Editor1

[Page R7]

THE EDITOR’S PREFACE.

1. OF THE FIRST BOOK OF HOMILIES.

The First Book of Homilies was the first work pertaining either to the public worship or to the teaching of the Church of England which was put forth in the reign of Edward the Sixth; and Cranmer seems to have set himself to prepare it as soon as more urgent matters, consequent on the demise of the crown, would allow. Henry the Eighth died on the 28th of January 1547, and the first edition of the Homilies bears date on the last day of July in that year.

It was a work which the Archbishop had long had in view. For there can be no doubt that he had sanctioned and encouraged the publication of the discourses called Postils which were collected and printed by Richard Taverner in 1540; perhaps he had even been a contributor to the volume.¹ And it must have been by his persuasion that "the bishops, in the Convocation holden A.D. 1542, agreed to make certain homilies for stay of such errors as were then by ignorant preachers sparkled among the people."² That Convocation sat at intervals from January 20 to April 3 in that year, but did not meet again for business till February 16, 1543, when some homilies, not made by the bishops, but composed by certain dignitaries of the Lower House, were produced by the Prolocutor.³ Of these nothing further is recorded; but, although the project "took none effect then,"⁴ some of them may have been pre-

[Continued on Page R8]

1 See Dr. Cardwell’s Preface to Taverner’s Postils, page x.

2 Gardiner’s Letter to the Lord Protector Somerset, dated June 10, 1547, in Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, VI, 41, ed. 1843–9. Since Gardiner in his next letter speaks of that Convocation as "holden five years past," it seems clear that the date "1542" is not to he understood according to the old style.

3 Concilia, Wilkins, III, 860–863.

4 Gardiner's next Letter to the Protector, without date, in Foxe ibid.

[Page R8]

served, and turned to account by Cranmer in 1547. Be that as it may, he now tried to carry out the design in the manner then agreed upon, and called upon Gardiner, and probably upon other bishops, to furnish homilies accordingly;⁵ and, although Gardiner refused to be bound by an agreement made five years before, the Archbishop seems to have found Bonner more compliant,⁶ and was aided also by more willing coadjutors.

The book came forth with the following title: "Certain Sermons, or Homilies, appointed by the King’s Majesty to be declared and read by all Parsons, Vicars, or Curates every Sunday in their churches where they have cure." It was printed by the King’s Printer, Richard Grafton, and began with a Preface, running in the King’s name, in which all the clergy having cure of souls were commanded to read it through to their parishioners again and again until the King’s pleasure should be further known. The same order was given in the King’s Injunctions, which bore date on the same day; and both the Injunctions and the Homilies were together delivered out to the bishops and archdeacons by the King’s Commissioners in their visitation of the several dioceses during the summer and autumn of that year.

Cranmer appears to have speedily taken care to have the Homilies, at any rate the first five of them, translated into Latin, and so made known upon the Continent; but the translation is not known to be now extant. At Strasburg in particular it was received with lively interest by the friends of the Reformation; and Bucer, who seems to have then just completed his answer to two scurrilous publications of Gardiner, immediately prefixed to it a few pages of congratulation addressed to the Church of England, in which, while he praised most highly the explanation given in the Homilies of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, he expressed the utmost joy at the

[Continued on Page R9]

5 See Gardiner’s Letters cited above.

6 See the remarks, in the third section of this Preface, on the second and sixth Homilies of the First Book. Yet that the teaching of the whole volume was not to Bonner’s liking is clear from the circumstance, related by Foxe (Acts and Monuments, V, 742), that, when the King’s Commissioners in their visitation at St. Paul’s delivered to him a copy of the Injunctions and of the Homilies, he only received them with a protestation, "and immediately he added, with an oath, that he never read the read Homilies and Injunctions."

[Page R9]

recognition of the principle, that every one should search the Scriptures for himself as the sole repository of the word of God, and his strong conviction that this would soon issue in the correction of whatsoever was wrong in the administration of Christ’s Sacraments or in any other part of the doctrine or discipline of the Church.⁷

In this country the demand for the Homilies was necessarily great, and was supplied with great rapidity. The Catalogue of early editions subjoined to this Preface contains a description of six which came from Grafton’s press, and of three more printed by Whitchurch, before the end of 1547; whereof Grafton’s second was manifestly in type before the first of Whitchurch, though that bears the date of August 20.⁸ But, as

[Continued on Page R10]

⁷ "Gratulatio Martini Buceri ad Ecclesiam Anglicanam de Religionis Christi restitutione: Et, Responsio Ejusdem ad duas Stephani Episcopi Vintoniensis Angli conviciatrices Epistolas, De coelibatu sacerdotum et coenobitarum." This tract, which, notwithstanding the division in the title, is all continuous, has at the end the signature of Bucer with the date of November 1547. It was printed in 1548, on the continent I believe, but with no name of place or printer. Of the 82 pages, of which (after excluding the title) the book consists, the "Gratulatio" occupies five. An English translation of it was immediately made by Thomas Hobye, then residing with Bucer as a pupil, and was printed in London (without date of year) by Richard Jugge: the translator’s dedication to his brother "Syr Philyppe Hobye knight, M.of y^e Kinges maiesties ordinaunce," bears date "At Argentyne, Kalendis Februarii." Both are in the Bodleian Library. The "Gratulatio", apart from the Answer to Gardiner, is given among Bucer’s Scripta Anglicana, p. 171; and there is some account of it in Strype’s Memorials, Edward VI, I, V, an. 1547.

