Page images
PDF
EPUB

period the ancient religious ceremonies on such occasions were, of course, no longer observed. In the summer of 1541, Henry VIII. kept his progress, and a contemporary account has been preserved of his entry into Lincoln. We are concerned only with one part of the ceremony, at his approach to the cathedral. "Item, the bushoppe of lyncolne wth all thole Queere and crosse were readye, and stodde in the mynster alonge on bothe sydes the bodye of the churche, gyvinge attend'unce, and when his grace was alyghtid at the weste ende of the mynster, where were ordenyd and spred as well carpett as stooles with quyssheons of clothe of golde, for the kyng's hyghnes, wheron was a crucyfyx laid, and one other on the queenes grace's stoole. Item, aftre his grace was kneelid downe the busshoppe came forthe of the churche and gaue the crucyfyx to the kinge to kysse, and then to the queene, and then censyd them, hys myter beinge on hys heade, and thus proceaded they into the churche, the kinge and queenes grace goinge vndre the Canape to the Sacrement, where they made theyre prayers, thole queere synginge melodyouslye Te Deum, and aftre this don, his grace went strayght to his lodginge.""

RECONCILIATION OF A CHURCH.

WE come now to the Form which was used at the Reconciliation of a Church or Churchyard: which was

Archæologia, vol. 23. p. 338. Communicated by Sir F. Madden: who observes, as giving a further interest to this instance; "the queen's guilt (Catharine Howard)

it will be remembered, with Thomas Culpeper, was established by

VOL. III.

evidence of the fatal night she passed at Lincoln." Compare also the very interesting account of a reception of Henry VI. at Bury S. Edmund's, from a register of that abbey also printed in the Archæol. vol. 15. p. 66.

1

SINCERA V E essay ten unhappily the sacred bukang hai ben wired by bloodshed, or the com

28

sso see mug e profanation, or, by the Jarrai dan er summunicated person; or again, wher s zeal pertva je durch might happen to hav Jeet deserved by dre je oder accident. Duran sas, ami ving me than is usual judgment; "Fi recomestado ni evengium et terrorem, ut videlicet vdemes acesta, parin peccavit, propter pec escum £terus ar purifcari, existiment quantum geeper serum kierum explationem sit laboran 24.

Consecraten, in these cases, never was permitted and is based upon the mystical resemblanc which consecrated is supposed to have to Hol Bagest sits paizy stated in the Decretum, Dis As Ca & vnder the authority of a pseudo-Nicen cament: “ Qlica sicut infins a qualicunque sacerdot in nomine Pairs að semel baptizatus, non debet it runa Depcizam, ita nee lens Deo dicatus iterum conse cranius est." This canon à queted, after Gratian, b about every wear on this subject, wherefore I hav introduced it; and although not genuine, as attribute to so high a source, yet the principle of it was univer sally acknowledged from a very remote antiquity. Fo S. Gregory in one of his epistles places together case of doubetul baptism, confirmation, and consecration a church; deciding that each is to be performed

These were the chief reasons,

as given in the Papia Oculi: pars, ix, cap. 1. and each admitted of a variety of modifications, which the student may find fully dis

cussed in the various canonists he should especially consult Ho tiensis, in Summa. Lib. 3. Rub xl.

Rationale. lib. 1. cap. vj. 4

1

quoniam non monstratur iteratum quod non certis indiciis ostenditur rite peractum." 30 And long before his time, in the year 398, the 6th canon of the 5th council of Carthage, after speaking of doubtful baptism, continues: "Similiter et de ecclesiis, quoties super earum consecratione hæsitatur, agendum est, id est, ut sine ulla trepidatione consecrentur."31

I quote from Matthew Paris, (ad an. 1173) the account of the suspension of the celebration of Divine Service in the cathedral of Canterbury, after the murder of archbishop Becket. "Post mortem beati Thomæ martyris fere anno integro, ecclesia Cantuariensis a divinis cessans obsequiis, continuis perstitit in lamentis, subversum est ecclesiæ pavimentum, sonus est campanarum suspensus, nudati sunt parietes ornamentis, et sic quasi in cinere et cilicio exequias in tristitia et mærore persolvit. Sed tandem ad matris suæ Dorobernensis ecclesiæ vocationem, in festo sancti Thomæ apostoli, suffraganei convenerunt episcopi, ut ecclesiam, longa suspensione consternatam, juxta mandatum domini papæ, in statum pristinum reformarent. Bartholomæus igitur Exoniensis episcopus, ad petitionem conventus, missam celebraturus solennem, et sermonem ad populum habiturus, sic exorsus est: 'Secundum multitudinem dolorum meorum in corde meo, consolationes tuæ lætificant animam meam.'"

