fleur de lys surmounted by a French crown: beneath the shield are the initials H. G. G. in Roman capitals.

It may be noticed that a correcting hand in red has passed over this document, making important alterations.

In the Library of the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth there is also a manuscript of the order used at the coronation of William and Mary. (No. 1077.) It is neatly written in red and black, the rubrics being in red, and it is bound in gilt morocco. It was apparently prepared for use at the coronation. It begins with the service in the Abbey, not with Mattins, like the Heralds' manuscript. An examination of the text showed no marked differences from that of the Heralds'.

In the British Museum are two copies of the Processus factus of William and Mary. (Lansdowne MSS. 281 and 282.) They both contain a short account in Latin of the coronation service differing in places from that printed in this volume. From the point of view of this Society, which is mainly liturgical, it has not been thought advisable to print these manuscripts.

The coronation order of Liber regalis goes back to a manuscript written as early as the beginning of the fourteenth century, and many of the forms of Liber regalis can be traced back earlier still. Queen Elizabeth was the last of the English sovereigns to be crowned and anointed with the Latin forms. At the coronation of King James I. an order was used which is little else than a version into English of Liber regalis, the book used under the Tudor and Plantagenet dynasties. This order continued in use at the coronations of King Charles I. and King Charles II. and thus the medieval order, with but few changes, lasted beyond the middle of the seventeenth century. But the accession of James II. brought with it a complication: the sovereign had changed his religion; and to this change there can be little doubt that we owe the grave departures from the old forms that may be noticed in the order for his coronation. For most of the coronation orders of Christian princes that have come down to us are associated with a celebration of the Lord's Supper, and at this celebration it is clearly the intention of the order that the new King shall communicate. But at a rite celebrated by the clergy of the Church of England it was impossible that a Roman Catholic could communicate. Even for the reception of unction at their hands it was deemed advisable afterwards to procure absolution from the Roman Court. Thus changes in the order were necessary: the first and most important was to omit the celebration of the Eucharist, and to conceal this, the only motive for change, the plea was put forward that the coronation order was over long. Dr. Sancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was accordingly

1 Dr. Sancroft has copied into the cover of MS. L. 14. of St. John's College, Cambridge, something to this effect from Haerlemse Courant, dated Rome, December 16. 1685 "Aen seecker prins is Absolutie gesonden, van dat hij sig door een Onrooms Bischop heeft laten salven."

4

directed to abridge the coronation order, keeping to essentials.1 A great deal more than this was done." The order was positively rewritten; but from Sandford's book it is not easy at once to detect this process; for in a number of cases only the first words of the prayers are given; and these first words are in many instances so like the beginnings of the prayers in King Charles I.'s and King James I.'s orders that many may have thought that the whole of the prayer following was substantially the same. For an example, we may compare below the prayer for the blessing of the sword in the order for Charles I. with that for James II.

CHARLES I.

Hear our prayers, we beseech thee O Lord, and vouchsafe by the right hand of thy Majesty to bless and sanctify this sword, wherewith this thy servant Charles desireth to be girt that it may be a defence and protection of Churches, widows, orphans, and all the servants of God against the savage cruelty of pagans and infidels; and that it may be a fear and terror to all those who lie in wait to do mischief.

Christ our Lord. Amen.3

Through

JAMES II.

Hear our prayers we beseech thee O Lord, and by the right hand of thy Majesty vouchsafe to bless and sanctify this thy servant James our King who is now to be girt with this sword: that he may not bear it in vain but use it as the minister of God, for the punishment of evil doers and for the protection and encouragement of all that do well. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.*

At the beginning of the prayer it may be noticed that the words of the order of Charles I. "bless and sanctify this sword" are changed in the order of James II. into "bless and sanctify this thy servant," an important change, it is true, but the only change found in the first words as given by Sandford, so that it might be thought that the remainder of the prayer is the same. But on looking at the manuscripts it is found that the whole of the prayer after the ending of the first words has been remade, and that nothing but the beginning remains of the original, which was a word for word translation of Exaudi quaesumus of Liber regalis. And this new prayer passes on, with the

1 F. Sandford, History of the Coronation of James II. in the Savoy 1687. p. 4. The service might have been considerably abridged by the postponement of the fealty and homage of the lords to the following day: for which there is the precedent of the coronation of Richard I. (Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, Rolls series, 1867. ed. W. Stubbs, vol. ii. P. 84.)

2 Besides the liturgical and ceremonial changes of this coronation, it may be noticed that the ancient riding from the Tower to Westminster, done before Charles II.'s coronation, was not carried out at this; and it appears to have been discontinued ever since.

3 British Museum, Harl. 5222. fo. 31. See also Chr. Wordsworth, Manner of the Coronation of King Charles the first, H.B.S. 1892. pp. 36. and 130.

St. John's College Cambridge, MS. L. 14. p. 37. See also below, notes, p. 147. 5 Sandford, op. cit. p. 93.

COR. ORDERS.

b

change of two or three words, into the order of William and Mary,1 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)

"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.

66

"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."

1 See below, p. 23.

2 St. John's College Cambridge MS. L. 14. p. 13. See also Chr. Wordsworth, op. cit. p. xx. note.

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.

1

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.1 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 excellence3 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.

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 Revolution, 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,1 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.3 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.5 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 medieval

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.)

2 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 11 (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.

See Missale ad usum Ecclesiae Westmonasteriensis, H.B.S. 1897. fasc. iii. pp.. 1435-1439.