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

5

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 Lyndwood, 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 authentic seal, says; "Sed quid si episcopus de novo consecratus, vel

electus, confirmatus, nondum habeat sigillum hujusmodi paratum ad manus, habet tamen sigillum armorum vel signetum, an sufficiat alterum eorum talibus literis apponere? 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. Wilkins. tom. 1. 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.

996

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 incœperit, sat obscurum est, sive Græcam sive Latinam ecclesiam spectemus. 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

8

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.

6 Jus eccles. tom. 1. 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.

century, who have attributed the use of it to S. Peter himself. It seems however to have been introduced about the fifth or sixth century into the Latin church from the East: and Thomassin has not been able to produce any example before the time of Cæsar of Arles about the year 500.10

The form of the pall is thus described by Innocent III. "Pallium fit de candida lana contextum, habet desuper circulum humeros constringentem, et duas lineas sive fascias ex eodem panno ab utraque parte dependentes quatuor autem cruces purpureas, ante et retro, a dextris et sinistris: sed a sinistris pallium est duplex, simplex a dextris; cui in tres partes conciso tres acus infiguntur (spinas vocant alii) quibus consuitur."11

9 Rupertus Abbas: for example. De div. off. lib. 1. cap. 27. Bibl. Patrum. Auct. tom. 1. p. 863. Catalani, nevertheless, does not fear to support him. In Cærem. Episc. tom. 1. p. 256. And he cites an epistle of Leo the Great, and a passage from Liberatus, to shew that S. Mark received the pall from S. Peter, and with it his patriarchal authority. In the numerous works of that author, we scarcely know which to admire the most; his learning, or his prejudice.

10 Compare Alberti, de sacris utensilibus, tom. 1. p. 6.

11 De Myst. Miss. lib. 1. cap. 63. The reader who wishes accurately to examine the subject, as to the first adoption of the pall, how it was originally a royal

habit, the office of the benediction, its mystical signification, and other particulars, must consult not only the middle-age ritualists, and our own historians, who very briefly notice it, but Van Espen, Jus. Eccles. Pars. 1. Tit. xix. de Marca, de concord. Sacerd. et Imper. lib. 6. cap. 6. Thomassin, de Benef. Pars. I. lib. 2. liij. Catalani in Pontif. tom. 1. p. 235. and, in Carem. Episc. tom. 1. p. 244. Ferraris. Bibl. verb. Pallium: Benedict XIV. de Synodo, lib. 3. and Georgius, de lit. Rom. pontif. lib. 1. cap. xxv.

I quote the following from the third dissertation attached to the Liber Diurnus, before noticed. "Vox pallii apud Latinitatis autores vestem illam longam significat, quæ aliis indumentis impo

It will be observed in the notes below, that an archbishop, if translated from one see to another, was obliged to apply to the court of Rome for a new pall: this was on account of the personal character which was attributed to that ornament. Hence Cœlestin III. decided, in his answer to an enquiry on the subject, "quod non videatur esse conveniens, ut pallium tuum alicui commodes: cum pallium in personam non transeat, sed quisque debeat cum eo (sicut tua novit discretio) sepeliri.'" 12 This is introduced into the rubric of the modern Roman pontifical. There are numerous accounts of the burying of archbishops in their vestments, to be found in their Acts, and in the Bollandists: but I remember only one English example in which the pall is expressly mentioned. Catalani says that we are to conclude that S. Dunstan was buried in his pall, because we are told that at the translation of his body, it was found, upon examination, that the ring was upon his finger and therefore the other vestments proper to his dignity. This seems a somewhat hasty inference.13 However, the following is clear enough: arch

13

nitur, ut subinde assumatur cum prodeundum in publicum; deponatur, quando quisque domi apud se est. In sacris ornamentis vox illa ambiguam habet significationem; sumitur enim, aliquando pro veste sacra, quæ superinduitur, ut quod pluviale dicitur, quodque cappa et casula; aliquando pro insigni quodam dignitatis eximiæ, quod ipsi etiam cappæ casulæque imponitur, sicut pallium reliquis vestibus, vel est pallii ornamentum quoddam et decus." Se

veral very ancient formula are given in the diurnal, upon occasions when the pall was sent from Rome to archbishops, p. 125. These also should be referred to.

12 Cap 3. x, de auctoritate et usu pallii. Van Espen. tom. 1. p. 171. See also Castaldus, Praxis Carem. lib. 1. §. x. cap. 12.

13 Comment. in pontif. Rom. tom. 1. p. 248. Martene. tom. 2. p. 368.

Martene cites the following from

bishop Becket, the day after he was murdered, was hastily buried: still with regard had to certain solem