But as it is not necessary to heap up to heap up evidence upon this prerogative of the metropolitan see, I shall merely add, that archbishop Parker strongly insists upon the right of the primate to appoint a deputy: and he cites this case of archbishop Winchelsey, but without giving any authority. After enumerating other privileges, he continues: "præter dictas eminentias et prærogativas, etiam reges a Londinensibus et Wintoniensibus episcopis, archiepiscopis Cantuariensibus mortuis vel absentibus, tanquam eorum vicariis, in coronatione ungi et sacrari solebant. Qua ratione Edwardus rex ejus nomine secundus ab Henrico Woodlock Wintoniensi episcopo consecratus fuit, absentis archiepiscopi mandato; quod Robertus Winchelsey tum archiepiscopus ab exilio, in quod ab Edwardo primo actus erat, nondum reversus fuerat; ut in vita ejusdem Roberti deinceps declarabitur." 23 The passage in the Life is equally direct, to the same purpose : "Cum Edwardus secundus corona regia consecrandus esset, Wintoniensis episcopus tunc archiepiscopi vice, ejus absentis literis et speciali mandato, in rege consecrando functus sit." 24 So, when speaking of the coronation of queen Mary, by bishop Gardiner, without a archiepiscopum Cantuar. qui pro tempore fuerit, pertinet, et pertinuit ab antiquo; nosque, etc." ibid. p. 105. Compare also the form in which the archbishop of York was summoned: in the same words as other bishops, and abbots. ibid. p. 108. And somewhat more than a hundred years before, the same privilege of the see of Canterbury was recognised and insisted on by the court of Rome: a bull of pope Alexander III. in 1170, commences with the assertion, "quod coronatio regis Angliæ, et inunctio ad Cantuar. archiepisc. de antiqua ecclesiæ suæ consuetudine et dignitate pertineat." Quoniam ad audientiam. Bullarum. Coll. tom. 2. p. 407. 23 De antiquitate Brit. Eccl. p. 31. 24 Ibid. p. 312. delegated authority from archbishop Cranmer : "Re gina Maria a Gardinero Winton. episcopo, sine expresso jure aut exemplo, quoniam ea res ad metropolitanum spectabat, uncta regnoque initiata est."25 I must not omit to mention, that archbishop Parker claims as another privilege of his see, the right to 25 Ibid. p. 509. Holinshed relates a case very much to the point, but he does not state his authority, and I do not see that it is noticed either by Matthew of Westminster, or Malmsbury, or Huntingdon. But thus it is. "Some write, that Elnothus, the archbishop of Canterbury, a man endued with all virtue and wisdom, refused to crown him: [Harold, A. D. 1036] for when the king required the said archbishop that he might be of him consecrated, to whom only it did appertein to invest him with the crowne and scepter,-the archbishop flatlie refused, and with an oth protested, that he would not consecrate anie other for king, so long as the queen's children lived. The sceptre and crowne I here lay downe vpon the altar, and neither do I denie nor deliuer them unto you: but I forbid by the apostolike authoritie all the bishops, that none of them presume to take the same awaie, and deliuer them to you, or consecrate you for king. "Chronicles. vol. 1. p. 182. As soon as archbishop Parker's book was finished, there was published a little volume by the Pu ritans, with this title. "The life off the 70. Archbisshopp off Canterbury, presentlye settinge, englished, and to be added to the 69, lately sett forth in Latin. This numbre off seuenty is so compleat a number as it is great pitie ther shold be one more: but that as Augustin was the first, so Matthew might be the last." Then follows the Life of Parker, as written by himself, translated. But to our present subject, I extract what the puritan author says of this privilege just spoken of in the text. "From this steppe he clymeth vppe another, yet higher, that the kinges off this realme are crowned, and made by him, as that which off right is properlie due unto him." Sign. D. v. Thus merely repeating the archbishop's statement, without an attempt to disprove it. Some idea of this publication may be gathered from the title that it gives to the first archbishop, namely, "the hellish Augustine." It is a matter of congratulation that this, and many more of the same kind, written by the Elizabethan puritans, are among the most rare books of the time. marry the sovereigns and princes of the realm of England. And speaking of this right, he notices another point, bearing immediately upon the subject of this dissertation. He says: "Regias etiam nuptias Cantuarienses archiepiscopi conjungunt, et benedicunt. Cum enim in Windsoriæ castro, quod in Salisburiensi diœcesi situm est, Salisburiensis episcopus episcopali jure, tanquam in propria diœcesi, in Henrici regis