[Page R26 continued]

3. OF THE HOMILIES SEVERALLY.

Before I proceed to give an account of the present edition, I venture to offer a few remarks upon the several Homilies in both Books, addressing myself chiefly to matters which, if fully examined, might help to tell us by whom they were written.  Very little is known on this question.  The external evidence discovered at present is very scanty; and the internal evidence of style, which is always doubtful, is here the less serviceable, because most of the persons whom we should consider likely to have been contributors have left but small remains of their written works.50 Heylyn, as we have seen, had failed two centuries ago to learn who were the persons concerned in the Second Book; and even thirty years ago no discourse in either book had been assigned to its author with any certainty.  But the attention which has been given of late to the English divines of the sixteenth century has furnished us with positive information concerning some few of the Homilies, and it is reasonable to expect that a further amount of critical research will enable us at the least to form probable Conjectures about others.

[Continued on Page R27]

49 See page 165, lines *5* and *7*, in this volume.

50 For example, I have not ventured to ascribe any Homily in these two Books to the famous Dean of St. Paul’s, Alexander Nowell, the author of the Homily concerning the Justice of God, which accompanied the special Form of Prayer set forth on occasion of the great pestilence in the summer of 1563.  Yet, if Grindal really undertook to furnish the four Homilies which the agreement of the bishops assigned to him, it is likely that he called upon his Dean to help him make up his quota, as he certainly required him in the pestilence "to write an homily meet for the time."  See his Letter to Sir William Cecil dated "30 July 1563" among his Remains, p. 258, ed. Park. Soc.

 

[Page R27]

THE HOMILIES OF THE FIRST BOOK.

1.  Exhortation to the reading of holy Scripture.  Probably written by Cranmer.  This conjecture has been often made, by some from a general similarity of style, by others from a supposed special resemblance to his Preface to the Bible.  But I do not know that it has been observed, that of the passages cited from the Fathers in this Homily five are extracted under the head "Sacrae Scripturae intellectus et utilitas" in his Common Place Book, now preserved in the British Museum (Reg. MSS. 7. B. XI and XII), vol. I, pp. 9–12.

2.  Of the Misery of Man. By John Harpesfeld or Harpsfield, Archdeacon of London.  It is the second of the thirteen Homilies set forth by Bishop Bonner in 1555 "to be read within his diocesse of London,"51 and in that volume has Harpsfield’s name appended to it as the author.  Many variations are there found, the greater part of no importance, but several evidently meant to bring the Homily, or possibly to restore it, to a Romish cast of thought.52

3, 4, 5.  Of Salvation.  Of Faith.  Of Good Works.  By Cranmer.  See Jenkyns’ edition of his Works, vol. II, p. 138, note.

6.  Of Charity.  By Bonner.  At least it occurs, with a long preamble but with few other variations, in Bonner’s volume cited above, under the title, "An Homely of Christian love, or Charitye," with his own initials, "E. B.," appended to it.  It is the fifth Homily of the thirteen.  The passage in it which speaks of the "two offices" of Charity, page 71 of this volume, shews that the author could easily reconcile his notions of this

[Continued on Page R28]

51 See before, footnote # 17.

52 See for example the following places in page 22 of this volume.  In "And all these heavenly treasures are given us[, not for our own deserts, merits, or good deeds, which of ourselves we have none, but] of his mere mercy freely," the part within [ ] is omitted in Bonner’s volume.  In "Of whom only it may be truly said, that he did all things well" &c. "only" is omitted.  For "None but he alone may say, The prince of this world came, and in me he hath nothing," Bonner has "Likewise he may say" &c.  For "And he alone may say also, Which of you shall reprove me of any fault?" Bonner puts "He may say also" &c.  In "He is the alone Mediator between God and man" Bonner, leaves out "alone."

 

[Page R28]

grace with the strictest requirements of the most rigorous justice.

7.  Of Swearing.  Some of the thoughts in this Homily are found in Becon’s "Invective against Swearing," and some of the quotations also, but these for the most part are handled differently.  It appears to me to have been composed by a calmer writer, making such use of the "Invective" as he thought fit.  If Becon were the author, he would most likely have reprinted it, like the Homily against Adultery, among his collected Works.

