officers created on purpose, as doorkeepers, readers, grave-diggers, &c. The pride of the bishops was so great in the fourth century, and they set themselves so much higher than the priests, that Erius, a Semi-Arian, and a great reformer, thought it necessary to urge, among "his principal tenets, that bishops were not distinguished from presbyters by any divine right; but that, according to the institution of the New Testament, their offices and authority were absolutely the same.' His doctrine in general, by which he endeavoured to bring the discipline of the church to its pristine state, excited much disturbance in several provinces of Asia Minor.1 The wealth and power of the bishops of the greater sees were soon very considerable, so as to make them resemble princes. Pretextatus, designated consul, being pressed to embrace Christianity, said, according to Marcellinus, "Make me bishop of Rome, and I will become a Christian." And yet the propriety of the clergy in general having no independent fortunes, as well as their not enriching their families out of the revenues of the church, was very evident in those times. Constantine prohibited by an edict any rich man to enter into the church. Jerome was of opinion that none of the clergy should have any property of their own; and Austin admitted none into his church who did not first dispose of all their goods. He did not, however, think this absolutely necessary, but only for their greater perfection. Sometimes the revenues of a church were not sufficient for the maintenance of the clergy; and in that case it was not thought improper that they should contribute to their own maintenance by their labour. In some cases this was expressly enjoined. Thus the fourth Council of Carthage, held in 398, ordered the clergy and monks to gain their livelihood by some trade, provided 1 Mosheim, I. p. 314. (P.) Cent. iv. Pt. ii. Ch. iii. Sect. xxi. 2 Simon on Church Revenues, p. 24. (P.) it did not divert them from the duties of their office.3 It was very early thought to be of great importance that the clergy should have no secular care that would engage much of their thoughts and attention. The apostolical canons, which, though spurious, were written in the fourth century, order that bishops should not meddle with the administration of public affairs; and that if they did, they should be deposed. The same orders were given by the Councils of Chalcedon, Carthage, Mentz, &c. Nay, it appears by the letters of Cyprian, that a clergyman could not even be a guardian or trustee to a child. With this view Constantine exempted the clergy from all public and civil employments. But for the sake of gain, the clergy of those times were too ready to undertake any office or employment whatever. Chrysostom laments that ecclesiastics, abandoning the care of souls, became stewards, and farmers of taxes, employments unbecoming their holy ministry. Bishops, he said, should have nothing but food and raiment, that they may not have their desires drawn after worldly things.* 5 But at the same time that Constantine and other emperors released the clergy from all obligation to duties of a civil nature, they gave them secular business in another way, viz. by enforc ing the rules of church discipline, and by giving the bishops the cognizance of all ecclesiastical affairs and ecclesiastical persons, such as had before been brought to the secular judges, and Justinian greatly enlarged this kind of authority. The clergy having thus tasted of civil power, soon got a fondness for it, which required to be restrained. So early as the middle of the fifth century, it was complained that the bishops wished to extend their jurisdiction; and in 452, Valentinian III. made a law, declaring that a bishop 3 Sueur, A. D. 398. (P.) 4 In 1 Tim. v. 17. Op. X. p. 1605. (P.) 5 Sueur, A. D. 356. (P.) Anecdotes, p. 125. (P.) had no power to judge even the clergy, but with their own consent.1 ber of fanes and temples" they contained 3 As it was deemed inconsistent with the clerical character to have any secular concerns, so in this age, this idea, together with that of the greater purity In this age, and indeed much later, it was far from being thought improper that the general regulation of ecclesiastical matters should be in the hands of the supreme civil power. Constan- of the unmarried state, made it to be tine made many laws in ecclesiastical matters, as concerning the age, the qualification and duties of the clergy; and Justinian added many more. Appeals were made to the emperors against the injustice of the synods. They received them, and appointed such bishops to hear and try the causes, as happened to be about the court. The emperors called several councils, they even sat in them, and confirmed their decrees. This was the constant practice of the Roman emperors, both in the East and in the West; and when the empire was divided into many lesser sovereignties, those petty princes continued to act the same part. Though the regulations established by the clergy were numerous in the time of Constantine, they contained nothing that could justly excite the jealousy of the emperors; because it was then universally agreed, that the emperors ought to regulate the ecclesiastical discipline. One book of the Theodosian code is wholly employed on regulations respecting the persons and goods of ecclesiastics.2 A kind of ecclesiastical power was also allowed to many rich laymen, as, in many cases, they had the appointment of the bishops; at least they could not be appointed without their consent. This right of patronage was introduced in the fourth century, to encourage the opulent to erect a number of churches; which they were the more induced to do, by having the power of appointing the ministers who were to officiate in them. And it was an old heathen opinion, "that nations and provinces were happy, and free from danger in proportion to the num 1 Fleury's Seventh Discourse, p. 9. (P.) 2 Anecdotes, p. 99. (P.) thought not quite proper for the clergy to have wives and families, lest their thoughts should be distracted by the cares of this life; though marriage was not absolutely prohibited to the