Right which the Kings of Spain injoy in Sicily and which iâ— Commonly called the Monarchy of Sicily Monarchy of Sicily because it is the greates Spiritual Right that Princes ever took to themselves It even suprasses that which Henry VIII Of England boldly took when he separated from the Church of Rome The King of Spain in Quality of King of Sicily pretends to be Legate à latere and born Legat of thâ—â— Holy See so that he and his Vice-roys in his absence have the same power over the Sicilians as to the Spiritual that a Legate à latere could have And therefore they who execute that Jurisdiction in Sicily for the King of Spain have power to absolve punish and excommunicate all sorts of Persons whether Laicks or Ecclesiasticks Monks Priests Abbors Bishops and even Cardinals themselves that reside in the Kingdom They acknowledge not the Popes Authority being Soveraign Monarchs as to the Spiritual They confess that the Pope hath heretofore given them that Priviledge but at the same time they pretend that it is not in his Power to recal it And so they acknowledge not the Pope for head to whose Tribunal no Appeal can be made because their King has no Superiour as to the Spiritual Moreover that Right of Superiority is not considered as delegated but as proper and the King of Sicily or they who hold that Jurisdiction in his place and who are Lay-men take the Title of Beatissimo Santissimo padre attributing to themselves in effect in respect of Sicily what the Pope takes to himself in regard of the whole Church and they Preside in Provincial Councils It was a matter of astonishment that in our Age Queen Elizabeth took the Title of Head of the Church of England But seeing in the Kingdom of Sicily the Female Succeeds as well as in England a Princess may take the Title of Head of the Church of Sicily and of Beatissimo Santissimo Padre Nay it hath happened so already in the time of Jean of Arragon and Castile the Mother of Charles V. the Sicilians ground this Right of Supremacy in Spirituals upon a Bull of Pope Vrban II. granted to Roger and his Successours wherein are these words Quae per legatum acturâ— sumus per vestram industriam legatâ—vice cohiberi volumus Cardinal Barenius who in his (1) Tome II. Ann. 1097. Annals resutes that pretended Spiritual Monarchy thinks that that Bull was granted by the Antipope Anacletus and that it hath not been faithfully related But it is far more probable that it is false and that it hath been forged during that time that Sicily had no Communication with the Church of Rome from which it was separated refusing to acknowledge the Holy See either in Spirituals or Temporals It was an easy matter an that time for the Kings Officers to foist in that Bull and to put it in execution for Sicily continued ninety years under an Interdict from the year 1282. until the Second year of the Pontificat of Gregory II. who took off the Interdict During that time Martin King of Arragon made great attempts upon the Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction and ordained that Bishops themselves might not Excommunicate any without his Permission or the Permission of his Vice-roy but Sicily being in possession of that Spiritual Monarchy the Kings of Spain who take the Title of Catholick Kings have rather encreased than diminished it Charles V. caused an exact search to be made to find out Titles to Justify this pretended Monarchy but it was no where found save in the Book of the Pandects that was printed in the year 1526. and confirmed by Charles V. the seventh of December the same year Afterward in the year 1556. there was a Book published called the Monarchy wherein are contained the Rights of that Jurisdiction And that this Book might be rendered the more Authentick it was signed by all of the sacred Colledge that is to say the Council of the Kingdom One Copy of it is preserved in the Royal Chancery of Sicily and another Copy was sent to the King The Bull of Vrban II. which is the Basis of the Sicilian Monarchy is related at length by Fazelle in his (1) Decad. 2. lib. 7. cap. 1. History of Sicily Printed at Palermo in the year 1558. But historians who wrote before him have made no mention of it And it is very probable that Fazelle took it from John Lucas Barberius a Sicilian who about the Year 1513. composed in favours of King Ferdinand a Volume of all the Priviledges and Titles of the Kingdom of Sicily which he called caput Brevium and in that Volume he inserted the Bull of Vrban II. As if the Original had been in the Chancery It is not to be imagined how much the word Monarchy hath displeased the Court of Rome (1) Baron Ann. 1097. n. 28. Nomen hactenus inauditum says Cardinal Baronius tunc proclamater infaustum adscribitur chartis memorie perpetuae consecratur jam regiis cusumlypis imperatorio promulgatum Edicto And he adds that the Kings