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.