vitæ suæ (nam hoc sine innocentia nemo potest) sed sacramenti Dei, quod et in malis hominibus sanctum

The reader will observe that S. Augustine calls the regal unction in the above passage, a sacrament: nor, relying upon his authority, does there appear to be any objection to the use of so high a term, in the same wide sense in which we speak of the sacrament of orders, or of marriage. So also S. Gregory the Great says expressly: "Quia vero ipsa unctio sacramentum est, is qui promovetur, bene foris ungitur, si intus virtute sacramenti roboretur. "Rex unctus," says Lyndwood, "non mere persona laica, sed mixta secundum quosdam.' But this anointing must not be

"22

21 Contra litt. Petiliani. lib. ij. cap. 112.

22 Expos. lib. 1. Regum cap. x. Balsamon, in his scholia on the 12th canon of the council of Ancyra, has not feared to go much further, as to the effects of this unction. But his interpretation of the canon is condemned, and very justly, by all later writers on the subject. He says: "Præsenti canone usus ille sanctissimus patriarcha dominus Polyeuctus:-dixit enim cum sancta synodo, in synodalibus actis quæ tunc habita fuerunt, quæ in Chartaphylacio reponuntur, quod quoniam sancti baptismatis unctio omnia, quæ ante baptismum fuerunt, qualia et quantacunque sunt, peccata delet; omnino imperatoris

quoque unctio cædem delevit.” Bevereg. Pandect. Tom. 1. p. 385. The case alluded to is that of the Emperor John Tzimisches, who had slain his predecessor.

Upon the distinction laid down in the 12th century, between the regal and sacerdotal unction, see Raynaldus, Tom. 1. ad. an. 1204. xlj. And on its effect, Hostiensis, Summæ. lib. 1. rubr. xv. 11. Scacchi, Elæochr. Sacr. p. 1074.

23 Lib. 3. tit. 2. 'Ut clericalis. verb. beneficiati : cited by archdeacon Wilberforce, Church Courts, p. 93. and see a remarkable assertion, made by Charles the Bold, [Bald ?] 859, upon the sanctity of kings, in consequence of their consecration by bishops. ibid. p. 30.

24

looked upon, neither ever has it been, as conferring any sacerdotal right or privilege: the sovereigns of England are supreme in all cases whether ecclesiastical or civil, as in the one, so in the other, both before and after the solemnity of the coronation; nor are their prerogatives increased by its performance, or hindered by its delay: and as before they have no power, so neither after the regal unction have they any right or authority, to minister the sacraments, or the Word of God.5

Before we proceed to other matters connected with the service of the coronation, I must take notice, that in this country also as well as in France, the posses

24 One of the ecclesiastical laws of S. Edward the Confessor is entitled, "Quid sit regis officium:" and begins, "Rex autem, qui vicarius summi regis est, ad hoc est constitutus, ut regnum terrenum, et populum Domini, et super omnia sanctam veneretur ecclesiam ejus, et regat." Wilkins, Concilia Tom. 1. p. 312. And compare the 2nd of the Anglo-saxon Institutes: "Of an earthly king." Thorpe, Ancient Laws and Institutes. Vol. 2. p. 305.

25 It was an ancient custom, now omitted in the Roman pontifical, that the emperor, after his consecration, should attend upon Se the pontif, as a subdeacon, during the celebration of the mass. Thus the old "Liber sacrarum cærimoniarum" directs, after the coro

nation is over, and the offertory concluded: "Imperator pontificem ad altare descendentem sequitur, et illi in locum subdiaconi calicem, et patenam cum hostiis offert, deinde aquam infundendam in vino." Lib. 1. p. 25. edit. Rom. 1560. But this would seem to be a relic from those earlier times when actual offerings and oblations were made by all the laity, at the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The reader should consult however Thomassin, de Benef. Pars. 1. lib. 3. cap. lxiv., in which place he will find full information about another custom, introduced and common in many nations, that the newly consecrated prince should be admitted a canon of some cathedral church. See also Ducange. verb. "Canonici honorarii."

sion of a miraculous oil has been claimed, and use made of it upon at least one occasion. If it should be thought that the evidence for this miracle is little better than that, before examined, of K. Clovis, I shall not argue against such an opinion, but leave the reader to form his own conclusion.