Bucer does not say that he had become acquainted with the Homilies through a translation, but I think we may draw that inference from a statement which he makes elsewhere, that it was by that help that he studied the Book of Common Prayer on his arrival in England in 1549. See the opening of his "Censura" in Script. Anglic., p. 456. In the "Censura" itself, which was written after he had passed a year and a half in this country, he cites, as might be expected, several of the Prayers in English.

The "Gratulatio" makes express mention of the first five Homilies, but contains no certain evidence that he had seen any of the rest.

8 It is very difficult to account for the great number of editions thus printed on the very first publication of such a book. When a special Form of Prayer is appointed in these days, the Queen’s Printer takes care to strike off at once many thousands of copies, so as fully to supply the wants of every place of worship within the pale of the Church. Yet it is not found in 1547 only: the same thing was done on the publication of the Second Book of Homilies, of which there are as many as eight editions dated in 1563, though perhaps two of them were not printed till after that year; and again in 1570, when five distinct editions of the Homily against Rebellion are known to have appeared before it was annexed to the Second Book in the following year. Can it be that of all the elements which go to the manufacture of a printed book the compositor’s labour was in those days the cheapest?

Strype knew but two of these editions, both by Grafton. The latter of them, he says, "had this advantage, that in some places the English was mended, and the style corrected and much refined, otherwise the same." Memorials, ibid. No doubt one was either Grafton’s first or second, which do not differ much; the other, one of his four later, which nearly resemble each other, but differ considerably from the former in bulk and appearance, and vary from them also in many places in the text.

[Page R10]

was to be expected, they did not find a cordial reception every where. In some parishes the clergy were so illiterate that they could not, in others so hostile to the innovation that they would not, read them in a way to be understood by the people; and often, when pains were taken to utter them plainly, there were persons in the congregation who would neither listen to them themselves nor suffer them to be heard by any of their neighbours. "But how shall he read this book? As the Homilies are read?" asks Latimer in March 1549. "Some," he adds, "call them Homelies; and indeed so they may be well called, for they are homely handled. For, though the priest read them never so well, yet, if the parish like them not, there is such talking and babbling in the church that nothing can be heard; and, if the parish be good and the priest naught, he will so hack it and chop it, that it were as good for them to be without it for any word that shall be understood."⁹ In 1550 Ridley found it necessary, in his visitation of his diocese of London, to order "that the Homilies be read orderly, without omission of any part thereof."¹⁰ And in January 1551 Bucer, then at Cambridge, not many weeks before his death, repeated in writing to the Archbishop the complaints concerning the clergy which Latimer in preaching had pressed upon the King.¹¹

[Continued on Page R11]

⁹ Latimer’s Second Sermon before King Edward VI, p. 121, ed. Park. Soc.

^{10 Ridley’s
Works, Injunctions, p. 320, ed. Park. Soc.

^{11 "Interea
... utile est recitari puras ex verbo Dei homilias: sed curandum cum primis erit,
ut recitentur summa gravitate et religione ad aedificationem fidei in populis
efficacem; quod, proh dolor, hodie in perpaucis fit ecclesiis. Nam passim illis
praesunt aut homines Epicurei aut Papistae, qui nolunt, etiam si possint,
Christi mysteria populis fideliter exponere, aut insigniter indocti, ut, etiam
si velint, non queant sacra illa ea perspicuitate recitare, ut a populo
salubriter intelligantur. Ingens enim per regnum pastorum numerus est, qui Sacra
sic perturbate, leviter, praecipitanter, non recitant, sed impie demurmurant, ut
populus non plus ea quae leguntur intelligat quam si lingua recitarentur Turcica
aut Indica." Buceri Censura in Ordin. Minist. Eccles. Anglic., Script.
Anglic. p. 466.

[Page R11]
Whether it were with the view of making the reading of the
Homilies less distasteful to those who thus disliked it, or of enabling such as
wished to profit by them to bear away their lessons more certainly and to digest
them better, it was resolved, when the Prayer Book was put forth in March 1549,
to divide them into Parts, of which one only should be read at a time. The
rubric concerning them stood thus in the Communion Service: "After the
Creed ended shall follow the Sermon or Homily, or some portion of one of the
Homilies, as they shall be hereafter divided." And the first edition of
them in Parts was printed by Grafton in August of that year. Whatever may have
been the motive to it, the division did not commend itself to the zeal of Bucer,
who appears to have made in this instance too little allowance for the ignorance
of the very rudiments of Christian truth in which the uneducated classes in the
country had been kept so long, and for the indifference, not to say disrelish,
to it thereby engendered. "Indignum est," he says in the Review of the
Prayer Book which he wrote at Cranmer’s request in January 1551, "Indignum
est etiam professione Christiana Homilias tam breves in partes secare. Quid enim
illi faciant aut patiantur pro Nomine Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi, qui non
sustineant audire erectis animis et cupidis tam breves eas, denique tam
salutares, Homilias totas?"¹² It must be admitted however, even
by those who think the Homilies were too long to be profitable to the generality
of congregations at that time, that the division was not very judiciously made,
being determined rather by the quantity of matter in a Homily than by the
successive stages of an argument or exhortation, often therefore interrupting
the thread of the discourse, and in one place¹³ actually cleaving in
two a quotation from St. Paul.
For more than five years and a half the use of the Homilies
rested upon the sole authority of the King, as "supreme head in earth, next
under Christ, of the Church of England,"¹⁴ except so far as it
received the sanction of Convocation and of Parliament by implication in the
rubric above quoted, when the Book of Common Prayer was approved and enacted.
At
length
[Continued on Page R12]
¹² Ibid.

