(says Tertullian*) brings a moderate contribution once a month, or when he chooses, and only if he chooses and is able; for there is no compulsion, but the gift is spontaneous-being, as it were, the deposit of piety.' The sums which were thus presented by the generous devotion of the converts, and which, in the third century at least, were far from inconsiderable, were entrusted to the administration of the Bishop; and employed in the maintenance of the clergy†, in the support of public worship, in the relief of widows and orphans, and persons suffering persecution. It also appears, that, before the reign of Diocletian, the Church had become possessed of some fixed property, which that Emperor confiscated; we do not learn whether it was obtained by purchase or donation‡; in either case it must have borne a very trifling proportion to the revenues derived from customary oblation.

Constantine restored and confirmed to the Church such property as it had acquired under the heathen Emperors, and then enacted laws to permit and encourage its increase. Thus the sources of ecclesiastical wealth were varied and multiplied, and the work which was begun by Constantine was somewhat advanced by his immediate successors. Occasional allowances were advanced from the exchequer; the estates of martyrs and confessors dying without heirs were settled on the Church; presently those of all clergymen so dying were similarly disposed of§; and while some Princes transferred to the Christian establishment the temples of the Heathen and their revenues, there were others who extended the same principle to the Churches of the heretics. At the same time, the original oblations continued to be abundantly supplied; and a still broader field was opened by the general and unlimited permission which was given to bestow real property upon the Church, both by donation and legacy. The disposition not uncommonly existing to act on that permission was encouraged by the baser portion of the clergy; and their persuasions were sometimes conducted with so little decency, that it became necessary to impose a legal restraint || upon

* Apolog. c. 29. His words are these-'Neque pretio ulla res Dei constat. Etiam siquod Arcæ genus est, non de oneraria summa quasi redemptæ religionis congregatur: modicam unusquisque stipem menstrua die, vel cum velit, et si modo velit et si modo possit, apponit. Nam nemo compellitur, sed sponte confert. Hæc quasi deposita pietatis sunt. The term (stipem) is borrowed from the use of the heathen in the collections made by them for religious purposes. Tertullian proceeds to enumerate several charitable objects to which the Christian offerings were applied. Egenis alendis humandisque, et pueris ac puellis re et parentibus destitutis, ætateque domitis senibus, item naufragis et si qui in metallis et si qui in insulis vel in custodiis duntaxat ex causa Dei sectæ alumni confessionis suæ fiunt.'

The monthly salaries given to the Ministers of the Gospel are mentioned by Cyprian by the name of Mensurnæ Divisiones.

Padre Paolo (Hist. Eccles. Benefices) ascribes it to donations made during the confusion which prevailed in the empire after the imprisonment of Valerian, when the general Roman law, which forbade the bequeathing of real estates to any college, society, or corporation, without the approbation of the Senate or the Prince, may have been violated with safety.

§ The former by a law of Constantine, the latter by one of Theodosius II. and Valentinian III. See Bingham's Antiq. book v. ch. iv.

There is a remarkable law of Valentinian (made in 370, and particularly addressed to Damasus, Bishop of Rome), which forbids Churchmen to frequent the houses of widows and orphans, or to receive any gifts, directly or indirectly, by will or donation, from women to whom they might have attached themselves under pretext of religion. 'Ecclesiastici aut ex ecclesiaticis viduarum et pupillorum domus non adeant, sed publicis exterminentur judiciis, si eos affines eorum vel propinqui putaverint deferendos. Censemus etiam ut memorati nihil de ejus mulieris, cui se privatim sub pretextu religionis adjunxerint, libe ralitate quacunque vel extremo judicio possint adipisci, et omne in tantum inefficax sit quod alicui horum ab his fuerit derelictum, ut nec per subjectam personam valeant aliquid vel

Q

their cupidity. Nevertheless, in spite of occasional interruption, the tide flowed onward; the partial derelictions of the ecclesiastical body were forgotten in their general power, their dignity, and their virtues*; and, before the close of the fifth century, the Church had very amply profited by the pious generosity of the faithful.

