« PreviousContinue »
OFFICE OF INTHRONIZATION.
HE office, which I have placed next to the service 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.1
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 cœtus 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."
1 Conc. tom. 2. p.
196. 214. 2 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. Append. vol. 6. p. 2. 16. In the history of William de Chambre, printed in the Anglia Sacra, (tom. 1. p. 766) is an account of the inthronization of bishop Richard de Bury: “in qua installatione fecit grande convivium: ubi interfuerunt rex et regina Angliæ, mater regis Angliæ, rex Scotiæ, duo archiepiscopi et quinque episcopi, septem comites cum uxoribus suis, et omnes magnates citra Trentam cum innumera multitudine communitatis." A. D. 1334. I cannot resist quoting also the following, of the same bishop. "Iste summe delectabatur in multitudine librorum. Plures enim libros ha
buit, ut passim dicebatur, quam omnes pontifices Angliæ. Et præter eos quos habuit in diversis maneriis suis repositos separatim, ubicunque cum sua familia residebat, tot libri jacebant in camera qua dormivit, quod ingredientes vix stare poterant vel incedere, nisi librum aliquem pedibus conculcarent." Ibid. p. 765. He was the author of the Philobiblos. Godwin. de præsul. p. 748.
♦ Wills and Inventories, p. 26. In this instance the broken seals were made into a silver-gilt chalice for the altar of S. John the Baptist. One of the constitutions of Otho, Quoniam tabellionum, 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 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
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
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."1
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. 1.7 .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. 1. 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