¹³ At the end of the First Part
of the Homily against Contention.

¹⁴ Article 36, an. 155; Cardwell’s
Synodalia, I, 31.

[Page R12]
in March 155 they obtained the express assent of Convocation
in the thirty-fourth of the XLII Articles which were then agreed upon. Yet it is
to be observed that that Article does not seem to be drawn as if such assent
were considered necessary, but rather for the purpose of finding an effectual
remedy for the carelessness or wilfulness of which Latimer and Bucer complained.
It ran thus: "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."¹⁵}
In the following July King Edward died, and the Church passed
through the fire of persecution in the reign of Mary. It was one of the least of
the mischiefs of her hostility to the new learning, that careful search was made
for all its doctrinal and devotional books in order to their destruction; and
yet perhaps in this, as in other far more important matters, we may trace some
good resulting from the evil. For it is likely that the preservation of the few
copies which still remain, some of them in a sound and even beautiful condition,
is due to the very bitterness of this opposition, the owners cherishing them as
relics of that first brief period of freedom to the Gospel, and often as
memorials of its Confessors and Martyrs. At any rate there is reason to believe
that an uninterrupted use of them would have been fully as destructive; for, in
the case of the Homilies at least, the editions of Elizabeth’s time are, with
only two or three exceptions, quite as rare as those which were printed in the
reign of Edward.
But, notwithstanding the general changes which were made, the
same method of instruction was still employed. Its value was so approved by six
years’ experience, that in the Letter with Articles sent to all the bishops by
Queen Mary in March 155, it was ordered, "that by the bishop of the diocese
an uniform doctrine be set forth by homilies or otherwise for the good
instruction and teaching of all people;"¹⁶ and Bonner accord-
[Continued on Page R13]
¹⁵ Cardwell’s Synodalia,
I, 30: but I have changed the spelling to our modern fashion. The Article in the
original Latin is as follows: "Homiliae nuper Ecclesiae Anglicanae per
Injunctiones Regias traditae atque commendatae piae sunt atque salutares,
doctrinamque ab omnibus amplectendam continent: quare populo diligenter,
expedite, clareque recitandae sunt." Ib. 15.

16 Cardwell’s Documentary
Annals, 114, Art. 16.

[Page R13]
ingly in 1555 put forth a volume of Homilies, amounting
ultimately to thirteen,¹⁷ to be used in his diocese of London, and
others were published by different authors.¹⁸}

Elizabeth succeeded to the throne upon the death of her sister on the 17th of November 1558; and in April 1559 a Bill for Uniformity passed both Houses of Parliament with the Book of Common Prayer annexed to it to be in use from the following festival of St. John the Baptist. The Prayer Book, by the rubric in the Communion Service, carried with it the Homilies; and accordingly we find a new edition of them with the date of the same year, which no doubt was ready for use at the same time. It was based upon Whitchurch’s edition of 1549, or some later one of that printer, not (as we should expect) on any of Grafton’s editions, though these bear more decided marks of authority upon them. But Whitchurch was not followed verbatim. Like the Prayer Book, the Homilies were not simply reprinted: they were first, as the title says, "perused and overseen for the better understanding of the simple people;" and the changes made were numerous. None of them however affected doctrine: all were intended to make the language plainer, some by substituting easy words, especially words of English origin, for such as were thought more difficult or were derived from Latin, others by appending to a harder word some easy synonym by way of explanation. Many of these alterations would be judged unnecessary now, and some few seem to have been thought so then, for they were removed before the next edition was put forth.¹⁹ The supremacy of the sovereign

[Continued on Page R14]

¹⁷ Bp. Bonner sent out three Homilies first, concerning "the Creation and Fall of Man" and his "Redemption", with a short Preface, dated July 1, 1555, containing a promise of more. Then came three others, concerning "the Sacrament of the Altar" and "Transubstantiation", with no title, name, nor date: these are now found bound up together with the former in a copy at Lambeth, and in another in the Bodleian Library, "Tanner 182." Lastly the whole thirteen appeared, with the name of the writer subjoined to each, and were annexed to his book entitled "A profitable and necessary Doctrine." Of these there were several editions.

^{18 "Fyve
Homiles of late made by a ryght good and vertuous clerke, called master Leonarde
Pollarde, prebendary of the Cathedrall Churche of Woster," printed by Jugge
and Cawood in 1556. "Two homilies upon the first, second, and third
articles of the Crede, made by maister Iohn Feknam Deane of Paules",
printed by Robert Caly without date.

