Gibson on Article XXXV: Of the Homilies

Slight verbal alterations of no importance were introduced into the English of this Article in 1571, when the mention of the twenty-first Homily “Against rebellion ” (which had only just been issued), was added. But except for these the Article dates from 1563. The corresponding Article in the series of Edward’s reign, of course, only referred to the first book, and without giving a list of them, merely stated that ” The Homilies of late given, and set out by the King’s authority, be godly and wholesome, containing doctrine to be received of all men, and therefore are to be read to the people diligently, distinctly, and plainly.”

In considering this Article it will be well to consider separately —

1. The history of the Homilies.

2. The nature of the assent demanded to them.

I. The History of the Homilies.

The earliest mention of the Homilies is in 1542, when a certain number of them were introduced in Convocation with the design of having them promulgated and set forth by authority.^ The design miscarried, and we hear nothing more of them until after the death of Henry vm. But in the first year of Edward vi. the scheme was taken up again, and what is now known as

[…]

the first Book of the Homilies was printed and authorised by Royal authority, being ordered to be read in churches every Sunday after High Mass. The book contained twelve Homilies, with the following titles : —

(1) A fruitful Exhortation to the Reading of Holy

Scripture.

(2) Of the Misery of all Mankind.

(3) Of the Salvation of all Mankind.

(4) Of the True and Lively Faith.

(5) Of Good Works.

(6) Of Christian Love and Charity.

(7) Against Swearing and Perjury.

(8) Of the Declining from God.

(9) An Exhortation against the Fear of Death.

(10) An Exhortation to Obedience.

(11) Against Whoredom and Adultery.

(12) Against Strife and Contention.

The authorship of the whole number has not been ascertained, but probably the first, on the Reading of Holy Scripture, and certainly the third, fourth, and fifth, of Salvation, of Faith, and of Good Works, come from the pen of Cranmer. The sixth, on Charity, is by Bonner ; the second, on the Misery of Mankind, by his chaplain, Hartsfield ; and it is said that the eleventh is by Becon.

In 1549, in order to render them more acceptable to the people, they were subdivided into thirty-two parts, and the Prayer Book, which had just been published, directed that “after the Creed ended, shall follow the Sermon or Homily, or some portion of one of the Homilies, as they shall be hereafter divided.” That the book was only intended as an instalment, is shown by the following note which stood at the close of it : ” Hereafter shall follow Sermons of Fasting, Praying, Alms deeds ; of the Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our

Saviour Christ ; of the due receiving of His blessed body and blood under the form of bread and wine ; against Idleness, against Gluttony and Drunkenness, against Covetousness, against Envy, Ire, and MaUce ; with many other matters as well fruitful as necessary to the edifying of Christian people and the increase of godly living” Accordingly the rubric in the second Prayer Book of Edward VI. (1552) said that “After the Creed, if there be no Sermon, shall follow one of the Homilies already set forth, or hereafter to be set forth by common authority.” The death of the king, however, occurred before anything more was done. Shortly after the accession of Elizabeth the Book of the HomiUes was reprinted (1560), and in 1563 a second book was added to It, presented to Convocation, and after some considerable delay authorised by the Sovereign.* MeanwhUe as we have seen, the Article was rewritten, and made to’ refer to the second book as well as the iirst. The direction in it, that they are to be read in churches by the ministers diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people, should

be noticed. It was rendered necessary by the dislike with which the Homilies were regarded by many of the olei^y. who revenged themselves by reading them unintelligibly. The dislike was not confined to one party in the Church, for we find that in the ” Admonition to Parliament” in 1571 one of the demands of the Puritans 18 this : ” Remove ffomylies, Articles, Injunctions.” «

The second book, which contains twenty-one HomUies in forty-three parts, professes to supply “Homilies of such matters as were promised and entituled in the former part of HomiUes ” ; but. as a matter of fact, those

For the Puritan objections to the reading of HomUies in church see Rogers On the XXX2X. Jrtides, p. 326 (Parker Society).

h.

