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.