_Linteamina and Surplices_ (Vol. iv., p. 192.).--It seems probable that
the surplice became an ecclesiastical vestment at an early date, though
the exact period of its introduction into the Christian church it is
difficult to ascertain; it may not unlikely have been taken from the
white linen ephod of the Jewish priests. Wheatly (c. ii. [section] 4.) quotes a
passage from Jerome to the following effect: "What offence can it be to
God for a bishop or priest to proceed to communion in a white garment;"
and he considers it not improbable that it was in use in Cyprian's days.
Bingham (_French Churches' Apology_, book iii. chap. vii.) cites a
letter of Peter Martyr to Bishop Hooper on the vestment controversy, in
which he states that a distinction of habits may be proved by many
passages of Eusebius, Cyprian, Tertullian, and Chrysostom. By the
twelfth canon of the Council of Narbonne, A.D. 589, the clergy were
forbidden to take the _albe_ off until after mass was ended. In ancient
times, as Mr. Palmer observes (_Orig. Lit._ ii. 409.), the _surplice_
probably differed not from the _albe_; it differs now only in having
wider sleeves.