[ 12 ]

“ Altar, and, after the GoKpel, the officiäting Prielt<c fhould, wich his Benedidtion, lay a Sword, lacred to“ that Ule, upon this Knight’s Neck, who then ha-te ving participated of the Holy Mylteries of the“ Communion, was from that Time conftituted and“ reputed a compleat Knight: Of which Cuftom (as“ he proceeds) the Normans exprefled an high Detef<f tation, as reputing Knighthood conferred in this<c Männer, tobeofamean, degenerous, and ignoblef£ Creation.”

Thus Ingulfus reprefents the Matter: But 0 Mr. Cam-den and P Sir Henry Spelman leem to be of O pinion, thatthe Normans did not really diflike, or dilcontinue thisPraelice j becaufe William Rufus, Son of the Conque-ror, was Knighted by Archbifhop Lanfrank , and uponfome other Accounts ipecified by them, which it is nothere neceflary to mention.

I {hall not diflemble, that in the Paflage citedfrom Ingulfus, he doth not ule the Term Bathing-, butthis cannot be urged, upon any good Grounds, as anegative Argument, that Bathing therefore was not, atthe Time of his Writing, uled preparatory to the Vi-gils: For w ithin the Space of eighteen Years after hisDeath, which happened in 1105), Bathing, aswillap-pear from the Extradl, that I am going to produce,is leparately, and exprelsly mentioned, not as a new

0 Britan. p. 126.

p Diflertatio de Milite in Reliquiis, p, 177.

Cuftom