^{19 All
these were in the First Part of the Exhortation against the Fear of Death: see
for example page 91, notes d, e, f in this volume. But no discrimination was
exercised in their removal. For the next edition the printers in that Part
simply went back to an earlier copy, and so cancelled all the changes in the
Part, even several which they kept elsewhere, in order to be sure of clearing
away the few which were absurd.

[Page R14]
continued to be expressed in the Homily of Obedience by the
title "supreme head over all," but "governor" was put in
place of "head" in the next edition, and has remained there since.²⁰
This indeed seems to be the only change that was made intentionally in the First
Book during the reign of Elizabeth after her first edition of 1559; and this
itself tends to shew that that edition was prepared for the press, if not
actually printed, before the end of April in that year. For it appears
from a letter written "April ult. 1559" by Edwin Sandys, afterwards
Archbishop of York, to Matthew Parker, then at Cambridge but shortly afterwards
Archbishop of Canterbury, that "Mr. Lever" had already "wisely
put such a scruple in the Queen’s head that she would not take the title of
supreme head" in the Bill of Supremacy which was then passing through
Parliament.²¹}
Many editions of this Book were issued in the course of
Elizabeth’s reign. At first, for more than twenty years, it came out
quite separately: afterwards, from 1582, it was printed uniformly with the
Second Book, yet still in a distinct volume; for the two were not put together
into one till near the end of the reign of James I. But for the
particulars of these it is sufficient to refer the reader to the Catalogue which
follows this Preface.
2. OF THE SECOND BOOK OF HOMILIES.
The First Book contained but twelve Homilies, of which the first five may be
called doctrinal and the other seven practical; and after their division into
Parts they supplied no more than thirty-one lections or readings. But
Cranmer intended from the first that more should follow, and put a promise to
that effect at the end of the Book together with a list of subjects on which
they should treat. None however appeared; and Bucer in his review of the
Prayer Book observed upon the scantiness
[Continued on Page R15]
²⁰ See
page 106, line *22*, in this volume.

^{21 Correspondence
of Abp. Parker, p. 66. ed.
Park. Soc. See Cardwell’s Documentary Annals, I, 202, note.

[Page R15]
of the published volume, and urged the preparation of more
discourses, especially upon certain subjects (nearly twenty in number) which he
went on to specify.²² That the intention continued is evident from
the second Prayer Book of King Edward VI, in which the rubric in the Communion
Service was altered into the following form, nearly the same as we have it at
the present day: "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." That Prayer Book was approved by both Houses of
Parliament before the middle of April 1552; and on the 13th of October following
we find the King himself, in a private note of "matters to be
considered," setting down amoug other things concerning religion "The
making of more Homelies",²³ but he did not live to see the
notion realized.
Burnet indeed, writing at the very end of the seventeenth
century, implies, if he does not assert, that the Second Book of Homilies was
finished "about the time of his death";²⁴ and, although
Heylyn forty years before did not venture to be so positive, I think we may
gather from his words that he knew such an opinion was entertained.
"Who they were," he says, "which laboured in this second Book,
whether they were the same that drew up the first, or those who in Queen
Elizabeth’s time reviewed the Liturgy, or whether they were made by the one
and reviewed by the other, I have no where found, though I have taken no small
pains in the search thereof."²⁵ Burnet
[Continued on Page R16]
²² "Postremo est
etiam nimis exiguus Homiliarum numerus, paucique loci religionis nostrae his
docentur. Cum itaque Dominus regnum hoc donarit aliquot pereximiis
concionatoribus, demandandum illis esset, ut Homilias plures atque de praecipue
necessariis locis componerent, quae populis ab iis recitarentur pasitoribus qui
ipsi meliores non possent adferre. Atque inter alias, etiam aliquot 1 De
vera Christi communione atque disciplina," &c. Buceri Script.
Anglic. p. 466.

^{23 This
document, "A summary of matters to be considered," entirely in King
Edward’s handwriting, is preserved in the British Museum, being Lansdowne MS.
1326, fol. 19. Some account of its contents is given by Strype in his Memorials,
Edward VI, II, xii, an. 1552.

^{24 "At
the time of the Reformation ... there were two Books of Homilies prepared: the
first was published in King Edward’s time; the second was not finished till
about the time of his death, so it was not published before Queen Elizabeth’s
time." Burnet’s Exposition of the XXXIX Articles (first
published in 1699), Art. XXXV.

^{25 Historia
Quinquarticularis (first
published in 1660), xvii, 5. But Heylyn seems to have supposed that the
Second Book was ready for publication at the same time with the First and with
the Prayer Book, in the early part of 1559.