priests. This rigour was introduced by the Montanists. These condemned all second marriages, and this opinion of theirs generally prevailed among Christians afterwards; and not only did they refuse to admit to the priesthood those who had been married twice, but even those who were married at all. So much were the minds of Christians in general impressed with these sentiments, at the time that the empire became Christian, that it was proposed at the Council of Nice, that the bishops, priests and deacons should cease to cohabit with the wives which they had married while they were laymen. But at the instance of Paphnutius, a venerable old confessor, this did not pass into a decree; and therefore these fathers contented themselves with ordering, that priests who were not already married should abstain from it. But even before this, viz. at a synod held at Elvira, in Spain, in the year 306, celibacy was absolutely enjoined to priests, deacons and subdeacons. However, notwithstanding these regulations, and every provision that was made afterwards to secure the celibacy of the clergy, supported by the general opinion of Christians, the marriage of priests was not uncommon in many parts of the Christian world, quite down to the Reformation. When learning became less common among the laity in the Western parts of the world, even the clergy 3 Mosheim, I. pp. 320, 321. (P.) Cent. iv. Pt. ii. Ch. iv. Sect. ii. 4 Sueur, A. D. 306. (P.) were often found to be very ignorant; though it was remarkable that there was more literature at this time in Britain, which had then suffered less by the invasion of barbarous nations, than in other parts of the empire. When Constantine had appointed a council at Constantinople, Agathon, bishop of Rome, made an apology for the two bishops whom he sent thither, as his legates, on account of their want of learning; saying that, to have had a theologian, he must have sent to England.' Even in the East, several bishops, at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, could not write, so that other persons signed the decrees for them." 2 and through the increasing ignorance and superstition in the laity, we shall find such a degree of power assumed by the clergy, as was nearly terminating in the entire subjection of everything to their will. But in the meantime the different orders of those who sustained a religious character were a check upon each other. In the first place I shall repeat what was observed with another view in a former part of this work, viz. that a considerable change took place in the idea of the powers supposed to be given to priests by their ordination, and consequently in the form of ordination. Originally nothing was necessary to the conferring of holy orders but prayer, and the imposition of hands. But in the tenth and eleventh centuries, after the introduction of the doctrine of It was in part to provide for the better instruction of the clergy, and in part also as an imitation of the monastic life, which rose in its credit transubstantiation, a new form was. as the clergy sunk in the public esteem, that first Eusebius, bishop of Verceil, and after him Austin, formed in his house a society of ecclesiastics, who lived in common, having him, the bishop, for their father and master; and in time this institution gave rise to the canons and prebends of cathedral churches.3 observed, viz. the delivery to the priest of the vessels in which the eucharist was celebrated, with a form of words, expressing the communication of a power of offering sacrifices to God, and of celebrating masses. Also a new benediction was added, which respected the new doctrine of penance and absolution. For the bishop, in laying on his hands, says, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain, they are retained. According to the system now received in the Church of Rome, the priests have two distinct powers, viz. that of consecrating and that of absolving. They are ordained to the former by the delivery of the vessels, and to the latter by the bishop alone laying on his hands, and saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, &c. And it is said that "the bishop and priests layancient custom is still retained among ing on hands jointly," which from them, and which was the only proper ceremony of ordination, is nothing more than "their declaring, as by a suffrage, that such a person ought to be ordained."4 4 Burnet on the Articles, p. 355. (P.) Art. xxv Ed. 4, p. 261. 66 In the former period we saw that the bishops began to reserve to themselves the power of confirming after baptism. This was fully asserted in this period. When the Bulgarians were converted to Christianity, which was in the ninth century, and their priests had both baptized and confirmed the new converts, Pope Nicholas sent bishops among them, with orders to confirm even those who had already been confirmed by the priests." 1 However, when the doctrine of transubstantiation was established, it was not possible that the bishops, with respect to their spiritual power, should stand higher than the priests; for what power can be superior to that of making a God? And yet we find that the schoolmen endeavoured to make the episcopate to be a higher degree and extension of the priesthood. In this period the priests assumed several new badges, or signs of their character, and these were generally borrowed from the heathen ritual. Thus the shaven head and surplices were borrowed from the Egyptian priests; and the crosier, or pastoral staff, was the lituus of the Roman augurs.2 Now also we find what seems to be a quite new order in the church, but in fact it was only an extension of power in the orders that existed before, without any addition to the spiritual character. This is the rank of cardinal in the Church of Rome. These cardinals, though they were not heard of in former times, now have the rank of princes in the church, with the sole power of choosing the Pope. It is about the end of the sixth century, and especially in the letters of Pope Gregory, that we first meet with the term cardinal priests and cardinal deacons, but they were then in many other churches besides that of Rome.3 1 Burnet on the Articles, p. 338. (P.) 