primi cum Atheleida Godefridi Lotharingiæ ducis filia nuptiis, sacrorum celebrationi se audacter ingessisset ; ab omnibus proceribus acclamatum est, hoc jus Cantuariensium archiepiscoporum esse proprium: regesque ac reginas, ubicunque in Anglia degerent, ejus esse speciales atque domesticos, ut Gervasius diserte loquitur, parochianos, totumque regnum etsi diversis diœcesibus distinctum sit, ratione primatus ejus esse parochiam. Atque hæc adeo vera sunt, ut regiæ procerumque oblationes, sive in regio sacello, sive in quacumque ecclesia cathedrali, conventuali, vel parochiali, præsente archiepiscopo inter sacra factæ, nec illius diœcesis episcopo, nec conventui aut capitulo, nec ipsi sacelli regii decano, nec parocho, aut alteri cuicunque, sed archiepiscopo Cantuariensi soli debeantur. Nam in his quæ ad divinum cultum in principis aula pertinent, præcipua semper fuit cura atque solicitudo archiepiscopi." 26 26 P.40. The archbishop cites as his authority Gervase of Canterbury, "in act. pont. Cant." Bromton also in his chronicle relates the same occurrence, but without the particulars introduced into the text, and which unquestionably very much modify the con features of the case, as given by This privilege, if correct, would entitle the archbishop, I presume, to the oblations made by the sovereign at a coronation. I understand, however, that these oblations were not claimed by the archbishop at the late solemnities: perhaps, from not remembering the statement made by archbishop Parker; perhaps from a desire not to assert claims which might possibly be disputed, or to insist upon matters of secondary, although, in their kind, of considerable importance. The only memorial (or “fee) "fee" as it is called) allowed to the archbishop, was the chair he sat upon. For my own part, I regret, that the right to the oblations was not also remembered, and, at least, duly considered, if not ultimately pressed. Lastly, I would observe upon the various Orders, which, either in the text or notes, the reader will find in this volume, that they will enable him to trace the Coronation Service of the Church and Realm of England, from the present time back to the eighth century: a period of eleven hundred years. No other church or country can produce a series so complete. Selden 27 regretted that although he had found many particulars in our old historians, he yet could not venture upon their warrant to construct the Ceremonial. He appears to have known of no ancient coronation ritual of the English Church, except the imperfect volume in the Cotton library, containing the order of K. Ethelred. This, though a fragment only, he printed: and he attempted to compensate for what he wanted by the episcopum Sarisberiensem ad officium desponsationis peragendum sacris vestimentis cedere coegit indutum, et Wentano episcopo offi cium delegavit." Script. x. tom. 1. p. 1014. 27 Titles of honour p. 149. Form appointed in the modern pontifical of the church of Rome, abounding, as the student may easily assure himself by a comparison, with very numerous and important variations from the old English Use; and by the coronation service of K. Charles V. of France, also having many differences. I trust, that the deficiencies of which that learned writer complained, are now fully supplied. It would not be right to speak of the coronation service which I have edited in this volume, as "of the Use of Sarum;" although taken from the pontifical of that church: nor, in like manner, of the same service, as according to the Use of Winchester, or Exeter. Those churches, at the periods when the particular copies of their pontificals were written, now at one time now at another, adopted and included, according to its then state, this office, which formed one of the chief duties of the bishops of the church. The coronation-service was always "according to the Use of the Church of England"; or, on account of its high privilege as the place where the solemnity was to be performed, "according to the Use of the Church of Westminster." So also, in modern times, the coronation service must be regarded as "according to the Use of the Church of England." 28 The earliest state in which we find the Order, as it 28 It is to be wished that the coronation-service was attached to our Common Prayer Book: and in the authorized Form, according to which it had last been used. People would then consider a coronation, more justly than many now do, not as a civil, but as a religious solemnity: and would regard their sovereign not only as a Person crowned, but as a Person sacred and anointed. At present it is so difficult to obtain a copy of the Service, that it is scarcely probable they can know much about the subject. |