[Page R16]
however, in another part of the same volume, speaks of the
"great share" which Jewel had "in compiling the second Book of
Homilies;"²⁶ and, although his two statements might possibly be
consistent with each other, there is other evidence which seems to refute
completely the one first quoted. In the Interpretations of the Queen’s
Injunctions, drawn up by the Archbishop and Bishops in 1560 according to Strype
for the better direction of the clergy, one Item on Injunction XX is as follows;
"That there be some long Catechism devised and printed for the erudition of
simple curates: homilies to be made of those arguments which be shewed in the
Book of Homilies; or others of some convenient arguments, as of the Sacrifice of
the Mass, of the Common Prayer to be in English, that every particular Church
may alter and change the public rites and ceremonies of their Church, keeping
the substance of the faith inviolably, with such like. And that these be
divided to be made by the Bishops, every Bishop two, and the Bishop of London to
have four."²⁷ Surely, if there had been so many discourses
nearly or quite ready for publication in 1553, their existence could not have
been unknown to the prelates who framed this direction.²⁸}
If that direction had been strictly followed, the Second Book
would perhaps have contained a larger number of Homilies than it does, and would
certainly have exhibited a greater variety of style. When first published,
the number of subjects treated in it was twenty, and the number of discourses
(each Part of a Homily being reckoned separately) thirty-eight; but in actual
[Continued on Page R17]
26 "The first, and
indeed the much best writer of Queen Elizabeth’s time, was Bishop Jewel; ...
who had so great share in all that was done then, particularly in compiling the
Second Book of Homilies, that I had great reason to look on his works as a very
sure commentary on our Articles, as far as they led me." Exposition,
Preface, page x, ed. Oxf. 1831.

^{27 Strype,
Annals, Ch. XVII. Cardwell, Documentary Annals, I, 204, 30 &c.

^{28 Further
evidence to the same effect is contained in the Preface prepared by Bishop Cox
on the completion of the Second Book. "And whereas in the said Book
of Homilies" [viz. the First] "mention was made of other Homilies
concerning certain necessary points of religion that were intended to be annexed
to these, her Highness hath caused the same to be faithfully drawn, perused, and
hereunto annexed," &c. Strype, Annals, Ch. xxx.

[Page R17]
bulk it exceeded the First Book much more than these numbers
appear to shew, fully in the ratio of five to two. In 1571 the addition of
the Homily against Rebellion gave six Parts more, and increased the ratio of
bulk so much that it was now almost three to one. It is likely however
that but few of the Bishops contributed discourses towards the new volume, or
else that Jewel, if he (as is commonly believed) were really its editor, was
dissatisfied with some of the contributions; for the internal, though uncertain,
evidence of style appears to confirm Burnet’s other assertion respecting him
by making it probable that he was himself the author of nearly half the
volume. On this point something more will be said in the next section of
this Preface, when a few remarks are offered concerning the Homilies severally.
Much time passed before the Book was ready; but at length it
was submitted, together with the Thirty-nine Articles, to the famous Convocation
of 156, and received its approbation. Yet we cannot suppose that the
Convocation had much to do with either, for its Session only began on the 12th
of January, and the Articles, involving the Homilies in the thirty-fifth of
them, passed both houses by the 5th of February. The Articles indeed,
being little more than a modification of the Forty-two of 155, would not require
much discussion; but the Homilies were entirely new matter, some of it in those
days very debatable.
The Queen took much longer time for her consideration of
them,²⁹ and I think it may be shewn that, like the Articles, they did
not come from her hands unaltered.
There is in the British Museum a copy of the first edition,
"C. 25. h. 3," which differs considerably from every other copy that I
have seen. It is in its original contemporary binding, of the handsomest
of the time, and richly gilt; and the pages within are, or at least were when I
collated it in 1857, almost
[Continued on Page R18]
²⁹ Parker says to
Cecil in a letter not dated, but evidently written in 1563 before Midsummer,
"For that I intend by God’s grace to visit my diocese shortly after
Midsummer, ... I would gladly the Queen’s Majesty would resolve herself in our
books of Homilies, which I might deliver to the parishes as I go," &c.,
where the plural word "books" can hardly mean the Two Books of
Homilies, now commonly so called, but rather copies of the Second Book, then
ready to be issued. Correspondence of Abp. Parker, p. 177, ed.
Park. Soc.

[Page R18]
as clean and fresh as when the volume left the binder’s
hands. The Museum has no record of its history, but it is known not to
have been acquired in recent times, and there is no reason why it may not be
believed to belong to the old Bibliotheca Regia, which dates from the reign of
Henry VII, and was given to the nation by King George II. The list of
"Faultes escaped in the printying" at the end of the volume is the
same as in all other copies. On examining this carefully we observe that
full two thirds of the corrections were not occasioned by errors of the printer,
but were such changes as an author or editor or critic might make; and a further
search will shew that the copy contains as many as twelve cancel leaves.
It is plain therefore that the book had been submitted to a pretty close
revision after the sheets were printed off; and after such revision it was bound
as above described, evidently for the use of some great personage.³⁰
It is clear too that some of the corrections were not made by the respective
authors, but rather by a committee of review, such as Convocation might have
been likely to appoint.³¹}
If now we compare with this volume a perfect copy of the same
edition in the state in which it ordinarily occurs, we shall see that the
differences between them are sure signs of a further revision. Those
differences Consist of three particulars: the ordinary copy has on the back of
its Title the "Admonition," which the Museum copy has not; it contains
all the twelve cancel leaves of the Museum copy, and five more besides;³²
and it has one whole sheet inserted in the middle of signature Ccc. Now
the "Admonition," though not actually running in the Queen’s name,
as was the case with the Preface of the First Book, speaks nevertheless in a
tone of authority which could have been assumed by no one else,³³ and
it is my
[Continued on Page R19]
³⁰ There is evidence,
if evidence be needed, that Archbishop Parker took pains about the binding of
books which were to be laid before the Queen. In announcing to Cecil the
completion of the new edition of the Bible in 1568 he says, on the 22nd of
September, "Some ornaments of the same be yet lacking," and, on the
5th of October, "I have caused one book to be bound as ye see, which I
heartily pray you to present favourably to the Queen’s Majesty." Ibid.
p. 334.

