a Levite, says, in an address to God, Deut. ix. 29, They are thy people, and thine inheritance, which thou broughtest out by thy mighty power.' The words in the Septuagint deserve our particular attention. Ουτοι λαος σε καὶ κληρος σε ἐς εξηγαγες εκ γης Αιγύπτε εν τη ισχύι σε τη μεγάλη. The same persons are, in the same sentence, declared to be both the Xaog and the Kλnpoc. What, says the canonist, at once laymen and clergy? That is certainly absurd; the characters are incompatible; yet it did not then appear so to Moses. Nor would it be thought reasonable or just, that what was allowed to be the privilege and the glory of every Israelite, under the more servile establishment of Moses, should, under the more liberal dispensation of the gospel, be disclaimed by all those disciples of Jesus who have not been admitted into the sacred order, which they, for this reason, have called clerical. As to the use of the term in the New Testament, one passage, as the persons to whom we now refer argue, and only one, occurs, in which it is applied to persons. (See 1 Peter, v. 3). The words in the original are, und we κατακυριεύοντες των κλήρων, αλλα τυποι γινομενοι T8 Tо8; thus rendered in our version, Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. They are part of a charge given to the presbyters, or pastors, relating to their care of the people committed to them, who are called God's flock, which they are commanded to feed, of which they are to take the oversight, not the mastery, and to which they are to serve as patterns. The same persons, therefore, who, both in this and in the preceding verse are styled Tovov, the flock, under the direction of God's ministers, the shepherds, are also called knoot, his inheritance, over whom their pastors are commanded not to domineer. The distinction above mentioned, it is said, stands in direct contradiction both to the letter and to the sense of the unerring standard of Scripture. Some expositors, however, render the term Anpot, in this passage, the church's possessions; but this explication, as others say, ill suits the context, and annihilates the contrast between an imperious manner and an engaging pattern, and supposes an awkward ellipsis in the words themselves. Besides, it is asked what were the church's possessions in those days? Was she so early vested with lands and hereditaments, for it is to such only that the term λnpog, when denoting property or possession, is applied? In the apostolic times, the church's patrimony consisted chiefly in persecution and calumny, hatred and derison, agreeably to the prediction of her Lord.

The distinction of the whole church into clergy and laity, whensoever it originated, was soon extended much farther than the original intention of those who adopted it. In the time of Cyprian, about the middle of the third century, we find that, in general, all things relating to the government and policy of the church were performed by the joint consent, and administration of the clergy and laity. Thus Cyprian says (Epist. vi. 5, cited by the author of the Enquiry into the Constitution, &c. of the Primitive Church, p. 106), he did nothing without the knowledge and consent of his people.' That the

letters from foreign churches were received and read by the whole church, &c.

The origin of the term laity becomes a curious matter of enquiry in this connexion. The schoolmen will not allow it to be derived from λαος, populus; they deduce it from λαας, lapis, a stone. The following specimen of the mode of reasoning adopted by some celebrated doctors, and cited by Altensfaig in his Lexicon Theologicum, is possibly amusing. Capitur clericus pro viro docto, scientifico, perito, scientia pleno, repleto et experto. E contra, laicus capitur pro viro indocto, imperito, insipiente, et lapideo. Unde laicus dicetur a λaas Græcè, quod est lapis Latinè. Et sic omnis clericus, in quantum clericus, est laudabilis; laicus vero, in quantum laicus, est vituperandus. Clerici quoque a toto genere de jure proponuntur, et debent præponi laicis.' Cardinal Bona also delivers his sentiments in relation to the care that ought to be taken by the clergy, that laymen may not be allowed to do themselves harm by studying the profounder parts of Scripture, which their stupidity is utterly incapable of comprehending: and though he does not absolutely prohibit their reading some of the plainer books of Scripture, he indulges them more freely in the use of books containing the histories, lives, and legends of the saints, and holy meditations. See more on this subject in Campbell's Ecclesiastical History, vol. i.

In the first century the clergy were distinguished by the title of presbyters or bishops; and some maintain that they are of equal rank and authority. See BISHOP. But towards the close of the second century, a notion prevailing that the ministers of the Christian church succeeded to the character, rights, and privileges of the Jewish priesthood, this produced a subordination of rank among them. The bishops assumed a rank and character similar to those of the Jewish high-priest; the presbyters represented the priests, and the deacons the Levites. This distinction was still farther promoted towards the end of the third century; and a new set of ecclesiastical officers was established, such as subdeacons, acolythi, door-keepers, readers, exorcists, &c.

The powers of the clergy were considerably extended under Constantine, and the Romish Church attained its full, and finally intolerable, height.

In that church are two very distinct orders of clergy: one regular, comprehending all the religious of both sexes, as abbots, monks, priors, &c.; the other secular, comprehending all the ecclesiastics that do not make the monastic vows. Among the reformed churches, there are none but those of the latter.

