sent their own favourites as candidates became, under these circumstances, a dangerous prerogative, the exercise of which tended to secularize yet more the clergy, to bring the church under a corrupt priesthood, and to debase the sacred relations of a pastor toward his people.

The prevalent opinion is, that the origin of the right of patronage ought to be referred back to the fifth century; and with truth, for the subject of church and state rights began at this period to be publicly asserted and discussed, but the right in question was both asserted and exercised at a date still earlier. The Council of Orange, A. D. 441, ordered that any bishop who should build a church out of his diocese should be allowed to present any candidate to that living, referring the right of consecration to him in whose 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.2

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, a. d. 540, 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 canons. Justinian, however, revoked this ordinance, fourteen years afterward, only allowing to the founder of the church the right to nominate to the bishop certain candidates for the foundation, from whom the bishop should select and ordain one of their number. From the fifth century the name of patron becomes familiar in public documents, indicating the relation of a landlord to his dependants, 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 descendants. 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.

The practical effect of the changes which have been specified in this chapter was to corrupt the church by centralizing influence, wealth, patronage, and power of every kind in the person of the bishop. The right of the people to elect their own spiritual teachers is the great safeguard of the church. He who has a living at his disposal may be ignorant of the true character of his candidate, and indifferent respecting it. But the rich and quiet livings of an establishment will ever be eagerly sought by men unworthy of the office of the sacred ministry; so that the effect of concentrating power and wealth in the clergy, is to afflict the church with a graceless ministry. "Make me a bishop," said an ancient idolater, "make me a bishop, and I will surely be a Christian."

CHAPTER XI.

OF ORDINATION.

§ 1. OF THE ORIGIN OF THE RITE.

THE solemn consecration of a religious teacher to his office, as an institution of religion, is derived from the ordinances of the synagogue, as they were constituted after the Babylonish captivity. The presidents and readers of the synagogue were at first appointed to their office by the formal imposition of hands. Afterward was added the anointing with oil, the investiture with the sacred garments, and the delivery of the sacred utensils. This was called , the filling of the hands, Ex. xxix. 24; Lev. xxi. 10;

Num. iii. 3.

The first instance on record of an ordination in a Christian church is that of the seven deacons at Jerusalem, in Acts vi. 1-7. These, though not appointed to the office of religious teachers, were set apart by prayer and the laying on of hands. The consecration of religious teachers and officers of the church is also mentioned in the following passages, Acts xiii. 1-4; xiv. 23; 1 Tim. iv. 14; v. 22; 2 Tim. i. 6. In these passages three particulars are mentioned, fasting, prayer, and the laying on of hands.

The historical fact is undeniable, that the church has, at all times, observed some prescribed mode of inducting into the sacred office those who were appointed to serve in that capacity. Many of the existing offices, being subsequently created, were, indeed, unknown in the first organization of the church, as well as the different rites of ordination and installation. But the injunction that all things should be done decently and in order, the ministry of the word, and the laying on of hands, of which the apostle so often speaks, all imply a consecration to the sacred office by peculiar religious rites. The most ancient liturgies also, both of the Eastern and Western church, prescribe at length the mode of consecration to this office, and in this manner illustrate the solemnity of the transaction in the estimation of the ancient fathers of the church.

It is also worthy of observation, that the various religious sects, schismatics and heretics, almost without exception, observed the rites of ordination.

Until the time of Constantine the Great, the church appears to have adhered to the sublime simplicity of the apostolic rites of ordination. The specifications which follow relate to the regulations of the hierarchy respecting this ordinance.

§ 2. OF DISQUALIFICATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR ORDINATION.

MANY precautions were exercised by the church to guard against the introduction of unworthy or unsuitable persons into the ministry. Several classes of persons were accordingly excluded from ordination, such as the following:

1. Women. This rule was in conformity with the apostolical precept, 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35; 1 Tim. ii. 11 et seq. The appointment of deaconesses was no exception to this rule. They were not appointed to bear rule or to teach, but to perform certain offices which, from a due sense of decency and propriety, were restricted to their own sex.* They were ordained with the usual formalities in the early periods of the church,2 but the custom was afterward discontinued.3

2. Catechumens. To this rule there were a few exceptions, as in the case of Ambrose, Nectarius, etc., but in general it was observed with great strictness.

