Obrazy na stronie

ipso consecrationis actu illico reassumat:" and the other is to the same effect. Both these are in the legatine constitutions of Otho.38

There was a facility which persons anciently might avail themselves of, surreptitiously to obtain orders, which has long been checked: this arose from the great number of persons who were ordained. I have unfortunately mislaid a reference to one of the Cotton manuscripts in the British Museum, in which I saw some long contemporary lists of ordinations, with names and other particulars, in the fourteenth century. But this is a point upon which easily ample information might be obtained, I doubt not, from existing records in the episcopal registers of the various dioceses: and I shall extract the following only from the Archæologia. “In the episcopate of bishop Brantyngham, at an ordination celebrated in Tiverton church by William Courtenay, bishop of Hereford, on the 8th June, 1370, there were ordained three hundred and seventy-four persons ; of whom, one hundred and sixty-three received the first tonsure; one hundred and twenty were ordained acolyths; thirty, subdeacons; thirty-one, deacons; and thirty, priests.” 39


38 Tit. 3. and 8. There is nothing of importance in John de Athon's gloss upon these passages.

39 Vol. 18. p. 414. Compare

some remarks in the dissertation on service books, as to the number of churches in this country, before the reformation. vol. I. p. clxviij. note. 83.




THE office, which I have placed next to the service

1 of the consecration of a bishop, is that of his inthronization. This will not require of me many observations. Several forms relating to the inthronization of a bishop of Bath and Wells, in the 13th century, have been printed by Wilkins: to which I must refer the student: and another, a letter of summons to certain abbots by archbishop Winchelsey, to attend the solemnity in his own instance,

The dispute which I have already noticed between the bishops of London and Rochester, had regard to the right of inthroning the archbishop: I quote the account given by archbishop Parker, which shews that the controversy once opened, there was no lack of claimants of the privilege, and that it ended in a compromise. “Inthronizandi enim jus Londinensis ut decanus, Roffensis ut capellanus, archiepiscopi sibi vendicavit. His autem litigantibus interponunt se monachi, suumque jus asserunt esse. Tum totus episcoporum cætus instabat, et ad se tam inthronizationem, quam consecrationem, spectare affirmabant. Hac dissentione turbata aliquantulum pallii suscipiendi ceremonia fuit. Tandem sic composita lis est; ut, in throno sedentis episcopus Londinensis, pallium autem suscipientis episcopus Roffensis, archiepiscopi dextras

occuparet.” 2

Conc. tom. 2. p. 196. 214.

- De antiq. Brit. Ecc. p. 226.

The inthronization of the archbishops was followed by a sumptuous feast, at which some of the chief persons in the kingdom performed certain services, as at coronation banquets, either claimed as privileges and honours, or as the conditions upon which they held manors or estates. I need scarcely remind the reader of the great feast of George Nevil, archbishop of York, in the reign of Edward IV., of which a particular account is printed by Hearne, “out of an old paper roll ;” and another, equally magnificent, of archbishop Warham, in 1504.3

One of the benedictions printed below, (see page 321.) is, of the seal of a bishop. These after their death were anciently destroyed. At the end of one of the Durham inventories printed by the Surtees society, it is stated; “ Post mortem Richardi Byry episcopi fracta fuerunt iiij. sigilla ejusdem.”* A. D. 1345. The

3 Leland. Collectanea. Ap- buit, ut passim dicebatur, quam pend. vol. 6. p. 2. 16. In the omnes pontifices Angliæ. Et history of William de Chambre, præter eos quos habuit in diversis printed in the Anglia Sacra, (tom. maneriis suis repositos separatim, 1. p. 766) is an account of the in- ubicunque cum sua familia residethronization of bishop Richard de bat, tot libri jacebant in camera Bury: "in qua installatione fecit qua dormivit, quod ingredientes grande convivium : ubi interfue- vix stare poterant vel incedere, runt rex et regina Angliæ, mater nisi librum aliquem pedibus conregis Angliæ, rex Scotiæ, duo culcarent.” Ibid. p. 765. He archiepiscopi et quinque episcopi, was the author of the Philobibseptem comites cum uxoribus suis, los. Godwin. de præsul. p. 748. et omnes magnates citra Trentam 4 Wills and Inventories, p. 26. - cum innumera multitudine In this instance the broken seals communitatis." A.D. 1334. I can- were made into a silver-gilt chanot resist quoting also the follow- lice for the altar of S. John the ing, of the saine bishop. “Iste Baptist. One of the constitutions summe delectabatur in multitudine of Otho, Quoniam tabellionum, librorum. Plures enim libros ha- is directed to the subject of au


present custom is to send the seals of a deceased bishop to Lambeth, where they are broken up.