of Spain in quality of Kings of Sicily take a Title that Tyrants and the greatest Enemies of the Church of Rome durst never claim (2) Ibid. n. 30. Quod nunquam à piis regibus nec à Tyrannis ipsis Romanae Ecclesiae perduellibus neque ipsis acerbissimis Romanae Ecclesiae persecutoribus Friderieo filio atque nepotibus ejusmodi Monarchiae nomen expugnatum ullatenus reperitur In fine the Cardinal pretends that to atrribute to Sicily a Spiritual Monarchy is to overthrow Divine Laws and that it is only to the Church of Rome to which our Saviour hath given that Title But the Kings of Spain slight all the complaints of the Court of Rome as to that and persist in the enjoyment of the Rights of their Spiritual Monarchy in Sicily where they acknowledge no other Pope but the King or such as he does commissionate in his place So that it may be said there are two Popes and two Sacred Colledges in the Church to wit the Pope of Rome and the Pope of Sicily to whom also may be added the Pope of England for the King of England takes the Title also of Supream over the Churches within his Dominions Thus far we have shewn the Original and Progress of Ecclesiastical Revenues how they have been administred and in what manner they have come into the Possession of Chapters and Monasteries We have besides spoken of the power of Bishops and Princes and of the Pope also over such Revenues It would be now time to shew more particularly by what ways Popes have made themselves almost absolute Masters of the goods of the Church and to observe the quarrels they have had with Princes upon that account But since Fra. Paolo hath handled that in his History and that it is sufficient to read the Decretals to be informed in what manner their authority hath been by degrees established I shall speak no more
that so the Bishops might apply themselves entirely to the duties of their Office These Stewards were likewise necessary for preserving the Revenue of the Church which the Bishops and other Church men did not employ according to the Canons But because they were appointed by the Bishops they relapsed again into the same abuse the Poor had cause to complain of the same Bishops who gave them but a very inconsiderable share of the Goods that were destined for their Use Upon all these accounts the Fathers of the Council of Calcedon decreed That for the future the Stewards should be chosen from among the Clergy and that it should be no longer in the power of the Bishops themselves to administer the Revenues of the Church That Office became so considerable in the Church of Constantinople that the Emperours took from the Clergy the nomination of the Stewards and appointed them themselves And this lasted until the time of the Emperour Isaac Comnenus who remitted that right to the disposition of the Patriarch The power of Stewards was not so great in the Western Church The Custom of the Western Church diâ—â—ers from that of the East as in the Eastern for seeing the Bishops and other Ecclesiasticks did not according to equity distribute the Church Revenues and that besides the Churches were meanly endowed there was a necessity of making a particular designation of the use to which these Rents were to be employed And that was adjusted in this manner to wit that the Bishop with consent of his Clergy should divide the whole Revenues of his Church into four parts of which the First should be for himself the Second given to the Church-men the Third to the Poor and the Fourth and last applied to the Fabrick of the Churches (1) Gratian caus 12. qâ—â—â— 2. cap. 23. Gratian relates a letter of Pope Zosimus directed to an Arch-Deacon where that distribution is mentioned but without permitting the Rents of the Church to be dismembred as some Church men pretended who would have had Lands assigned them for their portion St. Gregory answering some Questions that were put to him by Austin the English Bishop confirms that Dividend St. Greg. Pope which had been already approved by several other Popes and withal appoints that the Bishops portion should not only be for himself but for as many as were necessary for his Retinue and for maintaining Hospitality The Bishops wrangled with their Clergy about that distribution pretending that they had no right to the new Acquisitions of the Church A Dispute about the distribution of the Revenues of the Church but the same Pope St. Gregory adjusted the matter in favour of the Clergy The Priests pretended farther that they ought to have two parts of the share that was assigned to the Clergy and that the other Churchmen ought to have but a third of the same That matter was referred to the Bishop who was to give to every one according to his merit and pains Nevertheless St. Gregory who in that followed a Law established in the Churches of the West writing to Austin concerning the Discipline