The increase of the ecclesiastical revenues was further aided by certain exemptions granted to the clergy by the first Christian Emperors. These, though not so general as some have supposed, were numerous and important. It appears certain that Church lands were liable to the ordinary tax (census agrorum) or canonical tributet; and also, that they continued subject after donation to all burdens which might have been previously charged upon them; but a law of Theodosius II. exempted them from all extraordinary impositions. Moreover, ecclesiastics were not liable, even from the time of Constantine, to the census capitum or capitation tax ; they were also excepted (by Honorius and Theodosius II.) from the payment of a number of occasional imposts, many of which are specified by Bingham; and it was not a trifling privilege, even in a pecuniary view, that they were relieved from the discharge of all the civil offices of whatsoever degree, which were attached to the possession of fixed property. So studious were those early princes to observe the distinction between the spiritual and the temporal character, and, while they prevented the encroachments of the clergy on that which did not belong to them, to give them the full benefit of that which was peculiarly their own.

The ancient manner of dispensing the revenues of the Church was for some time maintained without any remarkable alteration. All alms and incomes arising from real estates were yet in common, under the immediate care of Deacons and Subdeacons, but under the control and at the discretion of the Bishop, who ordered all the distributions. The whole of the clergy in every Church was maintained from the general funds of that Church; and in many places we find that great multitudes of poor were nourished by the same resources.

We are not informed that any material change in the application of its revenues at any time took place in the Eastern Church; and we may even

donatione vel testamento recipere.' (Lege 20. Cod. Theod. de Episc. et Eccles.) This was presently (in 390) followed by another to the same effect, but more generally expressed. The former would not seem to preclude gifts to the Church, as a body, only to individual ministers; the latter goes so far as to ordain 'nullam Ecclesiam, nullum Clericum, nullum pauperem scribat hæredes.' We may here also observe, that Charlemagne made a law to prevent the Church from receiving any gifts which disinherited children and kindred. See Padre Paolo, ch. vi.

The most pious among the Fathers raised their voices very early against the practice of making over fixed property to the Church. St. Chrysostom (Homil. 86 in Matth.) attributes the great corruption of the Bishops and other Churchmen to the possession of lands and fixed revenues; since they forsook their spiritual occupations to sell their corn and wine, to increase the value of their property, or to defend it in courts of law. He looks back with admiration on the Apostolical purity of the Church, when it was nourished only by oblation and charity. It is likewise related of St. Augustin, that he would neither purchase land, nor even accept inheritances which were left to the Church; also maintaining, that the system of oblation and tithe would be better calculated to preserve the peculiar character of the clergy. P. Simon observes that the possession of any great wealth was for a long time confined to the Churches of the principal cities. The opulence of the Bishop of Rome, as mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus (lib, xxvii.), must have been derived almost entirely from oblation; but towards the end of the sixth century we find that Prelate in enjoyment of ample Patrimonies,' not in Italy only, but far beyond its limits. See Fleury, liv. xxxv. sect. 15.

See Bingham, book v. ch. iii.

See Padre Paolo, Eccles. Benef. ch. vi,

be allowed to doubt, whether its property received any very great augmentation after the fifth or sixth century. At least such increase was incessantly watched by a powerful and jealous Sovereign*; and the political revolutions, which finally raised the hierarchy of the West to such inordinate opulence, extended neither in act nor influence beyond the Adriatic. The prevalence of the monastic spirit did not fail, indeed, to create new establishments, enriched by new endowments; but even that spirit, after two or three centuries from the days of St. Basil, blazed with little comparative ardour in the East, where it was neither renovated by perpetual reformations, nor nourished and diversified by the interested patronage of Papacy.

But in the West, the confusion introduced by the invaders made it necessary, even in the fifth century, to legislate more expressly respecting the revenues of the Church. It was discovered that the confidence, placed from the earliest ages in the discretion of the Bishop, was now occasionally abused, and began to require the restraint of some canonical regulations. It was, therefore, ordained about the year 470† that the revenue should be divided into four parts; the first for the Bishop, the second for the rest of the Clergy, the third for the fabric of the Church, the fourth for the poor. The duties of hospitality, which included the entertainment of indigent strangers, were annexed to the Episcopal office. This distribution related only to the income of the several Churches the funds whence they proceeded, whether immoveables, oblations, or alms, continued, as heretofore, the common property of the body. In the mean time, it would be incorrect to suppose that the above division was necessarily made into four equal portions: the great variation in the number of the clergy and of the poor, in the size and splendour of the fabrics, in the extent of the diocese, must have subjected so very broad a rule to very frequent modification.

