had no power to judge even the clergy, but with their own consent.1 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. Constantine made many laws in ecclesiastical matters, as concerning the age, the qualification and duties of the clergy; and Justinian added many more. Ap peals 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 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 of the unmarried state, made it to be thought not quite proper for the clergy to have wives and families, lest their thoughts should be distraoted 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 kind of ecclesiastical power was a synod held at Elvira, in Spain, in also allowed to many rich laymen, as, the year 306, celibacy was absolutely in many cases, they had the appoint- enjoined to priests, deacons and subment of the bishops; at least they deacons. However, notwithstanding could not be appointed without their these regulations, and every provision consent. This right of patronage was that was made afterwards to secure introduced in the fourth century, to the celibacy of the clergy, supported 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 Fleury's Seventh Discourse, p. 9. (P.) 2 Anecdotes, p. 99. (P.) not by the general opinion of Christians, the marriage of priests was 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 > 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 Oonstantine 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.1 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. 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 ceive Burnet on the Articles, p. 355. (P.) Art. xxV Ed. 4, p. 261. 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 hi 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. Burnet on the Articles, p. 338. (P.) 'Art. xxv. Ed. 4, p. 248. 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. "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 ot 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. 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 Originally, bishops were always these, however, were considered as chosen by the people, though they distinct orders of clergy, but the last is would be naturally inuch influenced in enumerated as such by Pope Eugenius. their choice by the recommendation Another order of clergy took its rise of their presbyters. But afterwards in these dark ages, and was suggested these presbyters set aside the vote of by the great corruption both of the the people altogether; and when these clergy and the monks in the seventh chapters were formed, it grew into a century; when many of the clergy custom in England, that the priests belonging to great cathedrals formed who constituted them, being always at themselves into regular communities, hand, and easy to be assembled on the and were called canonici or canons, decease of a bishop, should choose him from observing certain canons or rules, themselves, without consulting the rest which were given them by Chrodogang, of the priests. They still have the bishop of Mentz, towards the middle same power nominally, but their choice of the seventh century, in imitation of of a bishop is always directed by the what had before been done by Euse- king. bius 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 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 A regulation was made respecting prince who should be bishops. He this subject in 1059, when, at a council would naturally, therefore, interest in Bome, 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, deaus and provosts, &c., were preferred to that distinction, and several of them procured exemp tions from any subjection to the bishop. Our English deans and chapters are entirely independent of the bishop, 1 Hist of Popery, III. p. S3. (P.) Ed. 1735, I. p. 368. a Fleury's Eighth Discourse, p. 9. (P.) 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 thim hemself, 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." 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.) pointed to it when he was quite an infant. In the eighth century, not only were private possessions made over to ecclesiastics and to monasteries, but royal domains, such as used to be held by princes; by which heans they mame inth the possession of whole provinces, cities, castles, and fortresses, with all the rights and prerogatives of sovereignty; and thus churchmen became dukes, counts, and marquises, and even commanded armies. The prince thought that churchmen would be more faithful to him than secular persons, and expected that they would have more influence over their other In the eighth general council, in 869, the emperor and all secular princes were forbidden to meddle with the election of any patriarch, metropolitan, or bishop whatever. And at the Council of Bonaventure, in 1087, it was decreed, that if any emperor, king, or other secular person, should presume to give the investiture of a bishopric, or any other ecclesiastical dignity, he should be excommunicated.1 But by this time the popes had not only eman cipated themselves from the power of the emperor, but had arrogated to themselves all power in matters temporal as well as spiritual; and on the subject of investiture, as well as many others, the emperors of Germany, after a struggle vassals, and keep them better in subof many years, were obliged to yield. In France, however, the nomination of the bishops was always, in fact, in the hands of the prince. When the bishops were little more than secular persons, it is no wonder, how contrary soever it wa3 to all the notions of the ancients, that bishoprics should be considered as other estates, and in some cases be given, or descend, to minors. In 925 the Pope approved of the appointment of an infant to be bishop of Bheims, another person having the administration of it; an example soon followed by princes, and an evil much complained of by Baronius. In 1478, Sixtus IV. obliged the king of Arragon, by giving the bishopric of Saragossa to a child of six years of age; a pernicious example, and unheard of till then, says the author of Histoire des Papes. In this however this writer was mistaken. This example, pernicious as it is here said to have been, has been followed, in one instance, by Protestants. For the bishopric of Osnaburg, having, like other German bishoprics, become a principality, it was agreed, after the Reformation, that it should be held alternately by Papists and Protestants. At present it is held by the second son of the king of England, who was ap1 Histoire des Papes, II. p. SOI. (P.) 9 IV. p. 251. (P.) jection.3 This aggrandisement of the German bishops took place chiefly upon the death of Charles le Gros, when many of the great subjects of the empire made themselves independent.* By these steps the greater clergy came to be entirely secular men, and to have as much to do in civil business of all kinds, as any other members of the community. Thus in England it was far from exciting any wonder, in the days of popish darkness (whatever would have been thought of it in the time of the apostles), to see bishops and mitred abbots called to the great council of the nation, along with the barons; because, though churchmen, they actually were barons. The parliaments of France also, about the middle of the eighth century, were constituted in the same manner, the bishops attending along with the other grandees. This great absurdity in politics, as well as in religion, remains as a blot in the English constitution to this day, the bishops being admitted to have a seat in the House of Lords, and this evil is the greater in a constitution which pretends to freedom. For certainly these bishops, receiving their preferment from the court, and having farther expectations from it, will, in general, be 3 Mosheim, II. pp. 61, 62. (P.) Cent. viii. Pt. ii. Ch. ii. Sect. iv. v. 4 Sueur, A. D. 889. (P.) |