The facts, if they may be so called, are as follows, in the words of Walsingham. "Die translationis sancti Edwardi regis et confessoris, coronatus est rex Henricus IV.,-unctus est illo cœlesti unguento, quod olim beata Maria, mater Dei, commisit beato Thomæ martyri arch. Cantuar. dum esset in exilio conservandum, prædicens eidem, quod reges Anglorum, qui ungerentur hoc unguento, pugiles essent ecclesiæ, et benigni. Hoc unguentum in aquila aurea et ampulla lapidea conservatum latuit per multa tempora, sed tandem miraculose manifestatum. Dum dominus Henricus primus dux Lancastriæ bella gereret regis sui in partibus transmarinis, ipsi nempe tradita fuit prædicta aquila per quendam sanctum virum, qui illum invenerat revelatione divina. Qui dedit eam nobilissimo principi Edwardo, ut in ea unctione post mortem patris ungeretur in regem. Qui posuit in turri Londoniarum unguentum præfatum, recludens in cista multis firmata securis, latuitque ibi vel per oblivionem, vel per negligentiam, usque ad tempus Richardi regis II. Anno Domini prædicto 1399, prædictus rex Richardus curiose perscrutatus res a progenitoribus sibi relictas, inopinato reperit aquilam et ampullam, et scripturam B. Thomæ. Et cum didicisset virtutem talem unctionis, rogavit dominum Thomam Cant. arch. ut eum denuo ungeret hoc unguento. Qui hoc facere omnino recusavit, dicens sibi sufficere, quod semel per manus suas sacram suscepit in coronatione

pristina unctionem, quæ habere non debuit iterationem. Hanc aquilam cum ampulla rex Richardus portavit in Hiberniam, profecturus et denuo rediens in hanc terram. Quam petenti archiepiscopo tradidit, dicens se jam patenter clarescere, quod non fuit voluntatis divinæ, ut ungeretur illo unguento, sed alteri deberi tam nobile sacramentum." 26

In this story an assertion is said to have been made by the archbishop, which, supposing there was any truth in the matter, all parties must have known to be a falsehood: "quod semel per manus suas sacram suscepit unctionem, quæ habere non debuit iterationem." For there is no fact more certain than that many of our early kings were crowned more than once.27 To name no more, Henry II., of whom Hoveden tells us, speaking of his third coronation, "Anno gratiæ 1159, idem rex Henricus tertio fecit se, et Alienor uxorem

26 Hist. Angl. p. 360. Cf. Ypodigma Neustriæ, p. 555. And a MS. in the Cotton library. Faust. B. ix. It is obvious that this legend was invented in order to supply an hereditary defect, and give additional sacredness to the character of K. Henry IV.: whose doubtful title required something of that kind: and the assertion that his unfortunate predecessor had not been able to obtain unction with the same oil, is a curious circumstance in the tale. I may add, that another version of the same legend is given by Weever, from an old Leiger Book, of the abbey of Whalley. Funeral Monu

ments. p. 200. Weever may generally be relied on, as to his quotations, but he is both an ignorant and an unsafe writer when he does not refer to, or transcribe his authorities.

The rabbinical writers declare, that the ancient Jewish kings were, in like manner, anointed with a holy oil, which had originally been consecrated by Moses, and kept without diminution about 900 years, until the captivity.

27 Pepin also, of France, was anointed twice: first by S. Boniface, the legate; and again, by the pope himself, Stephen II.: Charlemagne, five times, and Charles the Bald, four times.

suam coronari, in solemnitate paschali apud Wirecestre:" and he adds, (as if the king was fearful of again being tempted) "ubi cum ad oblationem venirent, de posuerunt coronas suas, et eas super altare obtulerunt; voventes Deo, quod nunquam in vita sua de cætero coronarentur.' 28 Henry III. also, first at Gloucester, in the year 1216: concerning which Matthew Paris, though he begins by speaking "de prima regis Hen. III. coronatione, quæ per quendam circulum aureum facta sit;" expressly declares, that there was no distinction made as to the anointing: "Et his gestis," he continues, "episcopi, ipsum in regem ungentes, coronaverunt solemniter."29 And the mass, and royal banquet followed, as was always customary. His second coronation was performed at Westminster, by the archbishop, in 1220: "præsente clero et populo totius regni.'

"30

Annal. pars posterior. edit. Savile. 281. See also Alford's p. Annals who remarks: "Est hoc illustre pietatis exemplum, quo reges Regem regum, et Dominum dominantium pietissimo cultu agnoscunt, ad Christi pedes coronam projicientes." Tom. IV. p. 92. pars posterior. A somewhat similar instance of humility is that of Canute, who, after the well-known rebuke of his courtiers at Southampton, would not wear his crown: "Sed super caput crucifixi Wintoniæ posuit." Henr. de Knyghton de event. Angliæ. Lib. 1. cap. v. The same is stated by Henr. Huntingdon, p. 364, cit. Alford. Annal. Tom. 3. p. 492.

"Super imaginem Domini, quæ cruci affixa erat." In the account given by Gervase, of the second coronation of Richard I., it would seem that the unction was omitted. Script. x. Tom. 1. p. 1587.

29 Hist. Angl. p. 243. And again, especially, a letter of the king himself, printed in Rymer, concerning this first solemnity; "in ecclesia beati Petri Gloucestriæ,-invocata Spiritus Sancti gratia, publice fuimus in regem Angliæ inuncti et coronati." Tom. 1. pars. 1. p. 72.

30 Ibid. p. 260. Holinshed, Chronicles. Vol. 3. p. 202.

There was also a tale attached to a ring of S. Edward: which