There remains to be considered the meaning of the rite of the consecration or coronation of a king. We have seen that an exalted idea of kingship was more or less universal before the times of Christianity. In pre-Christian times the king was regarded as far above ordinary men by virtue of his office, which embraced priestly functions, and was looked upon as being the vice-gerent of God. In the Roman Empire from the time of Julius and Augustus the Emperor was also Pontifex Maximus, the spiritual as well as the civil head of the Empire; his effigy was sacred; temples were erected to him or to his Genius; during his lifetime he received semi-divine honours, and on his death he was solemnly enrolled among the company of the gods. The autocrat of the world was the representative of God on earth. The Roman Empire itself was mysterious, sacred, and eternal. The Christians also accepted this theory and followed St Paul’s teaching that ‘the powers that be are ordained by God,’ equally with their non-Christian fellow-citizens regarding Caesar in some sense at least as the representative of divine law and order in the natural world, and as being therefore the vice-gerent of God[170]. When the Emperors became Christian the Church naturally found herself able to accept this doctrine with enthusiasm and without restriction, and the Emperor was acknowledged as spiritual as well as civil ruler. Thus we find that the Council of Nicea had no hesitation in admitting the right of the Emperor to control the Church, and Constantine claiming to be a sort of Episcopus episcoporum appointed by God[171]. This conception of the Emperor has never been lost by the Eastern Church.

We have seen that there was a ceremonial in pre-Christian times on the accession of an Emperor. The Church very naturally transformed this inauguration ceremony into a Christian rite in much the same way as the civil marriage ceremony was made religious by the addition to it of the benediction of the Church. The accession of an Emperor was by the will of God. The Church gave him her solemn benediction at the outset of his career. It is the idea of a benediction rather than a consecration that the earliest Eastern rites, and even the earlier Western rites, seem to contemplate. At the same time the Church by her benediction proclaimed the new Emperor as the chosen of God, thereby affording a certain stability to his throne and in some degree offering some assurance of peace to Empire and Church. The idea of a consecration gradually evolved itself, and rapidly developed when the use of an unction was introduced. We have seen that there is some uncertainty as to the date of this introduction. St Gregory the Great not only speaks of the anointing of rulers as a well-known fact, but certainly regards it as being in some sort sacramental, just as St Augustine had long before asserted that the Jewish unction conferred grace on its recipients[172]. Photius evidently regarded the Emperor as being in some way set apart and solemnly consecrated by the inauguration rite. But there still remained the practical idea of obtaining general recognition as Emperor by the performance of the ceremony, for the Emperors were crowned immediately on their accession. This idea is just as manifest in the West as in the East. There we see that Pippin in his anxiety to obtain a definite recognition and acceptance of his dynasty when the Merovingian fainÉants were set aside, was anointed or consecrated on two different occasions, by St Boniface, and secondly by the Pope himself, who came across the Alps for the purpose. In the same way we find Richard I of England being crowned a second time on his return from his captivity, this second coronation being apparently regarded as necessary in view of the fact that his brother John had acted at least as king de facto. Henry II was crowned no less than three times. Henry III was crowned twice. All these cases of repeated coronations were intended to procure the firm establishment of the king upon his throne rather than for any other reason. Or again a king might be held to have forfeited his throne by some grievous crime, as in the case of Lothair II of Lotharingia, but on amendment might be confirmed upon his throne by a reconsecration, as was Lothair by Archbishop Hincmar.

But in process of time in the two oldest monarchical states, England and France, a theory came to be held that the consecration of a king was a consecration proper, and was to be ranked with the Sacrament of Order as conferring character, and that after his consecration the king was no longer a layman but at least a Mixta Persona. This view, popular though it was in England and France, was never accepted by authority, and Lyndwood mentions it as being taught only ‘secundum quosdam’; while St Thomas lays down that only the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Order confer character, thus excluding the consecration of a king. On the other hand, in the rite of Navarre the unction is spoken of as ‘the Sacrament of unction.’

We find an excellent example of the popular belief in the effect of the consecration in the French and English rite of the Healing. In France the power of the king to heal by his touch was certainly generally attributed to the fact that he had been anointed. Though this theory was also largely held in England, there was also the counter and perhaps more general view held, that the power of healing was possessed in virtue of rightful succession from the Confessor; on the other hand the kings of England blessed cramp rings by rubbing them in their anointed hands, with a prayer for their consecration.