■t

actually provided do not correspond exactly to the list of those promised at the close of the first book. Thus there are no Homilies expressly treating of Covetousness, Envy, Ire, and Malice; while there are several which were seemingly not contemplated when the first book was issued. The writer who is supposed to have had the chief hand in the preparation of the book is Bishop Jewel, but a considerable number of the Homilies were only translations or adaptations of works that had previously been issued. Thus those on the Passion and Eesurrection are taken from Taverner’s Postils, which had appeared so early as 1540. That on Matrimony is taken half from Veit Dietrick, of Nuremberg, half from S. Chrysostom ; and two-thirds of the first part of that on Repentance are translated from Randolph Gualther. The Preface, or ” Admonition to all ministers ecclesiastical,” was from the pen of Bishop Cox. It should be added that the last Homily, viz. that against Disobedience and wilful Rebellion, was only added in 1571 ; the occasion which called it forth being the rebellion of the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, which had taken place shortly before (1569), and to which the Homily itself clearly alludes.

IL The Nature of the Assent demanded to the Homilies, The statement of the Article is that the Book of

HomUies doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times. It is

obvious from this that the assent demanded to them is of a very general character, and cannot be held to bind us to the acceptance of every statement made in them. Nothing whatever is said about the historwcd statements contained in them, some of which are highly questionable, or even demonstrably false. And as to the doctrine, all

that is asserted is that they ” contain a godly and wholesome doctrine.” On one subject certainly their teaching appears to be invested with a peculiar authority, viz. that of justification, owing to the express reference to them in Article XL But on other matters a wide discretion is left to the individual, and he cannot fairly be eaUed upon to maintain any particular view simply because it is taught in the Homilies. The formal doctrinal teaching of the Church of England is found in the Articles and the Book of Common Prayer ; and so far as the Homilies agree with these, and bring out the sense of their teaching, they are authoritative. But that is alL So much is confessed by all parties, and it has been frequently pointed out that it is impossible to tie persons down rigidly to the acceptance of every doctrinal proposition contained in these thirty-three sermons.^ The matter is well put by Bishop Montague in his Appello

Coesarem, published in 1625

” I willingly admit the Homilies as containing certain godly and wholesome exhortations to move the people to honour and worship Almighty God ; but not as the public dogmatical resolutions confirmed of the Church of England. The XXXVth Article giveth them to contain godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times : which they may do, though they have not dogmatical positions, OT doctrine to be propugned and subscribed in all and every point, as the Books of Articles and of Common Prayer have. They may seem, secondly, to speak somewhat too hardly, and stretch some sayings beyond the use and practice of the Church of England, both then and now; and yet what they speak may receive a fair, or at least a tolerable construction and mitigation enough.” ^

Still more important, as being of the nature of a

[…]

judicial decision upon this very poiiit, is the statement of Sir Herbert Jenner Fust in his judgment in the Arches Court of Canterbury on Nov. 19, 1838. The question before him was whether the Church of England regarded praying for the dead as an illegal practice ; and the authority of the Homilies had been quoted against it.^ The judge entered fully into the matter, and decided that ** it seemed clearly to have been the intention of the composer of the Homily to discourage the practice of praying for the dead; but it does not appear that in any part of the Homily he declares the practice to be an unlawful one.” And then he adds the following important statement : ” But supposing he had been of opinion that such prayers were unlawful, it is not to be necessarily inferred that the Church of England adopted every part of the doctrines contained in the Homilies.” ^

(S.P.C.K. ed.). ^ The judgment is given in full in Lee’s Christian Doctrine of Prayer

far the Departed, Appendix XII.

De Epiacoporum ct Ministrorum Consecrationie.

Libellus de Consecratione Archiepiscoporum et Episcoporum et de ordinatione Presbyterorum et Diacononim sditus nuper temporibus Edwardi sexti, et autoritate Parlamenti illis ipsis temporibus confirmatus, omnia ad ejusmodi consecrationem et ordinationem necessaria continet, et nihil habet quod ex se sit aut superstitiosum aut impium. Itaque quicumque juxta ritus illius libri consecrati aut ordinati sunt ab anno secundo prsedicti Regis Edwardi, usque ad hoc tern pus, aut in posterum juxta eosdem ritus consecrabuntur aut ordinabuntur rite, ordine, atque legitime, statuimus esse et fore consecratos et ordinatos.

Notes

• See Parker’s CorrespondeTiee, p. 177.
• See the third part of the Homily Concerning Prayer, p. 355