« НазадПродовжити »
change of two or three words, into the order of William and Mary,' and so becomes part of the accepted English coronation order of the last two centuries. This is only one instance amongst others of Dr. Sancroft's manipulation of the liturgical forms, and of his influence still abiding in the arrangement of the modern coronation order.
So amongst the other changes introduced by Dr. Sancroft into the forms, his dislike to asking for a blessing upon the royal ornaments is evident. The omission of a direct blessing of the oil is not so remarkable, because there is none in Liber regalis or the earlier Stewart orders; though in the private benediction of the oil he used the words “Bless O Lord this oil.” But the entire omission of the prayer for the blessing of the ring is not without signification ; for where he has been unable altogether to avoid retaining some of the old prayers for the blessing of the colobium sindonis, of the sword or of the crown, he has also altered them so as to turn the prayer for a blessing of the ornament into a prayer for a blessing of the wearer of the ornament. That of the sword has been given above. Those of the royal ornaments and of the crown will be spoken of below.
There is precedent for this kind of change in the alteration made in the marriage service of Edward VI.'s first book. The blessing of the ring in the Sarum Manual is changed into a blessing of “these thy servants, this man and this woman."
My son has pointed out to me in the Bodleian Library at Oxford a collection of papers, many of them in Dr. Sancroft's hand, written about the time of the coronation of King James II. In some of them we may see the remodelling of the coronation order going on. There is the following new form designed for use at the delivery of the ring.
“Receive this Ring as a Pledge of the Mariage that is between the King and his People
(the Ring is now put on) 6 and Remember, that as God has made, You, our Lord and King, a Husband to your People; so it is your Majesties part to Love and Govern them & to Provide for their Welfare, as it is theirs to pay You their Affection and Obedience.
“And thou Lord that hast made this happy mariage by thy good Providence, Prosper thou thy owne Handy work, keep his Maty & his People together in Love Inviolable, & in faithfull performance of all their duties, to our comfort, & to the glory of thy Name through &c.”
A large space intervenes between these paragraphs and the following which seems designed as an alternative to the last.
“And thou Lord, who by thy good Providence hast brought this our King and his people together, blast the wicked designes of all those that would put them asunder. Let it be seen that this was thy own Choice. Bless, Oh Lord, and prosper thy owne handywork."3
i See below, p. 23.
2 St. John's College Cambridge MS. L. 14. p. 13. See also Chr. Wordsworth, op. cit. p. xx. note.
3 Tanner MS. 31. fo. 86. At the top of the page are four lines, apparently in short hand, giving the substance of the following form.
In this new form there is an allusion to an old idea that the coronation ring was a symbol of the marriage between the King and his people. But for James II, the old form of delivery seems to have been used without material change, and it passed into the order of William and Mary” and thence into succeeding orders. Whatever may be thought of the excellence of the new form, no one can claim for it that it tends to shorten the service, the motive assigned by the King for these deep-reaching changes.
But besides the changes in the formularies, the order in which these forms followed each other was considerably disturbed, and this more than the verbal changes in the forms was determined by the omission of the celebration of the Lord's Supper. At King Charles I.'s coronation the first oblation was followed by the sermon, the oath, Veni Creator, Litany, and anointing. In King James II.'s the order is the first oblation, Litany, sermon, the oath, Veni Creator, and anointing. The Litany in the earlier Stewart orders and Liber regalis was associated with Veni Creator and the blessing of the oil. So the second oblation was part of the offertory in the earlier Stewart orders and Liber regalis : in King James II.'s it is inserted in a place devoid of all significance, between the investiture per anulum et baculum and the enthronization and homage : a change which it can hardly be doubted was made because “there was no communion."
But these inept changes would have mattered little if the order of James II. had remained alone, without any following. Unhappily it showed to rash hands how easy it was to destroy the ancient character of the coronation order. In less than four years another coronation followed ; and though there is some evidence that men hoped that the
1 The ring was called “the wedding ring of England.” (Sir George Buck, History of Richard III. London, 1646. Lib. v. p. 146.) Queen Mary Tudor is said to have had two rings with which she was espoused twice; first on her accession when she was crowned, and secondly when she became wife of the King of Spain. Also at the time of Wyatt's rebellion, she told the citizens of London“ that on the day of her coronation, when the ring which she wears was put on her finger, she purposed accepting the realm of England and its entire population as her children.” (Calendar of State Papers ... of Venice, London, 1873, vol. v. 1534-1554. pp. 460. and 593.)