Three facts may be regarded as contributing towards this common belief in England and France that the consecration of a king was a sort of ordination; the fact that he was anointed ‘as prophets, priests and kings were anointed,’ according to the language of the form in most of the orders; the fact that the regal vestments were very like those of a bishop; and the fact that there is considerable similarity between the rite of the consecration of a king and that of the consecration of a bishop. The king was anointed ‘as prophets, priests and kings were anointed.’ Unction was used in the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Order, all of which conferred character. It was difficult to explain what was the meaning of the unction of a king. Grosseteste[173] held that it bestowed grace, the sevenfold gift of the Holy Spirit. So far as there was any official doctrine on the subject, it seems that it was that the unction of a king was a Sacramental, a means by which grace might be obtained. The Roman Church seems to have always discouraged the theory that it was in any way an ordination. The fact that in the East the Emperor took part in the procession as a Deputatus proves very little, and the fact that the Western Emperors sometimes read the Epistle at their coronation if anything goes against the theory of ordination, for if the Emperor was to be regarded as in any way ‘in Orders,’ surely his Orders would have ranked above the sub-diaconate.

We have already seen that the royal and sacerdotal vestments are closely related in their origin, and many of them more or less identical both in form and name, and therefore it is not surprising that men should have thought that this must mean that the king was in some way a minister of the Church. For example, a French order describes the Tunic, Dalmatic, and Pallium (Royal Mantle) of a king as ‘celuy qui reprÉsente le soubsdiacre, celuy qui reprÉsente le diacre, et le manteau royal reprÉsentant la chasuble.’ Again an English king is described by a lay witness as being arrayed at the time of his coronation like a bishop vested for Mass.

There is certainly a general similarity between the rite of the consecration of a bishop, and the rite of the consecration of a king. It was undoubtedly this similarity that was the chief ground for the doctrine that an anointed king was a ‘mixta persona,’ a view that is still maintained by some. The closeness of the structure of the two rites is seen at a glance.

It will be seen that the similarity in the structure of the rites is striking, and the closeness in the forms of the two rites is equally noticeable.

The bishop, after the consecration prayer, is anointed on the head with chrism. The king, after the consecration prayer, is anointed on head, breast, etc., with chrism according to the English and French rites, with oil according to the Roman use. The Roman form used at the anointing of a bishop is Ungatur et consecretur caput tuum caelesti benedictione, ordine pontificali, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti; a Roman form at the anointing of a king runs Ungo te in regem de oleo sanctificato in nomine, etc. The hands of a bishop are anointed with the form Ungantur manus istae de oleo sanctificato et chrismate sanctificationis sicut unxit Samuel David Regem et Prophetam, ita ungantur et consecrentur; in the case of a king the general form runs Ungantur manus istae de oleo sanctificato unde uncti fuerunt reges et prophetae et sicut unxit David in regem, etc. The Ring is delivered to a bishop with the words Accipe anulum discretionis et honoris fidei signum, etc.; to a king with the words Accipe regiae dignitatis anulum et per hunc in te catholicae fidei cognosce signaculum, etc. The Pastoral staff is delivered to a bishop with the words Accipe baculum regiminis signum, ut imbecilles consolides, titubantes confirmes, pravos corrigas, rectos dirigas, etc.; compare with this the form with which the Verge or Rod is delivered to the king, Accipe virgam virtutis atque aequitatis, qua intelligas mulcere pios et terrere reprobos, etc. Finally the bishop is seated ‘in capite sedium episcoporum’ and the king is enthroned.