During the tumultuous ages which followed, it is asserted, without any improbability, that the bishops and clergy in many places enlarged their own portions to the neglect of the sacred buildings and the destitution of the poor; that the minister frequently converted to his own use the offerings deposited in his own church; and, in some places, that the lands themselves were divided for the usufruct of particular individuals. These innovations may have gained footing insensibly at different times, in different places; and the last was ultimately absorbed in that great change in the nature and distribution of church property which was introduced by the system of feudalities.

Those estates, which the Franks and Lombards called Fiefs, were, by the Latins, designated Beneficia, as being held by the bounty of the Prince. This term was originally confined to baronial or military tenures, and thence it afterwards passed into the service of the church. To the endow

At an early period stewards were appointed to superintend the temporalities of the Churches, and were chosen by the Bishop. But as abuses were found to proceed from this arrangement, the Council of Chalcedon decreed, that the stewards should for the future be chosen from among the clergy, and that the administration of the revenues should no longer be left in the power of the Bishop. That office became afterwards so considerable in the Church of Constantinople, that the Emperors took from the clergy the nomination of the stewards into their own hands. This practice lasted till the time of Isaac Comnenus, who remitted that right to the discretion of the Patriarch. See P. Simon's History of Ecclesiastical Revenues.

+ We follow the probable conclusion of Padre Paolo, without being ignorant that this division has been sometimes ascribed to Pope Sylvester (who lived one hundred and fifty years before), on the faith of some writings falsely attributed to him.

ments of sees or churches, in those times so commonly made by princes, the word 'Benefice' was applied, perhaps without impropriety; it was easily extended to such dignities as were conferred by the bishops with the permission of the princes; and thus it became common to all the separate portions of the ecclesiastical estates. These alterations, though not completed till a much later period*, were in gradual process during the seventh and eighth centuries; in the mean time the territorial possessions of the Church were spreading widely; and they had already swelled to a bulk too great for their security, when Charlemagne ascended the throne of the Western empire.

Some portion of those possessions was unquestionably acquired by methods disgraceful to individual churchmen, or through the corruptions of the Church itself; and this was more especially the case (for reasons which we have already given) in the Latin communion. As to the former means— the gross ignorance of the barbarian conquerors, and their hereditary reverence for the ministers of religion, offered irresistible temptation to the astute avarice of the French and Italian clergy: for thus, besides that general abuse of spiritual influence for the spoliation of weak, or superstitious, or dying persons, which was common to them with their Eastern brethren, peculiar facilities and invitations to imposture were almost pressed upon them by the popular credulity. The efficacy of gifts to expiate offences was a profitable principle, for which the minds of the converts were already prepared by their previous prejudices: the wild rapacity of the savage is usually associated with reckless profusion; and we cannot doubt that many individuals of the sacred order successfully availed themselves of dispositions so favourable to their own temporal interests. Respecting the corruptions of the Church, it would probably be too much to assert, that masses for the release of souls and the fruitful fable of Purgatory were actually invented for the purpose of enriching that body; but we need not hesitate to assign that among the leading causes of the encouragement which was given to them. The pernicious swarm of superstitious practices, such as the worship of images, the adoration of Saints, and, above all, the demoralizing custom of pilgrimage †, was nourished and multiplied principally with that object; and the state of the Church at that period affords just grounds for the melancholy reflection, that the grossest perversions of religious truth were carefully fostered, if they were not actually produced, by the most sordid of human motives.