See below, p. 25. 3 If we may judge of Dr. Sancroft's powers as a ritualist from his alterations of the order of James II. it may seem from the liturgical point of view almost providential for the Church of England that he did not take the oaths, and was thus unable to carry out his scheme for the revision of the liturgy and the comprehension of Dissenters. (The Bishop of Lincoln's and the Bishop of Norwich's Speeches in the House of Lords March 17th &c. London, John Morphew, 1710, p. 3. See also W. Palin, History of the Church of England from the l'evolution, London, 1851. p. 34.) The caustic remark of Mr. Brightman on the new discovered Sacramentary of the Bishop of Thmuis may be remembered here : “Serapion, if he were the first, would perhaps not be the last prelate whose liturgical compositions were not the happiest item in his literary record.” (Journal of Theological Studies, Oct. 1899. p. 91.)
+ See above, the comparative table of some of the later English coronation Orders.
order followed by the earlier Stewarts might again be revived, yet the times were unfavourable to a very strict regard to precedent in this matter.
William of Orange landed at Torbay on November 5th, 1688 and on February 14th, 1689 the Crown was offered by the Lords and Commons to William and Mary as joint sovereigns, but with the exercise of the Regal power in the Prince of Orange.? A committee of the Privy Council for the coronation was appointed on Feb. 26th, the Bishop of London being added to the committee on March 5th. The Bishop was ordered to inspect the coronation order on March 12th, and in the Report by the Committee it is said that he has brought them. The date of the coronation was fixed first for the twelfth, finally for the eleventh, of April," and it thus seems that the forms were drawn up or revised in a very short time : at the most in two months, and probably less.
It is likely that one of the things that Dr. Henry Compton, the bishop of London, had in mind in his revision of the coronation order was the insertion of the coronation into the celebration of the Lord's Supper, so that the sovereign could no longer avoid receiving the communion at the hands of the prelate who had crowned him. Hereafter there was to be communion whenever there was coronation. Before King James II.'s coronation, in the recensions which I have called respectively the second, third, and fourth Latin recensions of the English coronation order, as well as the order of the older Stewarts, the celebration of the Eucharist followed the ceremonies of crowning; the introit, Protector Noster, or in the English service, Behold O God our defender, was sung when the crowning was over. So that the mediæval
1 On April 5. 1689 there was licensed The form of prayers and services used in Westminster Abby, at the Coronation of the Kings and Queens of England, London, Randal Taylor, in folio. It is merely a reprint of Prynne's confused account of James I.'s coronation. (Signal Loyalty &c. London, 1660, Part ii. p. 263.) But before this tract was published, the changes in the coronation order had been already determined on by Dr. Compton. (See below, p. 1.)
? See below, Appendix II. p. 67. William wore his crown even before the coronation. (See below, Appendix IV. p. 75.) Mr. H. A. Wilson points out to me an earlier instance, when the convention was turned into a parliament. (John Evelyn, Diary, Feb. 22. 1688–89. ed. Bray, 1879. vol. iii. p. 70.)
3 See below, p. 3. It can hardly be said that Dr. Sancroft was entirely neglected in the preparations for the coronation. Throughout the coronation order of William and Mary the chief minister is always the Archbishop, most probably the Archbishop of Canterbury, so that he could have undertaken the office, if he had changed his mind at the last moment. And Mr. H. A. Wilson has pointed out to me in the Bodleian Library the summons to Dr. Sancroft to attend the coronation “there to do and perform such services as shall be required and belong unto him.” It is dated March 21. 1688–9, and it is sealed with the Earl Marshal's seal. (MS. Tanner 28. fo. 378.)
4 The Council Minutes show the date altered from 12 to II (see below, p. 71), and in one of the Chamberlain's warrants the date has been allowed to stand. (See below, Appendix V. p. 76.)
5 Yet the heralds seem doubtful if there were to be a celebration of the Lord's Supper. See below, Appendix VIII, note on p. 100.
6 See Missale ad usum Ecclesiae Westmonasteriensis, H.B.S. 1897. fasc. iii. pp. 1435-1439.
and early Stewart orders were not inserted into the celebration of the Eucharist. Yet, though most likely unknown' to him, Dr. Compton had good precedent for the step that he took in thus inserting the coronation order into the Eucharist. The precedent exists in the earliest English coronation order known to us, that of the pontifical of Egbert. In this order the coronation service begins immediately after the gospel, a liturgical moment which corresponds with the place at which it begins in Dr. Compton's arrangement, that is, immediately after the Creed and Sermon : thus in both, the coronation takes place between what is called the mass of the catechumens and the mass of the faithful. It is at this place that the consecration of a bishop is inserted in the book of common prayer, and a reminiscence of this may have been present in Dr. Compton's mind, and determined the place.