'Art. xxv. Ed. 4, p. 248. 2 Hist. of Popery, III. pp. 340, 355. (P.) Ed. 1735, II. pp. 17, 25. See also Livy, L. i. C. xxviii. "On voit aux marbres et medailles antiques la forme de ce lituus, ou baton recourbé, toutes semblables à la crosse episcopale." Les Conformitez, p. 35. 3 Anecdotes, p. 222. (P.) As the term cardinal signifies chief, or the principal, the cardinal priests in the Church of Rome are supposed by some to have been those priests whom Marullus, mentioned above, set over the twenty-five parishes into which he divided the Church of Rome, with priests and deacons under them, so that being next in rank to the Pope, they rose in power and wealth as he did. But till the eleventh century these cardinal priests held no considerable rank, and they were not admitted into their councils till the year 964. Or, though they might assist at them, and likewise at the nomination of the popes, as part of the body of the clergy, they were always named after the bishop; but from this time it became the interest of the popes to advance their dignity. Still, however, there remain traces of their former rank. For the popes never call themselves cardinals, but bishops. They also call bishops their brothers, but the cardinals their beloved children. It was only in the year 1059, that the cardinals appear to be necessarily joined with the clergy in the election of a pope, but about a hundred years after this they obtained of Alexander III. that they should have the sole nomination; and since that time they have been continually gaining new privileges and dignities. They are now considered as the Pope's great council," and "no oath of fidelity" is required of them. 66 66 Innocent IV., anno 1244, ordained that cardinals should, when they rode abroad, always wear a red hat, to show that they would venture their heads and expose their blood for the interest of the church; and... Paul II., about the year 1471, ordered them to wear robes of scarlet.... Whereas all others, be they emperors or kings, must be glad to kiss the Pope's foot, cardinals are admitted to kiss his hands and mouth." If a cardinal accidentally meets a criminal going to execution he has a power of saving his life; and it is said that "No cardinal can be condemned for any crime, unless he be first convicted by seventy-two witnesses, if he is a cardinal-bishop, sixty-two if a presbyter, and twenty-seven if he be a deacon.' and had their exemption from the bishop's authority secured to them by a proviso in the statute of the twentyfifth of Henry VIII. With us those canons who have no duty whatever are called prebends. Originally, bishops were always chosen by the people, though they would be naturally much influenced in their choice by the recommendation of their presbyters. But afterwards these presbyters set aside the vote of the people altogether; and when these chapters were formed, it grew into a custom in England, that the priests who constituted them, being always at In very early times we find a number of inferior offices in the churches, with names suited to their business, as readers, sub-deacons, &c. None of these, however, were considered as distinct orders of clergy, but the last is enumerated as such by Pope Eugenius. Another order of clergy took its rise in these dark ages, and was suggested by the great corruption both of the clergy and the monks in the seventh century; when many of the clergy belonging to great cathedrals formed themselves into regular communities, hand, and easy to be assembled on the and were called canonici or canons, from observing certain canons or rules, which were given them by Chrodogang, bishop of Mentz, towards the middle of the seventh century, in imitation of what had before been done by Eusebius of Verceil, and Austin above mentioned. The rule of Chrodogang was observed by all the canons, as that of Benedict by all the monks.2 A regulation was made respecting this subject in 1059, when, at a council in Rome, it was ordered that those priests who kept no concubines should eat and sleep together, near the church to which they belonged, and have in common whatever revenues they had from the church, studying, and living an apostolical life. This, says Fleury, was the origin of the canons regular. A similar order was made by Nicholas II. in 1063. The bishops were generally at the head of these societies of clergy, and they were considered as his standing council, and during the vacancy had the jurisdiction of the diocese. But afterwards abbots, deans and provosts, &c., were preferred to that distinction, and several of them procured exemptions from any subjection to the bishop. Our English deans and chapters are entirely independent of the bishop, 1 Hist of Popery, III. p. 53. (P.) Ed. 1735, p. 368. 2 Fleury's Eighth Discourse, p. 9. (P.) decease of a bishop, should choose him themselves, without consulting the rest of the priests. They still have the same power nominally, but their choice of a bishop is always directed by the king. When the bishops, in consequence of their becoming landholders, came to be of great weight in the state, it could not be a matter of indifference to the prince who should be bishops. He would naturally, therefore, interest himself in the elections. Accordingly, we soon find that the bishops of Rome, though they were chosen by the people, could not be confirmed in their office without the approbation of the emperor; and this right in the prince continued undisputed for many centuries. The great authority that Charlemagne exercised respected chiefly the election of bishops, of which he made himself master, with the knowledge and consent of the popes. He did not choose them himself, but he retained the right of approving, which he signified by delivering to them the pastoral staff and ring which was called the investiture, after which they were consecrated by the neighbouring bishops. Thus began the rights of investiture, which was a source of so much contention afterwards.5 3 Burnet. Pierce's Vindication, pp. 381, 384. (P.) 4 See [Rutt's Priestley] Vol. II. p. 339. Note t. 5 Anecdotes, p. 335. (P.) |