8.  Of Falling from God.

9.  Of the Fear of Death.  A resemblance has been pointed out to me, by one who has paid much attention to the writings of this age, between several passages in this Homily and several in Ridley’s "Farewell to the Prisoners in Christ’s Gospel’s cause".53  It is highly probable that Ridley took part with Cranmer in preparing the First Book, and I could readily believe him to be the author both of this and of the one before this.  But, since his "Farewell" was written within a fortnight of his death in October 1555, more than eight years after the First Book had been published for constant use in the Church, I fear there is not in such resemblance any sufficient proof of authorship; especially as one of the similar passages, a third of the whole in bulk, is drawn from the twelfth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews.  Bishop Pilkington in his Exposition upon Haggai has adopted54 in one place some thoughts and some

[Continued on Page R29]

53 Ridley’s Works, Letter XXXIII, ed. Park. Soc.  Compare four passages, p. 95, line *19* &c. and line *34* &c., p. 96, line *16* &c., and p. 97, line *25* &c., in this volume with passages in pp. 424–426 of the Works.

54 Pilkington’s Works, pp.94, 95, 66, ed. Park. Soc.

Read as they were over and over again in Church, the Homilies could not fail to leave many of their thoughts and phrases impressed upon the minds of the hearers. That Bishop Pilkington and other divines imbued with their spirit should also, though unconsciously, adopt some of their language is a thing that will surprise no one. But there is a very familiar passage in Shakespeare, which shews their influence upon the poet likewise:

Who steals my purse steals trash; ‘tis something, nothing;

‘Twas mine, ‘tis his, and has been slave to thousands:

But he that filches from me my good name

Robs me of that which not enriches him

And makes me poor indeed.  Othello III, 3.

"And many times cometh less hurt of a thief than of a railing tongue: for the one taketh away a man’s good name; the other taketh but his riches, which is of much less value and estimation than is his good name."  Homily against Contention, p.137, line *15*.

 

[Page R29]

very remarkable words from the Homily of the Misery of Man, which was written by Harpsfield, and in another place a few words from the Homily of Charity, which is Bonner’s, doubtless because frequent use had made them familiar both to himself and to his readers.

10.  Of Obedience.

11.  Against Adultery.  By Thomas Becon, who was one of Cranmer’s Chaplains.  He declared himself the author by placing it in the Second Part of his collected Works, printed by John Day in 1560–1564.

12.  Against Contention.  If Latimer wrote any of the Homilies, as many have thought likely, probably this one, as many likewise have supposed, was contributed by him.  But there is no proof that he did, beyond the uncertain evidence of style.  He speaks of the Homilies more than once,55 but gives no intimation whether he took part in writing them or no.

THE HOMILIES OF THE SECOND BOOK.

1.  Of the Right Use of the Church.  Probably the first three Homilies in this Book were written by the same person.  The second begins with a summary of the first, and contains a reference to the third:56 one phrase, "church or temple," "church and temple," occurs in all three very often; indeed the word "church" is scarcely used of the material building in any of them without having the word "temple" connected with it.

2.  Against Peril of Idolatry.  This Homily is based upon a document which was first printed, imperfectly and with alterations, by Foxe at the end of his "Acts and Monuments" under the title of "A Treatise of Master Nicholas Ridley, in the name, as it seemeth, of the whole Clergy, to King Edward the Sixth, concerning Images not to be set up nor worshipped in Churches."

[Continued on Page R30]

55 See his Sermons, pp. 61, 121, ed. Park. Soc.  The latter passage has been cited before in footnote # 9.

56 See p. 261, line *3*.

 

[Page R30]

It is almost a waste of words to shew that the treatise was never addressed to King Edward.  After the first few months of his reign the most earnest hater of image worship would have seen no cause for exhorting either the King himself or his advisers against it; and during these few months he was too young for the personal appeals which are made at the end of the document.  Moreover the Caroline Books, which are cited in it, were not in print, nor was their tenor known, before 1549;57 and Sir John Cheke’s Translation of Leo’s Tactica, which is also cited, though finished in 1544 and then dedicated and doubtless presented to Henry VIII, was actually not in print till after King Edward’s death.58  Since Foxe then is wrong in that part of his statement, his authority need not weigh with us concerning the author of the treatise.

It was really presented to Queen Elizabeth by Archbishop Parker and the other Prelates, probably in 1560.  A copy of it in its complete form, but without signatures, is among the Parker MSS. at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, from which it has been printed for the Parker Society among the Archbishop’s "Correspondence" at pp. 79–95.  The editors describe the MS. as a "Copy," meaning, I presume, that it is not in his own handwriting.

