answer for Tithes in the Chancery) being taken away by Statute Law, An. 1344 
Ib. p. 434. , in an Age when the Clergy rather lost than gained ground; we may believe it was rather the injustice of the thing, than the interest of the Clergy then, which caused it to be prohibited for the future. And while it was used, it seems only to have been an enquiry after matter of fact; and he grants, his Examples go no further, than where the Tithes increased out of the Kings demesnes, or immediate Tenancies 
Ib. pag. 438. ; and he brings an instance there, that this Writ was not granted out, if the Tithes belonged to any private Subject; so that this belonging purely to the Kings Prerogative, ought not to be urged either for any general practise with respect to Subjects, or for ordinary Jurisdiction. That Fine, An. 1210, only records an acknowledgement of Henry d'Albeny, That the Tithes of his demesnes of great Wicheford, were appertaining to the Church of Newton, yet the Chaplain of Wicheford( a chapel of Newton) should receive them as he had anciently done 
Ib. p. 440. . Here is no Arbitrary disposition, but an old Custom secured by a Fine upon mutual agreement. And that Example of a Writ upon a Patent, An. 1343, was not obeied by the Abbot of Colchester, who saith expressly, He doth not think this Court ought to have cognizance of this matter; and the Case was so generally thought unjust, that this gave occasion to the Statute made the year after, to prohibit these Writs for ever after 
Ib. p. 443. . Finally, the Kings issuing out his Royal Command for paying Tithes, either where the right was plain( without any svit) or where the Tithes arose out of his own Forrests, seems to be no proof of the usual or ordinary Jurisdiction of the Common Law over Tithes; but I am sensible of my own inability to determine things of this nature, wherefore I shall leave them to the more able judgement of such whose Possession fits them for these inquiries: It being sufficient for me, that I have Now proved Tithes were instituted by God, and revealed to, as well as practised by the patriarches before the Law, commanded expressly under the Law, and not at all revoked, but established in the Gospel. That they were believed to be due by Gods Law among the Primitive Fathers, and most eminent Authors of all Ages, and paid freely in obedience thereunto by the first Christians; That afterward they were settled by Laws Civil and Ecclesiastical, and Penalties inflicted on those that detained them: and here in England, Tithes which were originally due to God, were freely settled on the Church by general Consent, and that settlement confirmed by innumerable Councils and Parliaments, and Tithes by virtue thereof enjoyed or disposed of by the Clergy for above 800 years together. All which duly considered, do prove Tithes are due both by the Law of God and Man, and may convince all that have the Jurisdiction over them, that they ought To give unto God the things that are Gods.   
FINIS.