that he was to observe in England tells him that it was more convenient to persist in the Community of Goods in the Church of England than to introduce into it those kinds of dividends And indeed it will appear in the sequel of this Discourse that the dividing of Ecclesiastical Revenues hath been the cause of most of the disorders that have happened in the Church and I dare boldly affirm that the thing that hath preserved a greater purity of the Ancient Discipline in the Eastern Church has been chiefly that the Orientals never made any such partitions None but the Western Church hath put the Estates of the Church into Titles and Livings in the same manner as if private persons were the absolute masters of those Estates The Barbarous Princes A change of Discipline in the Church who seized part of the Empire brought great changes into the Church and the Discipline of the Canons was onely preserved in the East The Greeks nevertheless have sometimes remitted certain Ecclesiastical rights in favour of their Princes But that is nothing if compared with what hath been done under the Barbarous Princes in the West The Stewards of whom we have spoken The Office of the Stewards took upon them not only the care of the Revenues of the Church by order of the Bishops but also preserved them during the vacancy of the See and distributed them among those to whom by right and according to the Canons they belonged But because most part of the Church-men had Estates of their own either by Inheritance or Purchases that they had made there arose great difficulties upon their Death about the distinguishing of those Estates Some there were that pretended that those who lived on the Revenues of the Church could not in conscience retain their own Inheritance St. Jerom who was of that opinion St. Jerom. is positive that the goods of the Church were designed for the Poor which agreed very well with the Edict of Constantine that prohibited the Rich to enter into any Office of the Church Whether Church-men can keep their own Estates though he did it upon Politick Reasons and for the good of the State Most of the other Fathers were also of St. Jeroms mind St. Austin and St. Austin admitted no Clerk into his Church till first he had disposed of all his goods either in favour of the Poor or by Sale He was for having all Clerks really Poor in imitation of the Apostles and for living altogether in common upon the Revenues of the Church Nevertheless it is to be observed that he did not require that of them but as a greater perfection and that he never thought it absolutely necessary for entring into orders and enjoying the allowance of the Church that one must possess nothing at all Otherwise he must have gone against the Ancient Canons which leave Church-men at liberty to dispose of their own Estates as they please It is true these Canons were made in the Eastern Church where most of the Bishops having been Married before their Election had Wives and Children to provide for and where Priests and Deacons might Marry if they pleased And therefore it was not reasonable to take their Estates from them Besides it must be considered that when these Canons were made Churches were but â—oor Nay and some time after Constantine no Churches but those of great Cities were Rich. However these Ancient Canons of the Eastern Church were (1) Caus 12. Quaest 3. renewed in the Church of the West though they had not the same reasons for doing it Church-men were only prohibited to bequeath by Will the Goods which they had got in their Livings because Believers did not give to Churches only to enrich the Church-men If it happened nevertheless that the Bishop died without making a Will and had no heirs
the Tithes and other Ecclesiastical Revenues A distinction betwixt the Church and the Altar which they possessed but most of these Restitutions were only made to Cathedral Churches and Monasteries though the goods belonged to private Churches Now seeing the Church at that time was distinguished from the Altar Monasteries retained the Churches that is to say the Lands Tithes and other Revenues But because the right of providing these Altars belonged to the Bishops it behoved the Monks to obtain from them that which was called (1) 〈…〉 the Redemption of Altars Godefroi of Vendome and other Authors of the same Age make mention of that right Besides the Council of Clairmont ordained That the Altars which had been given to Chapters or Monasteries by the Vicars whom they called Parâ—ons should return to the Power of the Bishop unless the Bishops had confirmed in writing the Donation made to the Chapters and Monasteries To obtain this confirmation from the Bishop a certain sum of money was required And this abuse caused another for private men would alse have Churches of which they receiveâ— the Profits in imitation of