« AnteriorContinua »
Preliminary Dissertation upon the
Dffices of Coronation, Drdination,
Consecration of Bishops,
HE consecration of sovereigns by the ministers of religion, reaches to an antiquity higher than the Christian æra: but I need not enter here into the history of the unction and coronation of the ancient Jewish kings. The accounts which we have in the Sacred Scriptures will readily occur to the recollection of the reader;1 and if he would enquire further, there are many writers who, having investigated that part of the subject, will afford him very full information upon it.
S. Augustine has declared that the anointing of kings was a rite always peculiar to the people of God: and not adopted at any time by the heathens. "Unctus est," he says, "Deus a Deo: unctum audis, Christum intellige etenim Christus a chrismate. Hoc nomen quod appellatur Christus, unctionis est: nec in aliquo alibi ungebantur reges et sacerdotes, nisi in illo regno,
1 The reader will not forget the remarkable parable of Jotham, in the Book of Judges: and the speech given to the bramble.
Besides the authors more
usually referred to, the student I will do well to consult the 8th ch. §. 1. of Selden's Titles of Honour, and the third book of Scacchus, Sacrorum elæochrismatwn myrothecia.
ubi Christus prophetabatur et ungebatur, et unde venturum erat Christi nomen: nusquam alibi omnino, in nulla gente, in nullo regno.
We know not who was the first Christian prince, either anointed or crowned by the bishops of the Church. Theodosius the younger is supposed to have been the first, who was crowned by the patriarch of Constantinople; and Habertus acknowledges that he cannot find any authority for such a solemnization before his time: A. D. 408. "Nemo mihi a patriarcha coronatus legitur ante Theodosium jun. de quo Theodorus Lector, lib. 2. ὁ νέος Θεοδόσιος στεφθεὶς ὑπο του Πρόκλου πατριάρχου.”· Taтgiágxou." Shortly after the time of that emperor there appears to be little reason to question the fact, in the case of the emperor Justin: concerning whom Baronius quotes an epistle from John, the then patriarch of Constantinople: "Ideo coronam gratiæ super eum cœlitus declinavit, ut affluenter in sacrum caput ejus misericordia funderetur: omnique annuntiationis ejus tempore cum magna voce Deum omnium Principem glorificaverunt, quoniam talem verticem manibus meis tali corona decoravit."5
But before this date, we have the famous history of Clovis in the West, of whom it has been asserted, that he was both crowned, and anointed. And more than
Enarrat. cit. Habert. Pontif. Græc. p. 626.
4 Pontif. Græc. p. 627.
5 Annal. an. 519. Compare the account of the second coronation of the same emperor, by pope John I. in the Liber pontif. tom. 1. p. 192.
For there seems to be no evi
this: that the sacred oil was brought down by an angel from heaven, for that purpose. The story however would prove too much, and as a result which may rather have been anticipated, the enquiry which has been made into the truth of the miracle, has cast more than doubt upon even the coronation of Clovis. For the evidence in proof of the miraculous oil, must be set down as worthless: the best authors of the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, men who, one or the other, would have undoubtedly spoken of it, if it had been true, say not a word upon the matter: and until, at last, the legend begins to be heard of, the oil is mentioned in connexion, not with the coronation, but with the baptism of Clovis.' The writers of those ages immediately succeeding the supposed miracle, speak frequently of the chrism with which Clovis was anointed, and call it "holy" or "sacred chrism:" but this, in the same sense in which they would have spoken of all chrism, and not as having been in any way miraculously provided. Thus, to quote one of them, and
tum, ut quum primum imperator renuntiatus esset, a patriarcha Constantinopolitano in magna Byzantii basilica oleo unctus diademate aureo redimeretur." De comitiis Imperatoriis. cap. 2.
7 The whole legend of the coronation of Clovis may be probably attributed to a perverted tradition of his baptism and confirmation : in the same way as it has been asserted, that our king Alfred was anointed king at Rome, by
Leo IV. In which latter case we have very considerable authority: viz. his contemporary Asser, Malmesbury, Hoveden, and others. But still it must be referred to his confirmation, which they relate did also take place: for it is scarcely credible that he should so long beforehand, as a child, with two elder brothers, and in his father's life-time, be anointed for a king. See Selden, Titles of Honour, p. 115. and the authors cited by him.