Upon the question how far a church and its churchyard were mutually influenced in regard of a desecration, I quote Van Espen. "Polluta ecclesia, cœmeterium si ei fuerit contiguum, censebitur quoque pollu

Lib. 12. Epist. xxxj. "Mansi. Concil. tom. 3. p. 969. It must, however, be added,

that in some copies of this council, this final clause is omitted.

tum; secus si remotum fuerit ab eadem. At e con verso polluto oxmeterio non censetur propterea polluta ecclesia, tametsi contigua: et, si duo sint cœmeteria quæ pariete medio sibi junguntur, uno polluto, aliu pollutum censeri non debeat."

There were some dificulties in deciding whether, i the altar was destroyed or removed, a reconsecration of the church would be required. The later practice (as now observed, I believe, by the church of Rome) was against it. This appears to have been the re ceived opinion in the time of the author of the Pupilla who adopts the rule, "propter altaris fractionem au destructionem vel mensæ amotionem, non reconsecratur ecclesia, sed solum altare." But S. Anselm thought otherwise, and the practice of the church of England, we must conclude, in his day was also contrary. He is replying to a question upon the point, put to him by an abbot: "In hoc omnes concordant quod violato principali, tota ecclesia cum altari iterum consecranda est: nec ecclesia consecranda est sine consecratione altaris, aut principalis, aut alicujus alterius in eadem ecclesia.” 34

32 Jus. eccles. Pars. ii. 2. tit. 1. (tom. 1. p. 632.) His opinion is of course based on the decisions of the canon law. The same rule is laid down in the Pupilla. loc. cit. T.

33 loc. cit. F.

Epist. Lib. 3. clix. Opera. p. 423. Van Espen says that the archbishop was deceived in his judgment, owing to his reliance upon a false decretal. I have

cited the passage, as illustrative of the then practice of the English church. S. Anselm not only however gives his decision, but the reason of it: he continues in the same epistle: "Altare non fit propter ecclesiam, sed ecclesia propter altare: et ideo violato principali altari, jam non videtur esse ecclesia quia non est illud, propter quod ecclesia construitur et consecratur. Quapropter cum illud fit novum, recte videtur cum

[ocr errors]

The archbishop further says: "Si aliqua pars ecclesiæ destructa reficitur, aut nova sit altari immoto, aqua tantum ab episcopo benedicta aspergendam dicunt. And upon this point, I shall also quote the Pupilla. "In tribus casibus debet ecclesia dudum consecrata iterum consecrari. Primus casus est quando dubitatur an fuerit consecrata, an non: et hoc quia non apparet aliqua scriptura aut instrumentum de dotatione ipsius ecclesiæ in libro vel columna vel tabula marmorea, vel hujusmodi: nec ad hoc apparet aliquis testis qui deponere possit de visu vel etiam de auditu. Secundum est si ecclesia exusta fuit ita quod parietes sint combusti et disrupti, vel notabiliter etiam decrustati seu devastati, in toto vel in majori parte. Secus si totum tectum exustum fuerit. Tertius est si ecclesia funditus sit dirupta et deinde ex toto reparata: sive ex eisdem lapidibus sive ex aliis. Si vero non simul sed successive omnes parietes ruerent, vel dirimerentur, et etiam non simul sed successive et particulatim reparati sive renovati essent: non esset de novo consecranda ecclesia. Quia eadem ecclesia intelligitur ante reparationem et post: sed tunc debet reconciliari per aspersionem aquæ exorcisatæ.-Item si ecclesiæ consecratæ quid addatur ad longitudinem vel ad latitudinem non ideo reconsecrabitur : quia sacrum trahit ad se non sacrum. Sed sufficit si aqua exorcisata aspergatur.'

35

eo consecrari, per quod recipit ut sit ecclesia."

The separate consecration of altars was of late introduction; for many centuries they were held to be made sufficiently sacred by the contact of the Blessed Eu

charist. Thiers. Dissert. de Altar. cap. 2.

35 Pars. ix. cap. 1. F.

Bishop Gibson cites several examples of reconciliation of churches from the archiepiscopal registers in the 17th century: I

« PreviousContinue »