These instances are sufficient to shew unmistakably that one rite influenced the other. But the stage at which the similarity is so noticeable is a late stage in the history of both rites, and at an earlier date when both were more simple, much of the later parallelism is not to be found. In the process of the great liturgical developements of the middle ages there was naturally an assimilation in the case of the consecration of persons, and there seems to have been a good deal of experimenting in the case of the rite of the consecration of a king, many pontificals containing orders with various peculiarities, which certainly were never used. But on the other hand there is also to be noticed a careful differentiation between the two rites, and this especially in the Roman orders. The Roman rite was never elaborate and in process of time tended to a greater simplicity. Thus the investiture of a king with the Ring does not appear in it except for a very short time, and then from outside sources; in the same rite the unctions are only two in number, and there is a difference in the parts anointed in the case of a king, he being anointed only between the shoulders and on the wrist. If, as is most likely, kings in the West were anointed on the head, this differentiation between the anointing of a bishop and a king seems deliberate on the part of the Roman Church. Moreover, while it is true that in England and France chrism was used for the unction of a king as for a bishop, in the Roman rite chrism was never so used in the case of a king, but only the ‘oleum catechumenorum.’

Officially then the Church denied the name of Sacrament to the royal consecration, allowing it the rank of a Sacramental only. In practice the repetition of the rite which so often occurred, and in the case of the Roman Emperor was normally performed three times, proves sufficiently that it was not an ordination conferring character.

Historically considered the rite proves itself to be in origin a special benediction elaborated and developed almost out of recognition as such. A careful examination of the construction of the rite shews that in it there are three well marked divisions.

1. The election of the king.

2. The oath taken by the king to rule in accordance with law and justice.

3. The benediction superadded to the covenant so made between king and people.

Of the election the Recognition is the surviving trace. It may be noted that the idea of the election of the king is retained till quite late in the developement of the rite. Until the time of the fourth English recension, these words still appeared, Quem in huius regni regem pariter eligimus. In the fourth English recension eligimus was changed to consecramus, but in the French rite this change was never made and the word eligimus was used without alteration.

The oath was at first quite simple, short, and direct. It developed into an interrogatory form, the king swearing in answer to questions put to him by the consecrating prelate. In England and France the oath covered the king’s duties to Church and State and People, but elsewhere it frequently included a promise of subjection to the See of Rome.

The benediction of the Church was subjected to the greatest developement. An unction was introduced, and the porrection of the royal ornaments, Sword, Crown, Ring, Sceptres, and Verge, which naturally lent themselves to spectacular effect, tended to become more and more elaborate. Thus in process of time each ornament was delivered with its own form and prayer. Added to this, the conflation of prayers, originally alternative, has increased this portion of the rite until it comprises the greater part of the whole ceremonial. It appealed to sentiment, and the Church was always ready to make use of sentiment.

If it is desired to make a comparison between this and any other rite of the Church, it is the marriage rite which is really the closest to it. So King Charles I felt, of whom we are told that ‘His Majesty on that day was cloathed in white contrary to the custom of his predecessors who were on that day clad in purple. And this he did ... at his own choice only, to declare that Virgin Purity with which he came to be espoused unto his Kingdom[174].’ In marriage a covenant is made with vows between the two contracting parties. To the covenant so made the Church adds her benediction. In the giving of her benediction she makes use of emblems, a Crown and Ring, investing the contracting parties with insignia, as it were, which are highly significant of the covenant betwixt them made. Of these the nuptial Crown, still used throughout Eastern Christendom, has long been dispensed with in the West, the Ring alone remaining.

The rite of the coronation of a queen consort is not really in the same category with the consecration of a king. It is merely complimentary. As we have seen it had no place in the earliest English order, nor yet in the corresponding rite of Milan, and perhaps the same is true of the oldest Frankish forms. The second English recension gives a form for the coronation of the queen with the preliminary explanation that the office is performed out of consideration for her honourable position as consort of the king. This is borne out by the earlier forms at her unction, ‘Let the anointing with this oil increase thine honour.’

In the earlier Frankish orders there is a noticeable similarity to the nuptial rite, and the general idea underlying the benediction of the queen is that she may be worthy of her high dignity and bear a numerous royal progeny. This last idea has in recent times, temporarily at least, disappeared. The comparative unimportance of the coronation of the queen consort is shewn by the fact that many were not crowned at all, among others being Henrietta Maria, Catherine of Braganza, and Mary of Modena. It is true that these three belonged to the Roman communion, but notwithstanding this same circumstance, it was necessary for the king regnant James II to submit to the rite.

In France the coronation of the queen, since the time of Marie de MÉdicis, was dispensed with altogether, until Josephine was crowned as Empress with the Emperor Napoleon.