« PoprzedniaDalej »
early and complete introduction of the Roman Use into England cannot but allow, who owns, that “even at the close of the eighth century, the Scottish liturgy was in daily, though not exclusive, use in the church of York.” That is, in Egbert's own cathedral: what Dr. Lingard means by “though not exclusive,” I do not comprehend. About the same time, A.D. 747, a council at Cloveshoo added the sanction of its authority to the observance, as far as the various dioceses would receive them, of the Roman ritual and missal. We must be careful not to press beyond such a limitation these canons, as otherwise we should be plainly contradicted by other records which are extant : and it is not clear that we must even go to that extent; for the object seems rather to be directed to an uniformity of time, and the Roman or Gregorian chant. I extract the first of these, which relates to the Liturgy. “xiii. Ut uno eodemgue tempore ubique festivitates dominicae, seu martyrum nativitates peragantur. Tertio decimo definitur decreto : ut uno eodemgue modo dominicae dispensationis in carne sacrosanctae festivitates, in omnibus ad eas rite competentibus rebus, id est, in baptismi officio, in missarum celebratione, in cantilenae modo, celebrentur, juxta exemplar videlicet quod scriptum de Romana habemus ecclesia. Itemque ut per gyrum totius anni natalitia sanctorum uno eodemque die, juxta martyrologium ejusdem Romanæ ecclesiae,
glorum idem primimensisjejunium, ut noster didascalus beatus Gregorius in suo Antiphonario et Missali libro per pasdagogum nostrum beatum Augustinum transmisit ordinatum et rescriptum — servamus.” “Hoc autem jejunium idem beatus Gregorius per praefatum legatum in Antiphonario suo et Missali, in plena hebdomada post Pentecosten
Anglorum ecclesiae celebrandum destinavit. Quod non solumnostra testantur Antiphonaria, sed et ipsa qua cum Missalibus suis conspeximus apud apostolorum Petri et Wilkins. Concilia. tom. i. p. 85.
* Lingard. Anglo-Saxon Church. vol. i. p. 299.
cum sua sibi convenienti psalmodia seu cantilena venerentur.”* Le Brun mentions a remarkable' manuscript, which he says proves that for a considerable period, the AngloSaxon church, or at least some part of it, adopted not the Gregorian, but the Gelasian sacramentary.” Whether this may have been so, or not, there can be little doubt, but that the Canon of the church of Rome, subject to certain variations, was admitted and generally observed by the Anglo-Saxon churches, long before other portions of the missal, or other rites and ceremonies. This Mabillon allows was the case with respect to the Gallic liturgy in France." Without delaying longer upon this enquiry, I think we may conclude, that as Christianity spread among the Anglo-Saxons, the Canon of the church of Rome, as distinguished from the old Gallican, was gradually received by them, and also in the British churches which still existed in remote parts of the country. But, especially by the latter, it would be the general arrangement only, and not the exact words. And not merely would ancient prejudices, and ritual peculiarities have influence against the newer Form, but the Bishops of the several dioceses into which England was divided, it may well be thought, exercised the power of which I have already spoken, to enjoin, within the limits of their respective jurisdictions, rites and ceremonies and prayers. It would be absurd to say that this power was invariably exercised with due discretion: much indeed is it to be wished it had been; and we should not have had to complain of
* Wilkins. Concilia. tom. i. p. Liturgy, has been somewhat un96. The other Canon, xv th, con- fairly by Dr. Lingard mixed up with cerns the daily office of the canoni- the xiiith. Vol. i. p. 299. cal Hours: and, although it does not affect the question of the exact reception of the Roman Course and * De Lit. Gallicana. p. 46.
