diocese it was erected, and instructing him to ordain any one to the clerical office whom the founder might nominate to officiate in the church, and requiring of him a quiet acquiescence in the nomination, if the person presented had already been ordained. But at the same time, it was provided that the entire government of the church should be submitted to him in whose territory the church was built.3

It appears from Chrysostom that what is called secular patronage prevailed in the church at a date still earlier. He speaks of naming the founders of churches in the prayers of the congregation. In Justinian's Novels, 123. c. 18, the right of lay-patronage is confirmed and perpetuated by inheritance. The bishop is required to ordain the person nominated, unless disqualified by virtue of the ca nons. From the fifth century the name of patron becomes familiar in public documents, indicating the relation of landlord to his dependents, [in consequence of his having settled a parsonage and glebe upon churches which he had built;] but the whole system of church patronage in conferring benefices, etc, was not established until about the eighth or ninth century. Thomassin takes notice of several distinct stages in the progress of this system. 1. The right of patronage and presentation, extending through five centuries. 2. Ecclesiastical and lay-patronage from Clovis, A. D. 496, to Charlemagne, A. D. 800. 3. Through the dynasty of Charles and his descendents. 4. From the year 1000. The whole he sums up in the following remark. "It appears therefore that ecclesiastical patronage was first introduced in the Western church, and lay-patronage, at least so far as related to the conferring of benefices, began first in the Eastern church; and that the limited exercise of lay-patronage in the first centuries after its introduction, was abundantly compensated by the controlling influence which the laity had in the election and ordination of bishops, and other incumbents.".

In most of the Lutheran, and some of the Reformed churches, the members of the church possess a negative vote concerning the presentation of a minister, but nothing more.

CHAPTER VI.

OF THE RANK, RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AND COSTUME OF THE CLERGY.

§ 1. RANK OF THE CLERGY.

Nothing appears to indicate the relation of rank either in the age of the apostles, or of their immediate successors; nor indeed until the establishment of Christianity as the religion of state under Constantine. The representations which the Scriptures and the primitive fathers so frequently make of the dignity and worth of religious teachers have no reference to this subject. They only represent these teachers as the servants and stewards of God, and their office as one in the highest degree elevated and heavenly. Ignatius styles bishops the vicegerents of Christ, whose instructions are to be obeyed as the ordinances of Christ and his apostles, and whom men should honor above potentates and kings. But all this is only what, in the phraseology of the times, philosophers, poets and orators might have claimed for themselves. Such representations are only ideal delineations which present the reality in a contrast the more striking. Such, indeed, was the real estimation in which some of the most eminent christian bishops were held, by the world, in the first three centuries, that one might fitly say of them-the greatest in the kingdom of heaven was the least of all men.

The famous Origen was, in regard to rank, one of the lesser lights in the church, invested at first with only the humble office of catechist, and afterwards, informally, with that of deacon, or according to some with that of presbyter. Yet had he more influence and authority than any dignitary of the church in his time. Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian were never bishops; but they were held in the highest estimation both by their contemporaries and by posterity. Jerome was only an itinerating presbyter, but he was honored as the dictator of the church. And still later, even when the aristocracy of the church was fully established, there occurred, at times, instances of men who, by their talents, rose superior to all the distinctions of rank and of office. On the other hand, even the bishops of Rome,

Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage and others, notwithstanding their high office, were often treated with the greatest indignities.

Something analogous to the relations of rank must have existed among the priesthood themselves previous to the time of Constantine, as appears from the fact that they were regarded as a distinct order, and were divided into the classes superior and inferior. But it was a long time before even these relations became so distinct as they have been since the establishment of the Eastern and Western hierarchy in the eighth century. The primitive presbyters first sustained an arduous conflict against the pretensions of bishops to superiority; and then again, against the order of deacons, and especially with the archdeacons, who arrayed themselves on the side of the bishops. And the bishops again sustained a struggle, arduous and disastrous to themselves, with the archbishops, primates, and patriarchs. With the latter, particularly, a long and obstinate strife for the mastery was maintained, which finally resulted in the popish supremacy; but the conflict ceased not so long as one remained to sustain it.

