Preface to the Books of Homilies Remixed

A few weeks ago, I was reading a rather superior-toned essay by Gerald Bray on Anglicanism. My favorite bit was his incredulous attitude toward The Episcopal Church, who he thought regarded Richard Hooker as the leading light of Anglican theology. I like Hooker as much as the next man, but my experience is that most who regard Hooker in that light are not particularly familiar with much of what he wrote. The deeper problem of Bray's essay is that Anglicanism is simply not entirely encapsulated by the theological tradition of the Church of England of 1552, c. 1560, and 1662. The American episcopate is of dual Scottish and English generation. The Church was truly in England long before there were 39 Articles and resided just in much in St. Mary Primrose Hill under Dearmer as it did in All Souls, Langham Place under Stott. And I do not think that Thomas Cranmer, who gave us common prayer, cast his hand into the fire to agree with Calvin and Zwingli any more than he did with Bede. In an era when Nigerian Anglicans are being catechized with the New Zealand Prayer Book, the doctrine of the Church of England is a part of Anglicanism, but a good sight far from the whole.

At the same time, Bray helpfully reminded me that the doctrine of the Church of England includes a series of texts that I knew existed but never read. Article XXV mentions that:

The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may he understanded of the people.  

The Article then lists all of the Homilies in the Second Book, but not the first. These Homilies are not received in the The Episcopal Church by our version of Article XXXV, since they preach against various things we think are more justifiable, like rebellion against the Crown. (Independence Day is on the kalendar, after all.)

However, in a few months, I will be a communicant of the Church of England. (Long, good story.) So I thought I should take a look at the Books of Homilies. Entirely of 16th century vintage, they are written in early modern English, but are half as lively (at least) as one of Shakespeare's plays, written in similar language. They were written for a world in which priests had not necessarily attended, graduated, or learned much at university. Or at least might not have been up to speed with the rather violent and sudden reforms of the English Reformation.

Instead of trying to preach in those complex times, those priests could read (and were required to read under many circumstances) these King and Archbishop-approved sermons to remain safe and appear smart. At the same time, like common prayer in English, these homilies attempted to make the theology and theological method of the Reformation accessible to people of all classes. Even the illiterate were encouraged to hear, memorize, think about, and shape their life according to the Bible.

Gerald Bray notes that the genius of Anglican doctrine is to find the core of Christian doctrine and make it known. For example, the "Mere Christianity" of C.S. Lewis. I already can see how the Books of Homilies fit into this tradition. Which is not to say that I think they are right about everything or only teach what is fundamental, but they come quite close for their context.

Over the next year or so, I will be posting what I call "remixes" of each homily. These remixes are idiosyncratic renderings of these 16th century texts into modern language. They are not authoritative. The text is based on the 1623 edition of the homilies posted here but has been substantially modified. I have included Scriptural citations from an 1858 edition found here

I have not included any citations from the Fathers. They are occasionally cited by name, but the citations would be of interest to a small proportion of the original audience and the likely Internet audience. If preached in church today, you could imagine the congregation having access to a Bible in some form but not a Patristics collection like this. Those with genuine interest should consult the 1858 edition linked.

In some cases, I have omitted Scriptural citations from the 1858 edition that did not make sense to me. In some cases, I have discovered citations that do not make sense in Protestant translations since the King James Version but do make sense in the Latin Vulgate, which is the Bible the writers of the homilies would have known from childhood, even if some of them had read the Hebrew and Greek texts in the original. These citations are marked with a V.