Some footsteps of the foundations of Benefices and the right of patronage may perhaps be discovered in the 10th Canon of the First Council of Orange, held in 441 :— 'But the custom of that time (as P. Simon remarks) was far different from the present practice. Again, about the year 500, under Pope Symmachus, it appears that to some Churchmen portions of land were assigned to be enjoyed by them for life; this appears from an Epistle of that Pope to Cæsarius, where he prohibits the alienation of Church lands, unless it should be in favour of Clerks meriting such reward-'nisi Clericis honorem meritis, aut Monasteriis, religionis intuitu, aut certe peregrinis necessitas largiri suaserit-sic tamen ut hæc ipsa non perpetuo, sed temporaliter, donec vixerint, perfruantur. But the establishment of the modern system of Benefices is not commonly referred to an earlier period than the end of the tenth, or the beginning of the eleventh century.

+ Pilgrimages, chiefly to the shrines of St. Peter at Rome, and St. Martin at Tours, were, in the eighth age, so common, that it is made a matter almost of reproach to Charle magne himself (by his historian Eginhart), that in the course of his long reign he had undertaken only four. The Council of Chalons (in 813) acknowledges the abuses of pilgrimage. The clergy pretend thereby to purge themselves from sin, and to be restored to their functions; the laity to acquire impunity for sins past or future; the powerful convert them into a pretext of extortion, the poor of mendicity. Still, we praise the devotion of those, who, to accomplish the penance which their priest has imposed on them, make such pilgrimages accompanied by prayer, alms, and correction of morals.' Fleury, H. E., 1, xlvi., sect. v.

The Monastic orders did not lag behind their secular competitors in the race of avarice; it appears indeed that a great proportion of the rewards, at least during the seventh and eighth centuries, flowed into their establishments; and though their members did not possess the same facilities of private acquisition, the communities have obtained their full share of the profits of ecclesiastical corruption in all ages of the Church. It would be unjust, however, to suppose that any very material part of the property of the Church was amassed by the shameful methods which we have mentioned; they have contributed, indeed, somewhat to swell its treasures and greatly to soil its reputation; but the most solid, and by far the largest portion of its riches was derived from sources not only lawful but honourable. The most abundant of these was the pious or politic munificence of those Princes who employed the Clergy as the means of improving, or of governing, their people. Such were extremely common during the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries; and the respect and preference which they thus demonstrated for the sacred order, evince its moral as well as intellectual superiority over other classes of their subjects. Again, the voluntary donations of wealthy individuals were not always made from superstitious hope or idle persuasion; but much more frequently, because the Church was the only channel through which the charity of the rich could effectually relieve the poor. This object was connected with many even of the earliest donations, and is conspicuous in the numerous monuments of the eighth and ninth centuries*; and the large sums which were thus entrusted to religious persons or establishments for that purpose, while they multiplied and maintained the indigent dependents of the Church, became the safest and the noblest ground of its influence and popularity. Again, a great proportion of the territorial endowments of the cathedrals and monasteries consisted of unappropriated and uncultivated lands. These were gradually brought to fertility by the superior skill and industry of their new possessors; and they thus acquired the most substantial right of possession by labours which were beneficial to society. Lastly-the abundance of some establishments and the economy of others frequently enabled the community to amass sums which were expended from time to time in the purchase of additional estates. These were annexed to the original patrimony; and since, in the general insecurity of property prevailing in turbulent ages, there were few individuals who exercised foresight or economy, these virtues, almost peculiar to the ecclesiastical establishments, were a sure and effective instrument of their prosperity.

On the other hand, they were peculiarly exposed to the evils of that turbulence, both by their wealth and their defencelessness. Amidst the tumults of unsettled governments and uncivilized society, what had been lavished by the bounty of one was frequently torn away by the rapacity of another; and not the nobles only, and other powerful subjects engaged in the work of spoliation, but even princes† would sometimes reward their greedy followers by grants of Church property. By such injustice its increasing dimensions were restrained; and if we have sufficient reason to lament

*See Muratori's Dissert. xxxvii. De Hospitalibus, &c.; and also his lvith, De Religione per Italiam, post ann. 500.

+Charles Martel, for instance, very amply compensated his military followers for their successful defence of Christianity by the monasteries and other ecclesiastical endowments, which he distributed among them. He thus incurred the indignation of St. Boniface; but as to the celebrated vision of Pulcherius, there seems great reason to doubt whether the Bishop did not precede the Prince in the race of mortality. See Baron. apud Selden, ch. v.