In England the term clergy comprehends all persons in holy orders, and ecclesiastical offices: and, though their almost total exemption from the duties of civil life has been modified since the Reformation, important personal exemptions, essential to their sacred office, are still continued to them. Clergymen cannot be compelled to serve on a jury, nor to appear at a court-lect, which almost every other person may be obliged to do; but if a layman is summoned on a and before the trial takes orders, he shall, not

jury,

withstanding, appear and be sworn. Neither can he be chosen to any temporal office, as bailiff, reeve, constable, or the like; in regard of his own continual attendance on the sacred function. During his attendance on divine service, he is privileged from arrests in civil suits. In cases also of felony, a clerk in orders shall have the benefit of clergy, without being branded in the band; and may likewise have it more than once; in both which cases he is distinguished from a layman. But, as they have their privileges, so they have also their disabilities, on account of their spiritual avocations. Clergymen are incapable of sitting in the House of Commons; and by statute 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13. are not, in general, allowed to take any lands or tenements to farm, upon pain of £10 per month, and total avoidance of the lease; nor, upon like pain, to keep any tap-house or brew-house; nor engage in any trade, nor sell any merchandise, under forfeiture of the treble value; which prohibition is consonant to the canon law.

CLERGY, BENEFIT OF, an ancient privilege, whereby one in orders claimed to be delivered to his ordinary to purge himself of felony. The old exemptions granted to the church were principally of two kinds: 1. Exemption of places consecrated to religious duties from criminal arrests, which was the foundation of sanctuaries. 2. Exemption of the persons of clergymen from criminal process before the secular judge in a few particular cases, which was the true and original meaning of the privilegium clericale. But the clergy increasing in wealth, power, number, and interest, now claimed that which they obtained by the favor of the civil government, as their inherent right, and as a right of the highest nature, indefeasible, and jure divino. By their canons, therefore, and constitutions, they endeavoured at, and often obtained a vast extension of those exemptions; as well in regard to the crimes themselves, of which the list became universal, as in regard to the persons exempted; among whom were at length comprehended, not only every subordinate officer belonging to the church or clergy, but even many that were entirely laymen. In England, however, a total exemption of the clergy from secular jurisdiction could never be thoroughly effected. And, in those particular cases in which it was allowed, the custom was for the bishop or ordinary to demand his clerks to be remitted out of the king's courts as soon as they were indicted: concerning the allowance of which demand there was, for many years, a great uncertainty; till at length it was finally settled in the reign of Henry VI. that the prisoner should first be arraigned; and might either then claim his benefit of clergy by way of declinatory plea; or, after conviction, by way of arrest of judgment. This latter way is most usually practised, as it is more to the satisfaction of the court to have the crime previously ascertained by confession, or the verdict of a jury; and more advantageous to the prisoner, who may possibly be acquitted, and so need not the benefit of his clergy. Originally the law was held that no man should be admitted to the benefit of clergy, but such as had the clerical habit and tonsure. But in time a much wider

criterion was established; every one that could read (a great mark of learning in those days of ignorance) being accounted a clerk, or clericus, and allowed the benefit of clerkship, though neither initiated in clerkship, nor trimmed with the holy tonsure. But when learning became more generally disseminated, and reading was no longer a proof of clerkship, or holy orders, it was found that as many laymen as divines were admitted to the privilegium clericale; and therefore by statute 4 Henry VII. c. 13, a distinction was once more drawn between mere lay scholars and clerks that were really in orders. The statute directs, that no person, once admitted to the benefit of clergy, shall be admitted thereto a second time, until he produces his orders: and, to distinguish their persons, all laymen who are allowed this privilege, shall be burned with a hot iron in the brawn of the left thumb. This distinction between learned laymen and real clerks in orders was abolished for a time by the statutes 28 Hen. VIII. c. 1, and 32 Hen. VIII. c. 3, but is held to have been virtually restored by statute 1 Edw. VI. c. 12, which enacts, that lords of parliament and peers of the realm may have the benefit of their peerage, equivalent to that of clergy, for the first offence (although they cannot read, and without being burnt in the hand), for all offences then chargeable to commoners, and also for the crimes of house-breaking, highway-robbery, horse-stealing, and robbing of churches. After this burning, the laity, and before it, the real clergy, were discharged from the sentence of the law in the king's court, and delivered over to the ordinary, to be dealt with according to the ecclesiastical canons. Whereupon the ordinary, not satisfied with the proofs adduced in the profane secular court, set himself formally to make a purgation of the offender by a new canonical trial; although he had been previously convicted by his country, or perhaps by his own confession. This trial was held before the bishop in person, or his deputy, and by a jury of twelve clerks. And there, first the party himself was required to make oath of his own innocence: next, there was to be the oath of twelve compurgators, who swore they believed he spoke the truth; then, witnesses were to be examined upon oath, but upon behalf of the prisoner only; and, lastly, the jury were to bring in their verdict upon oath, which usually acquitted the prisoner; otherwise, if a clerk, he was degraded or put to penance.

By this purgation, the party was restored to his credit, his liberty, his lands, and his capacity of purchasing afresh, and was treated as an entirely innocent man. This scandalous prostitution of oaths, and the forms of justice, in the almost constant acquittal of felonious clerks by purgation, was the occasion that, upon very heinous and notorious circumstances of guilt, temporal courts would not trust the ordinary with the trial of the offender, but delivered over to him the convicted clerk, absque purgatione facienda: in which situation the clerk convict could not make purgation, but was to be imprisoned for life, and was incapable of acquiring any personal property, or receiving the profits of his lands, unless the king should pardon him.