Thus an important precedent was established, the influence of which is felt to our own day.
An important and more serious liturgical change must be noted in the part of the service of William and Mary which deals with the consecration of the King, and the blessing of the oil. This was again caused by the influence of the order of James II.
In Liber regalis and the Stewart orders there is a group of formularies forming the central part of the service, and containing the consecration of the King and the blessing of the oil. It begins with Veni Creator and an ancient prayer Te invocamus, a Litany accompanied in Liber regalis by the seven penitential psalms, said by the bishops in an undertone, four prayers, the first of which is Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, a prayer named in the second recension consecratio regis, which in Liber regalis contains the words in regem consecramus,* and in all texts the important words defining the duties of the King to the church, Ecclesiamque tuam deinceps cum plebibus sibi annexis ita enutriat ac doceat, muniat et instruat. These four prayers are followed by the consecratory preface of the oil and the anointing of the King.
In James II.'s order this sequence of forms underwent grave changes at the hands of Dr. Sancroft. The Litany was moved to an early place in the service, and thus separated from the blessing of the oil and anointing of the King; and the ancient prayers that accompanied the consecration of the King were moved with the Litany away from the anointing, and reduced in number to two. And of these two, the most important of all, Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, survived only in a mutilated form; though it preserves the words we consecrate our King and nourish, instruct, and defend thy Church and People. But Veni Creator and Te invocamus remained, immediately preceding the blessing of the oil, which is still introduced by Sursum corda, but is reduced in length just as Omnipotens sempiterne Deus has been cut down, and hardly anything left of the old form Electorum fortitudo except the first words and the allusion to kings, priests, and prophets. Certainly the service here has been shortened, if we do not say broken up, in its central and most important part; and yet it was requested that essentials should be preserved.
1 Martene published the coronation order of Egbert's pontifical in his great collection of ancient rites; but I do not find that any part of this had appeared in 1689. It seems unlikely also that Dr. Compton was acquainted with the German and Frankish orders. (See Missale . . . IVestm. iii. 1434.)
2 See below, Appendix XI. p. 117.
5 In the Stewart orders this is translated nourish and teach defend and instruct thy church and people.
6 See below, notes to cap. 4. p. 138.
The mischief thus wrought by James II. and Sancroft seriously affected the order for William and Mary. The Litany and one collect remaining out of the four ancient prayers said at the consecration of the King were set at the very beginning of the order, immediately after the first oblation, and before the beginning of the communion service. In the consecration of a bishop in the Book of Common Prayer, the Litany is said in the communion service; and Dr. Compton might have followed this precedent if he had remembered the analogy between the consecration of a king and the consecration of a bishop.
The entire disappearance of Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, the formula used for the consecration of a king even in the mutilated form in which it appeared in James II. is a grave omission, and Dr. Compton seems to have desired to supply it by the insertion of the word consecrate in places where this particular word does not occur in earlier coronations. For example, in his new form for the blessing of the oil there appears this sentence : “ who by our office and ministry are now to be anointed and consecrated King and Queen,"3 and in the form used at the anointing : “be you anointed, blessed, and consecrated King and Queen.”
Te invocamus, which is to be found in the very first recension of the English coronation service, was also removed from the order of William and Mary. Thus for the central part of the service there remained only Veni Creator and a new consecratory prayer for the oil. This is for the most part new for this purpose. It retains, as in James II. the ancient introduction, Electorum fortitudo, even if inverted; but without Sursum corda ; the rest is made up for the most part of portions taken from the baptismal and confirmation services of the book of common prayer. Some of these are not unhappily adapted.
It may be said on behalf of the changes made by James II. and William and Mary that the ancient form, Electorum fortitudo, which, with Te invocamus, goes back to the very first recension, had, like other forms in the Liber regalis, something of the grotesque in it, and that even in the early middle ages it had been thought needful to modify the text of Electorum fortitudo'; also that Sursum corda is a comparatively
i See below, notes to cap. 8. p. 141. 2 See below, notes, p. 129.
3 This seems to be borrowed from Dr. Sancroft's form for privately blessing the oil. (St. John's College, Cambridge L. 14. p. 13. and Chr. Wordsworth, op. cit. p. XX. note.)
4 See below, pp. 21 and 22.