Obrazy na stronie

fulis ;" and I extract the following from the same author. "Post annum millesimum perspicue a conciliis declaratum est, quo quisque cultu, et habitu synodo interesse debeat. Concilium Budense, 1279, episcopis, et abbatibus mitræ privilegio donatis superpelliceum, stolam, pluviale, et mitram assignat: prælatis inferioribus, superpelliceum, stolam, et pluviale: parochis, et presbyteris cæteris superpelliceum et stolam : monachis stolam dumtaxat. Synodus Coloniensis, anni 1280, can. xix. albam, stolamque prioribus, archipresbyteris, et decanis ruralibus tribuit: parochis solum superpelliceum. Synodus Nemausensis, anni 1284, parochis solum superpelliceum in synodo Paschali, cappas rotundas in synodo S. Lucæ permisit. In aliis synodis non minus conspicuum est in sacris vestibus discrimen, quibus sacri viri in conciliis utebantur." 32


Among the canons of a synod at Dublin, 1217, is one bearing upon the attendance of the clergy, though it does not speak of the dress or habit to be worn. Præcipimus sacerdotibus, ut jejuni intrent synodum; jejunio enim debet fieri et oratione. Item præcipimus districtius, quod omnes presbyteri, maxime curam animarum habentes, veniant ad synodum, et si gravi infirmitate detenti, aut alia necessitate inevitabili venire non poterint, suum capellanum mittant, aut clericum loco suo. Item præcipimus, quod in eundo ad synodum, et redeundo a synodo, honeste ambulent presbyteri, et honesta quærant hospitia, ut in eis circumspecte se habeant, ne status clericorum vertatur in contemptum et opprobrium populo.'


* Conc. Tom. 1. p. 18. Prolegom. Cap. xix.
33 Wilkins. Conc. Tom. 1.

p. 548.

Although there are not wanting ancient orders in which four days were to be the period of the synod; yet as in the Sarum and Winchester pontificals, the most usual was for three days only. The constitutions which were made in these synods, as well as in the provincial, were called synodals; and usually were afterwards published in the several parish churches : "in which sense" says Dr. Burn "the word frequently occurreth in the ancient directories." 34

Reminding the reader of Bishop Stillingfleet's opinion, that visitations are the modern form of the ancient diocesan synods, I make no apology for adding a passage from Bishop Kennett, because I doubt the correctness of both his argument and decision. "From the time that Church-government was here established, I believe our Bishops had the right of calling their own clergy to a synod, and to enter upon debates, and draw up rules and orders, that should be binding within that special jurisdiction. This power was apparently exercised for some ages, to the times of reformation under Henry the 8th. when the submission of the clergy made all diocesan meetings to be executive visitations, no longer legislative synods: yet when the clergy's submission was repealed under Queen Mary, this diocesan power returned, and in that reign, Bonner and other Bishops, held synods and framed constitutions for their own respective dioceses. But now that submission is returned upon us." I think that it might be shewn, that the Bishop in what he has here said, has upon the one hand attributed more power of legislation than it


34 Ecclesiastical Law. verb. Synodals.

35 Ecclesiastical Synods. p. 201.

ever claimed to the diocesan synod, and upon the other, unwarrantably extended the force of the muchinsisted on submission of the clergy. He was not a writer, who, when his argument at all required it, hesitated to strain the facts to which he appealed: and his expressed opinions require a careful examination, before they are adopted.

But, once more, in connexion with this subject, I cannot pass by without remark, the account which the author of the Origines Liturgica, following we must presume Bishop Stillingfleet, gives of the modern Visitation: and I regret to differ at all from one who by the results of his learning and labours has so benefited the church of England. He says: "the modern forms of Visitation in the Anglo-Catholic Churches seem to be derived both from those of the ancient Visitation and the Diocesan Synod. The clergy, &c., are cited, names called, excuses received. Articles of enquiry having been previously sent and answered, the bishop administers such injunctions and corrections as he may judge necessary. Presentments are to be received; the bishop delivers a charge, and may publish injunctions or constitutions, enforcing the observance of the canons and other laws of the church." 36 Whether this account corresponds or not with the ancient visitation is a question I do not enter upon; but most certainly it does not with the diocesan synod. To speak of one point only, so material that the rest utterly fails without it, we do not find a trace, the shadow even, of the priests of the diocese in modern days sitting in council with their bishop. That at visitations, as at

36 Palmer. Supplement to Orig. Liturgica. p. 53.

present celebrated, the Bishop may "enforce canons and laws of the church" is true: but they must be already canons of the church, and this every Bishop may, and ought to do, at any time. But the question is, whether the Bishop and his clergy may make new ecclesiastical regulations to be enforced within his diocese, after due deliberation had, the one with the other, and so that they be not contrary to the laws of the realm.

XII. I proceed in the last place to speak, under one head, of the three orders which have been taken from the pontifical, of Excommunication, and of Absolution, and of Receiving an Apostate, returning from infidelity or Judaism.

The rubric of the modern Roman pontifical makes three distinctions or degrees of excommunication. “Notandum quod triplex est excommunicatio, videlicet, minor, major, et anathema." But not merely was there in the first ages of the Church one kind only of excommunication, but the greatest writers upon the subject do not seem to lay down any other mark of difference between the Greater Excommunication, and Anathema," than arises from the greater solemnity with which one is published and inflicted than the other. Du Cange after allowing that anciently there was no distinction, cites, it must be acknowledged, one or two strong examples in which something more than mere solemnities gave heavier weight to the Anathema: not merely an excommunication, but an actual giving over to Satan and to the pains of hell. Van Espen however decides: "Fatentur passim recentiores, qui

The reader should consult Bingham. Christian Antiq. Book. xvi. Chap. 2.

hac etiam distinctione utuntur, eam non nisi accidentalem dici posse: sive excommunicationem majorem et anathema non differre, nisi penes minorem majoremque solemnitatem in pronuntiatione adhiberi solitam. Et quidem supra vidimus, quod Fagnanus adhibita distinctione inter excommunicationem majorem et anathema mox monuerit, excommunicationem majorem intelligi quæ fertur sine solemnitate; anathema vero illam, quæ fertur cum solemnitate.' And with him agrees Catalani, in a passage which I shall also quote, as it reconciles, it seems to me, much of the difficulty in the authorities of Du Cange, which have been alluded to. "Quamvis autem tertium excommunicationis genus Anathema dicatur; sciendum tamen et illud est, idem re ipsa esse anathema, ac major excommunicatio, solumque ab ista illud distingui quantum ad solemnitatem, quia scilicet solemni ritu, ac cæremoniis majorem terrorem incutientibus peccatorem contumacem Ecclesia execretur, dirisque devoveat. Per quasdam itaque solemnitates, quæ in simplici majori excommunicatione non usurpantur, quæque aliquid horribilius ad incutiendum horrorem continent, accidentario, ut aiunt, excommunicatio ab anathemate secernitur. Ubi cum reus est simpliciter contumax, decernitur feriendus simplici majori excommunicatione, quod si evectus in superbiam, fiat ulterius protervus et contumax, dicitur feriendus anathemate, idest mandatur repeti excommunicationem, adjunctis horrificis solemnitatibus." 39


The office in the Sarum pontifical has no rubric at the beginning, and is to be understood also of the

38 Tract. de Cens. Ecc. Opera. Tom. 4. p.


39 Pontif. Rom. Comment. Tom. 3. p. 169.

« PoprzedniaDalej »