But previous to the reign of Constantine no relations of rank were established among the clergy, save those of different gradations among themselves. As in both the Jewish and Roman states the priesthood were invested with peculiar honors, so this monarch sought to transfer the same to the christian ministry. Thus these forms of the priesthood perpetuated themselves in the christian church after the overthrow of the religion to which they, at first, respectively belonged.1

The bishops, especially, profited by this reference to the priesthood of Jewish and pagan systems of religion. The christian bishops, it was supposed, ought at least to be equal in rank to the Jewish patriarchs. It was an expedient for elevating a depressed priesthood, to invest them with new honors, just as Julian the apostate sought again to overthrow them by reinstating the pagan priesthood in their ancient rank.3 And again Constantine himself sustained a certain relation to the priesthood. Eusebius declares him to have been a bishop duly constituted by God.4 And he styles himself bishop, τῶν ἐκτὸς ὑπὸ Θεοῦ καθεστάμενον ἐπίσκοπον—a phrase of similar import with pontifex maximus, which after the example of the Roman emperors he solemnly assumed in the year 325.5 The emperor Gratian was the last who bore this title. But so long as it was

retained it had the effect to elevate the office, both of bishops and emperors in the estimation of the people, and to justify the intervention of secular power in ecclesiastical councils, and in the elections of bishops.

The priesthood of the christian church were the constituted guardians of the morals of the community, and in this relation had a decided superiority to the Pagan and Jewish priesthood. Even the highest magistrates and princes were not exempt from the sentences of suspension and excommunication. Theodosius the Great submitted himself to this discipline, and his example was imitated by many of his successors down to the time of Henry IV. Gregory Nazianzen, in speaking on this subject, says "The law of Christ subjects you to my control. For we also are in authority, and I will add, authority greater and more perfect than yours, inasmuch as the carnal is inferior to the spiritual-the earthly, to the heavenly." Multitudes of passages of similar import are found in the writings of Chrysostom,8 Ambrose, and other of the fathers.10

an

But notwithstanding the high consideration in which the clergy were held, we are still left in ignorance of their relative rank in civil life. But on the reëstablishment of the western empire, their civil and political relations were clearly defined; and under the Carlovingian dynasty, the bishops obtained the rank of barons and counts, and as civil dignitaries took part in all political and ecclesiastical concerns, of importance. They were regular members of all imperial diets, which were in reality ecclesiastical synods. At a later period, bishops, archbishops and abbots were, by statute laws, made princes of the empire, and electors. And the last mentioned were often involved in conflicts with the Roman cardinals for superiority. This organization was continued until the dissolution of the German confederacy subsequent to the French Revolution, and became a pattern for other lands.

2. IMMUNITIES, PREROGATIVES, AND PRIVILEGES OF THE

PRIESTHOOD.

Reference is here had to these privileges only as they have existed since the fourth century, when the priesthood were duly acknowledged by the civil authorities as a distinct body. Previous to his conversion Constantine gave to the clergy of the christian church,

equal privileges with the Pagan and Jewish priests. These acts of toleration were followed by others conferring upon the clergy of the church certain specific privileges which were confirmed and increased by his sons. And what was lost by the intervention of Julian the apostate, was fully regained under the propitious reigns of Valentinian III, Gratian, Theodosius the Great, Honorius, etc. For a full account of the several grants of the early emperors, see references.1 The principal rights and privileges of the priesthood were as follows:

1. Exemption from all civil offices and secular duties to the state.2 Such exemption was granted by Constantine, A. D. 312; and in 319 and 330, it was extended to the inferior order, and the reason assigned for conferring this privilege was, that "the clergy might not, for any unworthy pretence, be called off from their religious duties," ne sacrilego livore quorundam a divinis obsequiis avocentur, or as Eusebius expresses it," that they might have no false pretence or excuse for being diverted from their sacred calling, but rather might rightfully prosecute it without molestation." By this right they were. excused from bearing burdensome and expensive municipal offices. The Jewish patriarchs and Pagan priests enjoyed a similar exemp tion.3

2. Exemption from all sordid offices, both predial and personal. This right was also granted by Constantine and confirmed by Theodosius the Great, and Honorius.4 The right relieved them from the necessity of furnishing post-horses, etc. for public officers, and sometimes from that of constructing and repairing public highways and bridges.5

3. Exemption from certain taxes and imposts, such as the census capitum-analogous to poll-tax; but the learned are not agreed respecting the precise nature of it-the aurum tironium-an assessment for military purposes, a bounty paid as a substitute for serving in the army, the equus canonicus, the furnishing and equipping of horses for military service,÷chrysargyrum, zovσúgyvo̟ov, commerce-money, duties on articles of trade assessed every five years, and paid in silver and gold,—the metatum, tax levied for the entertainment of the emperor and his court as he travelled, or for judges and soldiers in their journeys,-the collatio superindicta et extraordinaria, a direct tax levied on special emergencies. Certain taxes on real estate they were required to pay.7