^{31 See,
for example, page 186, note s in this volume.

^{32 All
these cancel leaves are specified in the description of the edition in the
Catalogue which follows this Preface.

^{33 The
Preface which was drawn up by Bishop Cox on the completion of the Second Book,
evidently with the notion of it being prefixed to the two Books united in one
volume, runs entirely in the Queen’s name, and is in fact based upon her own
Preface to the First Book. It is given by Strype in his Annals, Ch.
XXX.

[Page R19]
conviction that the other changes likewise, the five
additional cancels and the inserted sheet, were made by the Queen’s authority
alone. Whether however that be so, or not, it will be interesting to see what
alterations they effected in the text, and I shall therefore set them before the
reader with references both to that edition and to this.³⁴}
1. In the First Part of the Homily against Peril of Idolatry,
Gg 1 b, line 8, ed. 1; p.178, line 20, ed. 1859:

ORIGINAL.
Which place both enforceth that neither the material church or temple ought
to have any images in it, (for of it is taken the ground of the argument,)
neither that any true Christian ought to have any ado with filthy and dead
images, for that he is the holy temple" &c.

CORRECTED.
"Which place enforceth, both that we should
not worship images, and that we should not have
images in the temple, for fear and occasion of
worshipping them, though they be of themselves
things indifferent; for the Christian is the holy
temple" &c.

2. In the first sentence of the Third Part of the same Homily, Mm 2 b,
ed. 1; p. 213, ed. 1859:

ORIGINAL.
"Now ye have heard how plainly, how vehemently, and that in many places,
the word of God speaketh against not only idolatry and worshipping of images,
but also against idols and images themselves; and have heard likewise"
&c.

CORRECTED.
"Now ye have heard how plainly, how
vehemently, and that in many places, the word of God
speaketh against not only idolatry and worshipping
of images, but also against idols and images
themselves; I mean always thus herein, in that we be
stirred and provoked by them to worship them, and
not as though they were simply forbidden by the New
Testament without such occasion and danger. And ye
have heard likewise" &c.

[Continued on Page R19b–R20t]
^{34 In these extracts, as
throughout the text of this edition, the modern way of spelling is followed.

[Page R19b–R20t]
3. In the Homily of Common Prayer and Sacraments, K k
(for Ppp) 3, ed. 1; p. 355, line 13, ed. 1859:

ORIGINAL
"And as for the number of them, if they should be considered according
to the exact signification, as fully so expressed and commended by Christ in the
New Testament, there be two, namely, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: but in
a general acception" &c.

CORRECTED.
"And as for the number of them, if they
should be considered according to the exact
signification of a Sacrament, namely, for visible
signs, expressly commanded in the New Testament,
whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness
of our sin, and of our holiness and joining in
Christ, there be but two, namely, Baptism, and the
Supper of the Lord. For, although Absolution hath
the promise of forgiveness of sin, yet by the
express word of the New Testament it hath not this
promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which
is imposition of hands. For this visible sign, I
mean laying on of hands, is not expressly commanded
in the New Testament to be used in Absolution, as
the visible signs in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
are; and therefore Absolution is no such Sacrament
as Baptism and the Communion are. And, though the
Ordering of Ministers hath his visible sign and
promise, yet it lacks the promise of remission of
sin, as all other Sacraments besides do. Therefore
neither it nor any other Sacrament else be such
Sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are. But in
a general acception" &c.

4. In the Sermon of the Nativity, Aaaa 4 a, line 8 up, ed. 1; p. 405,
line 23, ed. 1859:

ORIGINAL.
"We are evidently taught in Scripture, that our Lord and Saviour Christ
consisted of two several natures, being, as touching his outward flesh, perfect
man, as touching his inward spirit, perfect God."

CORRECTED.
"We are evidently taught in the Scripture,
that our Lord and Saviour Christ consisteth of two
several natures; of his manhood, being thereby
perfect man; and of his Godhood, being thereby
perfect God."

[Continued on Page 20b–R21]
[Page R20b–R21]
5. Near the end of the First Part of the Sermon of the Worthy
Receiving of the Sacrament, Iiii 3 a, 1. antep., ed.1; p. 445, line 18,
ed. 1859:

ORIGINAL.
"For the unbelievers and faithless cannot feed upon that precious Body:
whereas the faithful have their life, their abiding, in him; their union, and as
it were their incorporation, with him. Whereof thus saith St. Augustine: ‘He
which is at discord with Christ doth neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood,
although he receive, to the judgment of his destruction, daily the outward
Sacrament of so great a thing.’ Wherefore let us" &c. And "Lib.
4. de Trinit." is in the margin.