3. Neophytes, novices; men who were deficient in age, or knowledge, or Christian experience,† 1 Tim. iii. 6.

4. Energumens; including all who were subject to severe mental or bodily infirmities.

5. Penitents; all who for any offence had fallen under the cen

* Καὶ ὅτι μὲν Διακονισσῶν τάγμα ἐστὶν εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ἀλλ ̓ οὐχὶ εἰς τὸ ἱερατεύειν, οὐδέ τι ἐπιχωρεῖν ἐπιτρέπειν, ἕνεκεν δὲ σεμνότητος τοῦ γυναικείου γένους, ἢ δι ̓ ὥραν λουτροῦ, ἡ ἐπισκέψεως πάθους, ἢ πόνου, καὶ ὅτε γυμνωθείη σῶμα γυναῖον, ἵνα μὴ ὑπὸ ἀνδρῶν ἱερουργούντων δεηθείη, ἀλλ ̓ ὑπὸ τῆς διακονούσης.—EPIPH. Hæres. 79, n. 3.

† Μὴ δεῖν πρόσφατον [προσφάτως] φωτισθέντας προσάγεσθαι ἐν τάγματι ἱερατικῷ. Conc. Laodic. can. 3. Conveniens non est, nec ratio, nec disciplina patitur, ut temere vel leviter ordinetur, aut episcopus, aut presbyter, aut diaconus, qui neophytus est. . . . Sed hi, quorum per longum tempus examinata sit vita, et merita fuerint comprobata.-Conc. Sardic. c. 10; Conf. GREGOR. M. Epist. lib. iv. ep. 50; lib. vii. ep. 3; JUSTIN. Nov. 6, c. 1; Nov. 137, c. 1; Conc. Paris. A. D. 829, can. 5.

sure of the church, even though they had been fully restored to the privileges of its fellowship and communion.

6. Apostates. All who lived a vicious life after baptism. Offences committed previously were not alleged as a disqualification." 7. All who were devoted to theatrical pursuits, or any occupations which disqualified them from receiving baptism." *

8. Slaves and freedmen who were still under some obligation to their former masters. This restriction was made, not by reason of their humble condition, but because such persons could not be supposed to act with the freedom and independence which became the ministerial office.

9. Soldiers and military men of every description; for reasons substantially the same as those which are mentioned in the preceding article.

10. Lawyers and civilians. Men bearing civil offices, or in any way entangled with the affairs of state, were incapacitated for the sacred office. Cavendum ab his est, (says Innocent I.,) propter tribulationem quod sæpe de his ecclesiæ provenit. The power of Rome at times overruled this regulation, but the church uniformly sought to separate herself wholly from all connection with the state." 11. All who were maimed, especially eunuchs. To this rule there were exceptions.7

12. Persons who had contracted a second marriage. This rule is based on an erroneous interpretation of 1 Tim. iii. 2, and Tit. i. 6. To these views of the church may be traced the ancient sentiments respecting the celibacy of the clergy, which prevailed as early as the fourth century, and in the twelfth required of them the vow of celibacy in the Roman Catholic church.

The celibacy of the clergy was not strictly enforced even in the church of Rome until the eleventh century, under Hildebrand. From the fourth to the sixth century the opinions of different parties were greatly divided. Many bishops, particularly in the Eastern church, continued to live in the marriage relations into which they had entered before their consecration. The decrees of councils on this subject are contradictory, some requiring the celibacy of the clergy, and others allowing the contrary course.

* Puto nec majestati divinæ, (says Cyprian,) nec evangelicæ disciplinæ congruere, ut pudor et honor ecclesiæ tam turpe et infami contagione fœdetur.

† Non infirmitatem, (says Ambrose,) sed firmitatem; non victos, sed victores, postulat ecclesia.