* Opera. tom ii. p. 91.
trifling and blameable practices which occasionally were suffered to interfere with the solemnities of the public service and offices. Yet, after all, these were to no great extent; and there is ample proof how careful the rulers of the Church were, to prevent these scandals: and in fact, when we remember how rude the manners of the Anglo-Saxons were, how little learned many of the most pious and earnest of the Bishops, how numberless the superstitions which prevailed, we must own the constant presence and direction of the Almighty Head, Who alone could preserve a due and fitting Order, against the pressure of so many difficulties. One error the Anglo-Saxon Church was most anxious to prevent; although it has been with superficial writers not uncommon to assert the contrary: viz. the introduction of any pagan rites. It will be sufficient to quote two examples. The 19th canon of the council of Chalcuith, A.D. 785, at a time when it would have seemed to human policy most desirable by any way to conciliate the heathens, enjoins in the plainest terms: “Ut unusquisque fidelis christianus a catholicis viris exemplum accipiat; et si quid ex ritu paganorum remansit, avellatur, contemnatur, abjiciatur. Deus enim formavit hominem pulchrum in decore et specie: pagani vero diabolico instinctu cicatrices teterrimas superinduxerunt.” And again, in the 11th century, the 5th of the Ecclesiastical Laws of King Canute. “Prohibemus etiam serio omnem ethnicismum.”
3HE Eucharistical offices therefore of the An& glo-Saxon Church may have been, for many o years, distinguished from each other by o so very important variations: and it is probable that throughout England, up to the century preceding the conquest, they differed in some degree or other, so far as the number of dioceses would permit. Doubtless they all preserved the essentials of the Service, according to the very brief account which Ælfric gives us in his Easter-homily. “Ba apostoli dydon swa swa Crist hét. pathi halgodon hlāf and win to hisle eft sy’88am on his gemynde. Eác swylce heora aefter-gengan and ealle sacerdas be Cristes haese halgia’8 hlāf and win to hisle on his naman mid paere apostolican bletsunge;” And these differences of each diocese * from another continued,” until the civil subordination of the whole land under one head, and consequent in* creased facilities of intercourse introduced a greater sameness of practice, well fitted to their Unity of Faith.
* “Apostoli prout Christus jus- printed in later years. Those ac
", sit fecerunt; exhinc enim panem et
vinum consecraverunt iterum in
cording to the Uses of the Benedictines, the Cistercians, the Carthusians, the Dominicans, and Franciscans, were published before the year 1500. These were upon the one hand forbidden to the secular clergy: see Benedict. XIV. Opera. tom. ix. p. 408: and on the other were binding upon the members of the respective Orders: Azevedo. De Div. Off. Exercit.x. p. 55. But compare the order presently, about Barking monastery.
About the year 1085, Osmund, then Bishop of Salis– bury drew up and promulgated a Form which should be used in his diocese:* and whether from the known ability and earnestness of Osmund himself, whether from the fame of his new cathedral, and the college of learned clergy which he had collected, or from whatever cause, this Use of Sarum was very generally adopted in the south of England, as well as in other parts of the country, and even, it has been said, upon the continent.” It did not however altogether exclude the other Uses, of York, Bangor, Hereford, and Lincoln, which still obtained in their respective districts: these were small perhaps in comparison with the wide reception of the Use of Sarum, and neither their exact limits nor their authors can be
* “At the Conquest, monasteries had a deep share in the afflictions of the conquered nation; some of the best of their manors were sacrilegiously taken away, their treasuries plundered, and their liberties infringed. Most of the English Abbots being deposed for little or no causes, strangers were preferred to the richest abbies in the kingdom, who introduced several new customs to the grievance of the old Saxon monks. . The first thing which seemed very hard was the altering their missals: upon this account what great heats were there in the Abbey of Glastonbury! when Thurstan, the pragmatical Norman Abbot, would have forced the monks to lay aside the old Gregorian service, which had been used there time out of mind, to make use of the new devotions” i.e. manner of singing, “of William of Fiscamp. These and several other innovations, which were bringing in upon them,
were stopped by the pains of Osmund, Bishop of Salisbury, who composed a new ritual, afterwards known by the name of the Missale in usum Sarum, and generally used
in England, Scotland, and Ireland.”
Tanner. Notitia Monastica, Pref.