CORRECTED
"For the unbelievers and faithless cannot feed upon that precious
Body: whereas the faithful have their life, their abiding, in him; their
union, and as it were their incorporation, with him. Wherefore let
us" &c.

These five are the alterations made by means of cancels. The first two of
them bear upon the question of images in such a way that they might seem to have
been suggested by the Queen herself, who is known to have retained the crucifix
for some time in her own chapel. The third, explaining more fully certain rites
of the Church, and the fourth, correcting some inaccuracies concerning the
Person of our blessed Saviour, need not necessarily have come from any one but a
divine. Yet it must he remembered that both the Queen and some of her ministers
were more competent and more accustomed to discuss questions of divinity than is
usual with statesmen and high political personages at the present day. See for
instance a letter from Parker to Cecil, dated "4th of June 1571;"
which shews that the subject of the twenty-ninth Article, a subject connected
with the fifth of the alterations here exhibited, had been in debate between
them.³⁵ And that fifth alteration, the omission of the sentence cited
from St. Augustine concerning the unworthy partaker of the Holy Communion, when
considered together with the suppression of the twenty-ninth Article after it
had been approved by the same Convocation,³⁶ is so evidently to be
referred to the interference of the Queen, that few, I think, can doubt it.
The only change remaining to be noticed is the insertion of an entire sheet
in the middle of signature Ccc, whereby the Homily of Fasting, originally
undivided, was so much increased in bulk, that it was judged necessary to break
it into two Parts; and an
[Continued on Page R22]}³⁵

Correspondence of
Abp. Parker, p. 381, ed. Park.
Soc.

^{36 See
Cardwell, Synodalia, 1, 38, note; and 54, note.

[Page R22]
examination of the inserted portion, which comprises the
first half of the Second Part of the homily, and is too long to be reprinted
here, will shew beyond all question that the Queen’s counsellors at least, if
not the Queen herself, directed that addition to be made. For not only is it
purely secular or political in its character, but, as is shewn in note 1 upon
that Part of the Homily,³⁷ it was occasioned by an Act of Parliament
which was not even brought in as a Bill till the 9th of March, more than a month
after the homilies had been approved by Convocation.³⁸}
These particulars have served to convince me that the unique
volume in the British Museum exhibits the Second Book of Homilies exactly in the
state in which it was approved by the two Houses of Convocation, and that it is
the identical volume which was presented to Queen Elizabeth when her royal
assent was asked.
After all this deliberation and revision the book at length
came forth with the following Title: "The Second Tome of Homilies, of such
matters as were promised and intituled in the former part of Homilies: set out
by the authority of the Queen’s Majesty, and to be read in every Parish Church
agreeably." The exact date of its publication has not been ascertained:
but, even if the Archbishop did not obtain it before Midsummer, as he hoped,³⁹
it must have been issued before the end of July; for in the Form of Prayer which
was ordered by the Queen’s Letter bearing date on "the first day of
August" 1563, on account of the great pestilence then raging, the last of
the directions which follow the Prayers speaks of "the seconde Tome of
Homylyes now lately set forth by the Quenes Maiesties aucthoritie," and
orders Churchwardens to "prouide the same seconde Tome ... with all speede
at the charges of the Paryshe."⁴⁰}
[Continued on Page R23]
³⁷ See page 289. See also
page 293, note o.

^{38 See
Sir Simonds D’Ewes" Journal, p. 87.

^{39 See
before, footnote # 29.

^{40 Sign.
C 3 b, ed. 1563. Reprinted in Remains of Bp. Grindal, p. 94, ed.
Park. Soc.

One of the copies of "the Seconde Tome" in the Library of St. John’s
College, Cambridge, "Qq. II. 13," has on its title page the merchant’s
mark and name of its owner, Ansell Beckett, with a note that he bought it on the
"20 daye of auguste 1563."

[Page R23]
The demand for it, as for the First Book in 1547, was
necessarily great, and the printers took great pains to satisfy it. Five
editions followed the first with great rapidity, each printed half at one office
and half at another, doubtless for the sake of saving time; and even after that,
when the first requirements of the country had been met, two more editions came
out, each bearing the date of 1563.⁴¹ Nevertheless Strype asserts, on
the authority of "a journal of a Minister of London of that time,"
that "all the churches hardly came to be fully supplied" with the book
till 1564.⁴²}
No changes analogous to the division of the First Book into
Parts have ever been made in the Second Book, and the only material alteration
which took place in it during the reign of Elizabeth was one which has been
already mentioned, the addition of the homily against Wilful Rebellion. That
Homily was written early in 1570, was first published separately, passed rapidly
through five editions, and in 1571 was annexed to the Second Book by the
addition of its title at the end of the Article "Of Homilies" when the
Thirty-nine Articles were again approved and confirmed by Convocation.