the Canonâ— and Monks and had the cure supplied by Vicars There was no necessity that they who were provided with such Altars should be Priests seeing they substituted Vicars in their places John oâ— Salisbury condemns that abuse (1) Nolunt Sacerdotio enerari an t servire a 〈…〉 de altario vivunt sed personatus qiosdam introduxerunt quorum jure ad alium overa ad alium reseruntur emolumenta and cannot endure that those that did noâ— wait at the Altar should partake with the Altar applying to themselves the Revenues of Churches without rendring any service to the same Churches Yveâ— Bishop of Chartres complains likewise of that corruption in a Letter to Pope Vrban II. wherein he lays open the baâ— Custom that was in France in respect of such Personages which had been authorised by the Bishops his Predecessors Qui altari non serviunt says he de altari vivunt à quo sacrilegio cum eos absterrere velim monedo increpando excommunicando altaria à me redimere volunt sub nomine personae sicut a predecessoribus meis ex prava consuetudine redemerunt Pope Vrban indeed condemned that abuse in a Council held at Clairmont to hinder the Simony that Bishops committed in selling Altars but it seems that they who had bought them from the Bishops gained by their Simony for it was decreed in that Council that such as had for the space of thirty years enjoyed these Altars should not be molested for the future and that the Bishops should exact no more from them but the due which they called redemptio altarium Pope Pascal Successor to Vrban confirmed the same Decree in one of his Epistles to Yves Bishop of Chartres and Ranulphus Bishop of Xantes wherein he speaks to them in these terms Ipsi Arvernensi concilio adfuistis in quo praesidente Praedecessore nostro bonae memoriae Papâ Vrbano consentientibus Galliarum Episcopis decretum est ut altaria quae ab annis triginta sub vicariorum redemptione Monasteria possedisse noscuntur quietè deinceps sine molestiâ qualibet Monasteriis ipsis firma permaneant In this manner did Monasteries and Chapters who were also comprehended in the Decree of the Council of Clairmont retain to perpetuity several Altars which did not all belong to them and they were at the same time exempted from paying to the Bishops the usual dues that were paid after the death of the Vicars for obtaining liberty to put other Vicars in their places It had been me thinks more convenient and agreeable to the Ancient Canons to have left the power of providing for Altars to the Bishops And to prove that that right belonged to them when Laicks were forced to restore to the Church the Tithes and other Church Revenues which they possessed it was decreed in the Council of Melfi under Pope Vrlan II. That no Laick should have Liberty to give to Monasteries or Chapters Tithes Churches or other Ecclesiastical Rights without the consent of the Bishop of the place or the permission of the Pope But it happened that the Bishops abused their Power and permitted Chapters and Monasteries to receive these Rights from Laicks on Condition of a certain sum of money to be paid to the Bishops for granting Liberty of establishing Priests or Vicars who might take upon them the Spiritual care of Churches These decrees of the Popes that were backed with Excommunications frightned many Laicks who instead of restoring the Church Revenues to private Churches to which they belonged restored them to Chapters and Monasteries with the permission of the Bishops The Lay-men liked it much better to restore the Tithes and other Ecclesiastical Revenues to Chapters and Monasteries from whom they got money than to private Churches which had none to give And therefore Councils decreed that these Restitutions should not be made without consent of the Bishops thereby to prevent all compacts or agreements betwixt Laicks and Ecclesiastical Communities There were nevertheless a great many Laicks whâ—â— were not startled at the Excommunications of Gregory VII and other succeeding Popes but notwithstanding them kept still the Tithes and other Ecclesiastical Revenues They did more for they instituted Priests to take care oâ— Souls without expecting the Institution of the Bishops And that was thâ—â— cause why the Council of Lateran under Alexander III. decreed (1) Con. Later III. cap. 14. Thâ—â— Clerks or Priests that should take upon them the Government of Churches from the hands of Laicks without the Authority of the Bishop of the place should 〈◊〉 excommunicated and that if they persisted they should be deposed from their Ministry Nevertheless the Popes suffered Lay-men still to enjoy the Tither of Churches whereof they were in possession But they granted Chapters and Monasteries Priviledges to geâ— them out of their hands even when the Bishops would not consent to itâ— These kinds of Priviledges which were casily obtained from