In those churches which have monastic institutions, the clergy are also divided into regular and secular clergy, regular being members of orders and congre- gations who bind themselves to common rules, and sec- ular those who have charge of parishes. In the Church
of Russia tiie common name of the regular dergv ii the black dergy, out of which the higher eodesustial dignitaries are chosen, while the secolmr c\etgj (priestL deacons, readers, and sacristans) are called white «Aa^
4. EaoempHons and Prvnkges.—^^Bj laws made br Constantine, and confirmed by Valentinian IT, Gci- tian, and Theodosius the Great, the clergy were ex- empted, (1.) From all dvil and municipal offioea, tbn they might give themselves to ttmr religioas duties (2.) From contributions to public works. (3.) Fn» b variety of taxes and imposts. (4.) From mllitaiy so- vice, though this is not stated in so many words. (& > From appearance in civil courts. A bialiop could not be forced to give public testimony ; but it might be taken in private, though the buhop was not obliged to take formal oath, but only had the Gospels belbre Yam. Scourging and torture, which might be applied to oUh er witnesses, could not be infficted on tbe clergy. Kff could the civil courts take cognizance of purely ecde- siastical causes (Theodos. Cod., lib. xvi, tit. 2, leg. 2t; Justinian, Novel. 83), though they could interfere a criminal matters, and in cases between a dergjmu and a layman ; for the layman was not bound to obe^- an ecclesiastical tribunal. Bishops were often aitaters in disputes, but only when both parties agreed to Ibt t^e matter before them, and then the episcopal sen- tence could be put in force by the civil power. In cases of life and death, clerical intervention was strkt- ly prohibited.'*
The privileges which the clergy enjoyed under the ancient municipal laws of England were nnmeroia; but being much abused by the popish clergy, tfaer were greatly curtailed at ih» Reformation. ** Those which now remain are personal, such as dergymcQ not being compelled to serve on juries, or to appear at the sheriff's, or consequently at the conrt-leet, or rier of frankpledge. Clergymen are exempt also from t^ poral offices, in regard to their continoal attendance on their sacred functions. While attending divi» service they are privileged ftxmi arrest in civil sait Stat. 50 Edward III, chap, v, and 1 Richard II, ch. xr. It has been adjudged that this extends to the going to. continuing at, and returning from celebrating dirioe service. The ecclesiastical goods of a d^^^yman can- not be levied by the sheriff; but on his making hb re- turn to the writ of feri facias, that the party is a der- gyman beneficed, having no lay-fee, then the subse- quent process must be directed to the bishop of tl^ diocese, who, by virtue thereof, sequesters the same. So in an action against a person in holy orders, where- in a capias lies to take his person, on the sfaenfTs nuk- ing the same return, further process most issue to tbe bishop, to compel him to appear; it is otherwise, hov- ever, unless the clergyman is beneficed. In cases of felony, benefit of clergy is extended to them witboot being branded, and they are entitled to it more than once. Clerg3nnen labor also under certain disabili- ties, such as not being capable of sitting as members in the House of Commons. This, however, though a received opinion, was not restricted by law tall so late as the 41 George III, chi^. Ixiii, which was pa»ed b consequence of John Home Tooke, then in deacon'f orders, being returned, and sitting in Pariiament for Old Sarnm. It was then enacted that no priest, nor deaoon, nor minister of the Scotch Church, shall be ca^ pable of serving in Parliament; that their eleeticm shall be void, and themselves liable to a penalty c^ £500 a day in the event of their either sitting or voting. It would seem, therefore, as in the case of the bishop of Exeter against Shore, that no one can denude himself of holy orders. Various acts of Par- liament have also, from the time of Henry VIIl, been passed to prevent clergymen ttom engaging in trade, holding farms, keeping tan or brew houses, all of whidi are stated, explained, and consolidated by the 57 George III, ch. xcix" (Eadie, Ecdes. DieL s. v.). For a peculiar privilege, see Clebot, BsircFrr of.
CLERGY
387
CLERGY
In the 4tb centnry it becamo a law that clergymen were to bring suits only in ecclesiastical conrts (i. e. before bishops or synods). Justinian ordained tliat even laymen should bring suit against clergymen, monks, and nuns only before the bishop of the diocese, and against a bishop only before his metropolitan. Thos the pri-vileged jurisdiction of the clergy came to be a general law, which was sanctioned and more fully defined by many imperial and canonical decrees, and which no individual member had a right to renounce. The pnrileged jurisdiction referred, however, to per- sonal suits only, not to real and feudal (see Wetzer u. Welte, Kird^LeaakoHj iv, 460, s. v. Gerichtsbarkeit, Geistlicbe).
A peculiar privilege of the clergy of the Boman Church b the one caUed privUegivm ccmoma. It con- sists in a canonical provision that every one who in- flicts upon a clergyman (including monks and nuns) a bodily injury (embracing spitting, kicking, etc.), in- curs by the &ct itself excommunication. It was first enacted by the CouncO of Rheims in 1181 (in the canon which begins Siquie niadmte diabolo clericum perctu- 9erit i ** if any one, at the instigation of the devil, shall strike a clergyman"), and was made a general Church law in 1139 by Innocent II. It provided that absolu- tion f^om the excommunication thus incurred should only be given in the hour of death, or if the culprit shall personally go to Home. The law still exists, but if the injury be a small one, the bishop may dispense from the Roman journey (see Wetzer u. Welte, Kirch" tn-Lesc. viii, 782, s. v. Privilegium Canonis).