Editions of either Book separately came out from time to time
according as they were wanted, and in 1582 (for the first time so far as is
known) they were printed uniformly, so that they might more suitably be bound in
one volume. But, although it is likely that some editions have wholly perished
in lapse of time, for which allowance must be made, there is good reason still
to suppose that the intervals between the publications became gradually longer.
Indeed it was to be expected that such would be the case in proportion as both
the ability and the desire to deliver sermons of their own composition should
increase among the clergy.
At first it had been found necessary to enjoin the clergy to
read the homilies "orderly, without omission of any part thereof ;"⁴³
"diligently, plainly, and distinctly, that they may
[Continued on Page R24]
⁴¹ All these editions are
particularly described in the Catalogue which follows this Preface.

^{42 Annals,
Ch. XXXIX.

^{43 Bp.
Ridley’s Injunctions, cited before, footnote # 10.

[Page R24]
be understanded of the people;"⁴⁴
"gravely and aptly, without any glosing of the same or any additions:"⁴⁵
for there were then many, as has been already observed, so strongly attached to
popery and so suspicions of the new doctrine that they would not read in such a
way that the congregation could gather instruction or profit from what they
heard. But in process of time the aspect of things was vastly changed, and, as
has been the case with other documents of our Church, protection had to be
sought in the Homilies against dangers from the opposite quarter. Before
Elizabeth had been on the throne ten years there were parts of the kingdom in
which "puritanism, and not popery, was the opponent to be dreaded;"⁴⁶
and in less than ten years more she judged it necessary to give orders for the
suppression of the Exercises called Prophesyings, for lessening the number of
licensed preachers, and for the more general reading of the authorised Homilies
in accordance with the Injunctions issued at the beginning of her reign.⁴⁷
The number however and the power of the puritan party continued to grow,
notwithstanding the endeavours of the Queen and of Archbishop Whitgift, and
afterwards of James I and Bancroft, to check it; Abbot’s primacy is believed
to have encouraged them; and at length the liberty used by preachers in their
sermons was so alarming that James, like Elizabeth, deemed it necessary to limit
them, and like her also sought assistance in the Homilies. In a letter bearing
date on the 4th of August 1622 he sent to Archbishop Abbot certain
"Directions concerning Preachers," of which the first commands all
preachers under the dignity of bishops or deans to confine their sermons to such
subjects as are "comprehended and warranted in essence, substance, effect,
or natural inference within some one of the" Thirty-nine Articles, or in
some of the Homilies set forth by authority in the Church of England, not only
for a help of the nonpreaching,
[Continued on Page R25]
⁴⁴ Article XXXIV, ann. 155
and 156.

^{45 Advertisements
of Archbishop Parker and Bishops in commission with him in 1564, Cardwell’s Documentary
Annals, I, 291, 16.

46 Cardwell, ibid.
I, 303, 16. This was in 1567.

^{47 Ibid.
I, 373, 379. The Queen spoke to Abp. Grindal on this subject before the end of
1576. Concerning the Exercises see pages 354 and 367 of the same volume.

[Page R25]
but withal for a pattern and a boundary, as it were, for the
preaching ministers; and, for their further instruction for the performance
thereof, that they forthwith read over and peruse diligently the said book of
Articles and the two books of Homilies;" and the fourth orders "that
no preacher" whatsoever "shall presume to meddle with" such
"matters of state" as pertain to the relations between sovereign
princes and their subjects "otherwise than as they are instructed and
presidented in the Homily of Obedience and in the rest of the Homilies and
Articles of Religion, set forth (as before is mentioned) by public authority,
but rather confine themselves [thus] wholly to those two heads of faith
and good life which are all the subject of the ancient sermons and
homilies."⁴⁸}
There can be no doubt that these "Directions" gave
occasion to the edition which was published in 1623, the first that was printed
in folio. In this for the first time the two Books are united in one volume.
Each indeed has still its separate register and pagination, and the Second has
its own Title prefixed to it; but the Title of the First is made to serve for
both by alterations which bring it to the following form "Certain Sermons
or Homilies, appointed to be read in Churches in the time of the late Queen
Elizabeth of famous memory, and now thought fit to be reprinted by authority
from the King’s most excellent Majesty:" a form which appears very
plainly to imply that they had not been reprinted since the accession of James
to the throne in March 1603, twenty years before. Throughout both books in this
edition many changes are found in the text, a large number of them in all
probability owing to the carelessness of the printer, which was very great, but
most nevertheless having been purposely introduced by the King’s authority.
In
making these the same principle was followed on which the revision of the first
book was conducted in 1559 by command of Queen Elizabeth: none of them affect
doctrine in any way, but all were intended solely for the amendment of the
language by substituting easier words for such as still were difficult or had
become obsolete, and replacing a few coarse or unseemly expressions by terms or
phrases more suitable to the age. I believe there is but one change of a
different character, namely,
[Continued on Page R26]
⁴⁸ Ibid.
II, 149, 150.

[Page R26]
the addition of two side notes concerning St. Ambrose and the Emperor
Theodosius in the Second Part of the Homily of the Right Use of the Church.⁴⁹}
This seems to be the latest edition in which changes were made in the text
with any semblance of authority. It was followed at intervals by others, of
which it is not necessary here to speak particularly. The reader will find a
sufficient description of such as were published before the end of that century
in the Catalogue subjoined to this Preface.

Page R26 continues with:

3. Of the Homilies Severally

Next
Section Home
Here SAW Home}}}}}}}}}}