the Court of Rome brought in great Revenues to Chapters and Monasteries who put Secular Priests into the Government of Churches allowing them such moderate Stipends that the Popes were obliged to condemn that Avarice of the Canons and Monks who denied Priests even a necessary subsistence The vast Rents that Monasteries enjoyed gave umbrage to the Bishops Canons and to Princes themselves to whom it was represented that most part of these Revenues ought rather to belong to secular Priests who served the cures than to Monks who by their Profession were excluded from all Ecclesiastical Functions But seeing the Monks had taken advantage of the ignorance of Secular Priests and that the government of most Churches was committed to them it was a difficult task to turn them out and to re-establish Secular Priests in Churches And therefore there happened great contests betwixt the Canons and Monks especially in England where the Monks had deprived the
Canons of their Canonships and even obliged Secular Priests to turn Monks if they intended to enjoy their Benefices The Bishops did what lay in their power to remove the Monks from Church Dignities But on the other hand the Monks had their recourse to the Popes who were already become Masters of a great part of the Jurisdiction of Bishops and Princes who were perswaded that Monasteries were grown too Rich favoured the Bishops against the Monks and Popes All the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury had been Monks from the time of Austin whom Pope Gregory sent into England until the Reign of Henry 1. But when under that Prince they came to the Election of an Arch Bishop (1) Hist Sim. Daniel 1123. all the Bishops of England declared publickly that they would have no Monk for their Primate and that amongst the Clergy there were as virtuous men and as fit for the Government of a Church as any in the Monasteries So by degrees they began to take the Government of Churches out of the hands of Monks though they were protected by the Popes Yet they still made a distinction betwixt Regular Canons and Monks which continues to this day for we find but a few Monks that take the Charge of Parish-Churches and perform other Ecclesiastical Functions out of their Monasteries Whereas regular Canons in all places discharge those Offices without being obliged as Monks are to put Secular Priests into their Cures There remain at present but few Cathedral Churches in the hands of Monks though heretofore it was a very common thing to see no other Canons Ecclesiastical Employments inconsistent with Monks in Churches but Monks who at the same time took care both of Churches and Monasteries which was altogether opposit to the Canons even to the Institution of the Monastick life (1) Quisquis autem ex Monasterio ad Ecclesiasticum ordinem pervenerit ulterius illic nec aliquam potestatem nec licentiam habeat manendi St. Gregory indeed allows Monks to enter into holy Orders and to officiate in that capacity when it shall please their Bishop to enjoyn them But then they could no longer continue in their Monasteries being become real Clerks Nevertheless the Monks did the contrary Greg. Papa and remaining still in their Monasteries took upon them the care of Churches We even find in the History of England that the Office of Archdeacon of a Cathedral Church was annexed to the place of Prior of a Monastery The desire they had of enriching their Houses was the true cause why they continued in their Communities though by right they were separated from them because of the Ecclesiastical Employments in which they were engaged and so far from laying aside their Monkish customs when they were associated to the Clergy they introduced into their Churches the Practices and Ceremonies of their Monasteries and that was the thing that made way for the Re-establishment of Secular Priests in Cathedral Churches and other Benefices But nevertheless part of the Revenues that belonged to Private Churches remained still in the possession of Monasteries Besides Princes and Bishops could not endure that Monks should possess Eclesiastical Dignities after that the Popes were grown so powerful that they disposed at their pleasure of the most part of Benefices For the Monks always espoused the Interests of the Popes against Princes and Bishops under pretext of defending the liberty of the Church and seeing Princes refused to submit to the Pope with whom they had continual quarrels they resolved to give no Ecclesiastical Promotions but to those who were devoted to their Service The English History gives us a pretty Instance of this in the Reign of Richard I. Princes ruint the Monks That Prince having assembled the Bishops of his Kingdom could not forbear with Tears to tell them that he was an unfortunate wretch and no King (1) Se miserum esse non regem Chron. Gervasii