The pontifical ring was also anciently sent to the archbishop of Canterbury: in the year 1310, upon the decease of one of the bishops of Ely, the ring was not delivered as it ought to have been ; and archbishop Winchelsey issued a writ directed to one Richard de Oteringham, who was administering the spiritualties of the see during its vacancy, in order to obtain possession of it. It begins, “Robertus,etc. Salutem. Cum nuper ad nostram audientiam pervenisset, quod fratres Amisius et Robertus, monachi Elienses, annulum, qui pontificalis vulgariter appellatur, quondam domini Roberti Elien. episcopi defuncti, qui de jure et consuetudine nostræ ecclesiæ Cant. ad nos dignoscitur pertinere, post mortem ejusdem episcopi auctoritate propria occupassent, et detinerent, occupatum ; vobis dedimus, etc.” The monks of Ely, it appears, argued, that the

thentic seals: it orders that all
archbishops, bishops, abbots, &c.,
should procure them, with the
proper legend and distinctions:
and that great care should be
taken of them, lest they should fall
into unfaithful hands, or be used
for false purposes. The student
should consult John de Athon
upon this constitution, but I am
not aware that either he, or Lynd-
wood, anywhere explains what the
practice was with regard to the
seals, after a bishop's or other
dignitary's decease. Lyndwood
in one place, speaking of an au-
thentic seal, says; “ Sed quid si
episcopus de novo consecratus, vel

electus, confirmatus, nondum ha- .
beat sigillum hujusmodi paratum
ad manus, habet tamen sigillum
armorum vel signetum, an sufficiat
alterum eorum talibus literis ap-
ponere ? videtur quod sic, dum
tamen tale sigillum sit notum."
Lib. 5. tit. 5. Reverendissimæ.
verb. sigillo. Compare as to the
use of seals, attached to letters of
orders, the fifth canon of a council
at Westminster, A. D. 1175. Wil-
kins. tom. I. p. 477.

5 Wilkins. Conc. tom. 2. p. 403. It is possible that the rings of the deceased bishops of Ely alone, were due to the archbishop: and it seems certain that in the

bishop, before his death, had given the ring to their convent.

RECEPTION OF THE PALL. Succeeding the office of the inthronization of a bishop, in this volume, the reader will find the order which was to be observed, when the archbishop of Canterbury received his pall. The origin of this ornament, as used by archbishops, is involved in hopeless obscurity ; to use the words of Van Espen, “Quando et quomodo usus illius ornamenti incæperit, sat obscurum est, sive Græcam sive Latinam ecclesiam spectemus.”6 There are two early documents, which if they were genuine, (and not a doubt remains that neither is so), would have thrown some light upon this question. One is the once famous Donation of Constantine, the other the Liber Pontificalis, in the life of S. Mark, pope A. D. 336. As to this last, it is the earliest notice, genuine or not genuine, which has been yet produced for the antiquity of the pall: and the Jesuit Garnier, in his third dissertation upon the Liber Diurnus, not only quotes it as of authority, but contends, that Linus, the successor of S. Peter, originally adopted it. He is sufficiently modest indeed, to exclaim against some unfortunate authors of the 12th

11th century, no such claim was acknowledged by the bishops of Rochester. See the case of bishop Gundulph, in the Anglia Sacra; pars. 2. p. 290. cf. p. 292.

Jus eccles. tom. I. p. 169. * This “Liber pontificalis," I need scarcely remind the reader

must not be confounded with the “Pontifical,” commonly so called : this was, “ de gestis Romanorum pontificum.” It is a valuable work, and I believe the best edition is by Joannes Vignolius, with various readings, &c. 3 vols. Rom. 1724.

8 p. 251.

« PoprzedniaDalej »