Page images

tum; secus si remotum fuerit ab eadem. At e converso polluto cœmeterio non censetur propterea polluta ecclesia, tametsi contigua: et, si duo sint cœmeteria quæ pariete medio sibi junguntur, uno polluto, aliud pollutum censeri non debeat." 32


There were some difficulties in deciding whether, if 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 received opinion in the time of the author of the Pupilla: who adopts the rule, "propter altaris fractionem aut 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

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

It was certainly allowed, according to the use of some churches, that a priest might perform this office of reconciliation: but I think it probable that in the later centuries, at least, the English church observed the more general rule, which restricted it to the bishop of the diocese, or to another bishop with his license. The office itself, as the reader will observe, supposes the presence of the bishop, equally as in the solemnity of a consecration: nor is it likely that the express decision of Gregory IX., in the 13th century, would have been disregarded: "Aqua per episcopum benedicta ecclesiam reconciliari posse per alium episcopum non negamus; per sacerdotes simplices hoc fieri de cætero prohibemus : quia licet episcopus committere valeat, quæ jurisdictionis existunt, quæ ordinis tamen episcopalis sunt, non potest inferioris gradus clericis demandare." 36

p. 190.

Codex juris Ecc.

36 In cap. ix., x, de consecrat. ecclesiæ. Cf. Castaldus. Praxis Carem. Lib. 2. §. xi. The Pupilla in the extract above, does not appear to make any distinction between the " aqua benedicta" to be used for this, or any other ceremony. But from what Van Espen says, in the place cited before, §. xx, this ought to have been "aqua consecrata:" that is, by a bishop, and mixed with ashes: a view which is borne out by the rubric of the office below.

quote the following which he postulant."
gives, of reconsecration, in the
time of archbishop Abbot. "When
the church of Southmalling had
not only been polluted (per bes-
tias et animalia diversorum ge-
nerum, aliisque modis profa-
nata) but was also new-built, and
then used for divine offices with-
out new consecration; archbishop
Abbot interdicted the minister,
churchwardens, and parishioners,
ab ingressu ecclesiæ-donec ec-
clesia præfata, et cœmeterium
cjusdem, per nos, aut alium auc-
toritate nostra munitum, ca-
nonice et legitime consecrata
fuerint: prout jura et sanc-
tiones ecclesiæ in ea parte edita

To what extent priests might confer benedictions, has been already discussed in a previous dis

The offices of benediction of a processional or military banner, and of an episcopal seal will sufficiently explain themselves. The practice of consecrating military standards is very ancient: Charles Martel is said to have received one, consecrated and sent to him by pope Gregory III. William the conqueror, says Ingulph, "præpropera [f. proposita] querela papam consuluit, et ab eo animatus etiam vexillum legitimæ victoriæ pro munere accepit." " The prior of Hexham, in his history of the battle of the Standard, in 1135, not only relates how the holy banner of S. Peter was delivered to the barons by the archbishop of York, but also as follows: "Mox autem aliqui eorum in medio cujusdam machinæ quam ibi adduxerant, unius navis malum erexerunt, quod Standard appellaverunt: unde Hugo Eborac. archidiaconus:


'Dicitur a stando standardum, quod stetit illic
Militiæ probitas vincere sive mori.'

In summitate vero ipsius arboris quandam argenteam pixidem cum corpore Christi, et sanctorum Petri apos

sertation: (vol. 1. p. ccl. etc.) and
I think it of sufficient interest to
add the following passage from
Catalani, in which the opinions of
the later canonists are briefly sum-
med up.
"Ratio differentiæ cur
episcopus possit inferiori presby-
tero, ea quæ sunt jurisdictionis
committere, non vero ea quæ
sunt ordinis, illa est: quia ea
quæ sunt jurisdictionis non ita
hærent personæ episcopi, ut ea
quæ sunt ordinis, quæ episcopus
in consecratione assequitur; quæ-

que ita episcopi propria sunt, ut ab eo cedi non possint alii quam episcopo; coepiscopoque cedantur, non ut alii, sed ut alteri ipsimet propter vinculum et necessitudinem sacerdotii, quæ episcopos omnes velut unum habet, omnesque ecclesias velut unam colligit." In Pontif. Rom. tom. 11. p. 229. Compare Lyndwood. lib. 2. tit. 1. Excussis. verb.commissarii.

37 Hist. p. 69. Script. Anglic.

tom. 1.

toli, et Joannis Beverlacensis, et Wilfridi Ripensis confessorum ac pontificum vexilla suspenderunt."3



THE antiquity of the punishment of Degradation, the order of which is edited in the present volume, is so well known to every reader of ecclesiastical history, that I need not delay upon it. The Apostolical canons, and those of Nice, of S. Basil, and of Peter of Alexandria, all prove the universality of the practice : and although the severity of it differed at various times and in various churches, some degrading altogether, some only from a higher to a lower order, yet as a mode of punishment, it seems everywhere and at all times to have been acknowledged and inflicted.39

Both theologians and canonists not unfrequently confound deposition, and degradation: and indeed in one sense, perhaps the most ancient one, they may be regarded as the same; but strictly, in later practice, there was a difference between the two. Simple deposition prohibited a clerk either from exercising the powers of his order, or any ecclesiastical office; or from receiving the revenues of his benefice: but it did not remove him from the spiritual and subject him to

38 Ricardus Hagulstald. de gestis R. Stephani. script. x. tom. 1. p. 322.

39 A good general account may be found in Bingham, Antiquities, Book vi. cap. 2. But the stuIdent will do well to consult Martene, de ant. ecc. rit. 2. p. 317, and to examine the canonists, es

pecially Van Espen, Jus Eccles. par. 3. tit. xj., and the notes of Balsamon and Zonaras, Bevereg. Pandect., upon the conflicting canons of Nice and Chalcedon: the latter of which would not permit the more modified form of degradation, from a higher order to a lower.

« PreviousContinue »