He complained that the Revenues of his Kingdom were crumbled into infinite parcels of which the least part came to his share and (2) Haec enim illa possident albi Monachi nigri ordinis diversi Canonici that they were possessed by Black Monks White Monks Canons of different Orders Then he upbraided the Secular Priests with their Vices and scandalous debauched lives that were notoriously known to all the World Eleemosynas Populi said that Prince speaking of Secular Priests distrahunt expendunt in pravos usus dum magis cogitant de suarum pannis meretricum quà m de suarum vestimentis vel libris Ecclesiarum tolerabile malum videretur si singuli suas mulierculas observarent saltem thorum non invaderent alienum These corruptions were not peculiar to England alone but were spread over all the Churches of Europe where Priests who were prohibited to Marry according to the Canons of the Western Church made no scruple publickly to keep Concubines And we are obliged to the Monks for the services they rendred to the Church in those days when the Secular Priests were plunged in Ignorance and Vice But their Services were not so considerable when they began to declare for the Popes who pretended alone to have the absolute disposal of all Church Revenues contrary to Ancient Custom King Richard of whom we have been speaking attributes the disorders which the Court of Rome caused in his dominions to the weakness of the Priests of his Kingdom Romani says he Propter debilitatem vestram adeo nobis infesti sunt ut nobis solummodo videantur imperare literulas suaâ—nobis vendunt nec Justitiam quaerunt sed litigia fovent multiplicant appellationes redimunt placitantes et cum solam pecuniam appetunt veritatem confundunt pacemque subvertunt That Prince continuing his complaints told the Bishops of the same assembly that for Remedy to all these evils the Monks must be obliged to shut themselves up within their Monasteries without sharing in Ecclesiastical affairs and the Secular Clergy reformed who would be much more serviceable than the Monks (1) Romanis latronibus si transgrediuntur poterunt obesse in resisting the unjust attempts of the Court of Rome The Kings advice was followed by all the Bishops and it was resolved in that Assembly that the Monks who possessed Cathedral Churches should have their private Churches near to these Cathedrals and that Secular Canons should be settled in their places And in this manner did Princes with assistance of the Bishops endeavour to re-establish Secular Priests in the Churches according to Prescripts of the Canon Law But that was not done without great difficulty because the Monks were protected by the Popes whose authority was become formidable and it is to that time especially that we ought to attribute a great part of the Exemptions which the Monks obtained from Rome that they might not depend on the Bishops who endeavoured their Ruine It was a troublesom thing to Princes The Original of great
dignities of Cathedral Churches but amongst these dignities the Penitentiary is not reckoned and there is some difficulty also as to the Divinity Lecture though there be Judgments as to that in favours of Graduats III. The right of Graduats has no place but when the Benefices are vacant by death IV. When the Graduate hath a Benefice of 400 Francs a year or an Annuity of the same value which stands him instead of a Benefice he is thought provided and cannot pretend to any Benefice in quality of a Graduate unless he had not that Provision by virtue of his degrees for in that case he may renounce his Benefice or Annuity and have right as before to demand the Benefics appropriated to Graduats The reason why a Graduat having a Benefice of 400 Francs is reckoned provided is that in the Concordat 200 Florins are mentioned which have been valued at 400 Francs But I think at present they ought to be valued at 600. V. When the Benefice that falls in the the month of Graduats is under Rule it cannot be demanded but by a Regular Graduat Just so the Regular cannot demand Secular Benefices VI. In fine if an Indultee or Priviledged person and a Graduat demand one and the same Benefice the Indultee is preferred before the Graduat The Exemptions which Popes have granted to several Churches Of Exemptions as well Regular as Secular have also much derogated from the Canonical Right of Bishops because Abbots and other Patrons confer in full Right the Benefices which are contained in their Exemptions and they failing the Right is devolved on the Pope who is become their immediat Superiour This is not a proper place to handle these exemptions to the full nor to speak of their Original besides we have elsewhere said somewhat as to that Subject I shall only mention what relates to the Custom of France I. The Decree of the Council of Trent that derogats from Exemptions is not received there But the Titles on which the Exemptions are founded are examined and if the Titles be lawful the Priviledges that are expressed are allowed II. Possession alone is not enough to authorise these Priviledges Legal Titles must also be produced in as much as many are in Possession of their Priviledges because their Titles have not been sufficiently examined which most commonly are false and it is not Just that Exemption which is but a Priviledged Right should prejudice the common Right of Bishops unless it be well grounded and granted for lawful causes To this may be added that (1) Fraus nemini debet Patrocinari falshood can never make a Prescription and that a Possession grounded on a bad Title is no true Possession All possible rigour ought to be used then against the Right of Exemption or Priviledge because it derogates from the Common Law and nothing should be granted to the exempted but what is expresly set down in their Title of Exemption And it is absolutely necessary that the Priviledges be mentioned in plain Terms without any ambiguity III. The more ancient the Titles of Exemption are of the less extent are the Priviledges of the Exemptions as appears by Ancient Formularies which hardly contain any thing else in respect of Monasteries but the liberty of chusing the Abbot and the free Disposition of all their Revenues as to the rest they were entirely Subject to the Bishops Exemptions as we find them now a days began only with the Reformations of Cluni and Cisteaux who were exempted from the Jurisdiction of Bishops by the Title of their Foundation Though that happened in a disorderly time yet these Exemptions are not medled with in France seeing they are owned by all men But there is great cause to doubt of the most part of others which are supposed to have been granted by Popes after the Foundation of Monasteries There are but few of them that are true in their full extent which is easily discovered when one sets seriously to work to examin the Titles And in that manner Peter de Blois Arch Deacon of the Church of Bath in England affirms that the Exemptions of Monasteries in his time were examined of which the greatest part were forged by the Monks The Bishop of Salisbury thought the Letters of Exemption of the Abbey of Malmesbury to be false quia in filo Bulla videbantur vitiosae stilumque Romanae curiae minime redolebant Nevertheless the Abbot refusing to submit to his Bishop fell into such a rage against him that the same Peter de Blois complained of it in his letter (1) Petr. Blaes Epist 68. to Pope Alexander III. To whom upon occasion of the Abbot of Malmesbury he represents the abuses of Exemptions take it in his own words Viles sunt Abbates miseri qui potestatem Episcoporum non exterminant cum pro annua Auri uncia plenam à sede Romanâ possint assequi libertatem By this it is apparent enough that Monasteries obtained for Money from the Court of Rome as many Exemptions as they pleased and that Simony was much practised by the Monks especially the Regular Abbots who by that means shook off Obedience to their Bishops that they might more freely squander away the Revenues of their Monasteries and have no Body to check them for their vices (1) Petr. Blaes ibid. Detestantur Abbates habere suorum excessuum correctorem vagam impunitatis licentiam amplectuntur claustralisque militiae jugum relaxant in omnem desiderii libertatem Hinc est quod monasteriorum fere omnium facultates datae sunt in direptienem praedam These and many other reasons which I omit are the cause that no great favour is shewn to the Exemptions of Monasteries in France though they be not wholly rejected there To which may be added that many of these Exemptions especially those of Chapters have been obtained in the times of Schism and it often happened that the Chapter which opposed its Bishop acknowledged one Pope and the Bishop another And that is to be taken notice of in the Titles of Exemptions Rules how to distinguish true Exemptions from false that what was done upon occasion of Schism may not be authorised That true Titles may be the more easily distinguished from such as have been foisted and counterfeited we shall here set down several Rules which are necessary to be known if one would with any exactness make that distinction And that will not only serve to discover the falsity of Priviledges and Exemptions but also to Judge of other Titles I. One must have seen true Titles that are past all exception according to which are to be examined those that are produced The Characters are to be minded if it be an Original Piece for it seldom happens that they who counterfeit Titles do exactly imitate these Characters whether it be that they write too hastily or that they are satisfied to do somewhat that comes near them but which is not altogether like II. The difference of