This document however, strictly speaking, was not from the first an original composition.  It was taken by abridgment from Bullinger’s treatise "De Origine Erroris in Divorum et Simulacrorum Cultu," which was first published in 1528, and was again put out in 1539 so greatly enlarged that, as he says in his Preface, it would hardly be known to be the same book except

[Continued on Page R31]

57 "Opus Inlustrissimi ... Viri, Caroli Magni, ... contra Synodum quae in partibus Graeciae pro adorandis imaginibus stolide sive arroganter gesta est.  Item, Paulini Aquileiensis Episcopi adversus Felicem Urgelitanum et Eliphandum Toletanum Episcopos libellus.  Quae nunc primum in lucem restituuntur. Anno salutis M.DXLIX."  In 8vo, printed at Paris, but without name of place or printer.  The Preface has this heading: "Eli. Phili.  Christiano Lectori S."  The editor was Jean Dutillet or du Tillet, Bishop of Meaux, disguising his name under the words "Elias Philyra" or "Philyras", a fanciful translation of its Latin form, "Ioannes Tilius".  See a Letter of Flacius Illyricus to Abp. Parker dated "Ienae, 22 Maii, 1561," Correspondence of Abp. Parker, p.141, ed. Park. Soc.  See also p. 206 in this volume.

58 "Leonis Imperatoris de Bellico Apparatu Liber, e Graeco in Latinum conversus, Ioan. Checo Cantabrigiensi Interp. Basileae, apud Mich. Isingrinium, M.D.LIIII."  In 8vo.

 

[Page R31]

in spirit.59  And the writer of the Homily did not merely take the terse memorial of the Bishops and expand it for general use by topics of his own, but he again availed himself largely of the treatise, taking nearly all his historical statements and most of his quotations from the Fathers out of chapters 21, 24–31, and 33–35 of Bullinger.  His reasoning however seems to be his own; and in the Third Part especially, which indeed consists of little else, it is cast into the severe form of logical argument, nearly after the fashion of the old Disputations in the Schools.

The subject of the Homily is one which has long ceased to have much interest for us, but at the time there was scarcely any question that was practically more important; and, as the discourse is far the longest in the volume, being in bulk about one quarter of the Second Book as first published, so it is by far the most argumentative and elaborate.  And it is my conviction that, just as in the beginning of Edward’s reign the vital question of Justification was most carefully and ably treated by Archbishop Cranmer in three Homilies, making just a quarter of the First Book, so in the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign the stirring question of Image worship was handled with equal force and at corresponding length by the then great champion of the Church of England, Bishop Jewel.  He felt the importance of the matter very strongly, more strongly (so at least he himself thought) than Archbishop Parker and some others did.60

[Continued on Page R32]

59 Bullinger printed it a third time with some amendments in 1568.  The estimation in which the work was held in England may be gathered from what is said of Abp. Cranmer in the note on no. 20 below; and Abp. Grindal expresses his own great obligation to it in a letter addressed to Bullinger himself on the 8th of February 1567, printed in the Parker Society’s first series of Zurich Letters, p.108 of the original Latin, p. 182 of the Translation.

60 "Nunc ardet lis illa crucularia [the dispute about the use of the crucifix].  Vix credas in re fatua quantum homines qui aliquid sapere videbantur insaniant.  Ex illis quos quidem tu noris praeter Coxum nullus est. Crastino die instituetur de ea re disputatio.  Arbitri erunt ex senatu selecti quidam viri. Actores inde Cantuariensis et Coxus, hinc Grindallus Londinensis Episcopus et ego. Eventus ¦< 6D4Jä< (@b<"F4 6,ÃJ"4.  Rideo tamen, cum cogito quibus illi et quam gravibus et solidis rationibus defensuri sint suam cruculam.  Sed, quicquid erit, scribam posthac pluribus; nunc enim ‘sub judice lis est’: tamen, quantum auguror, non scribam posthac ad te episcopus.  Eo enim jam res pervenit, ut aut cruces argenteae et stanneae, quas nos ubique confregimus, restituendae sint, aut episcopatus relinquendi."  Jewel’s Letter to Peter Martyr dated "Londini, 4 Februarii, 1560."

 

[Page R32]

He had been for some time resident at Zurich, in intimate acquaintance with Bullinger, and regarded him with gratitude and love as a protector and a friend, and with reverence as a teacher of Christ’s truth.61 The method of reasoning is like Jewel’s; the occasional bursts of indignation, and many details of the style, even to single words, resemble his; and there is one remarkable quotation from a work of Jacopo Nachianti, Bishop of Chioggia, which he probably noted during his stay at Padua soon after the book from which it comes was published, that is given, I believe, by no other English writer.62

3.  For Repairing and Keeping Clean of Churches.  See the remarks on no. 1.

4.  Of Fasting.  This homily, as has been stated before, was originally undivided.  The necessity for breaking it into two Parts arose from a large addition which was made to it after it had passed Convocation.  This inserted matter begins with the prayer immediately before the end of the First Part, p. 287, line 8, and extends beyond the middle of the Second Part, ending p. 293, line 4.  The occasion and subject of it have been already noticed [i.e., footnote # 37].  That this is really an insertion may be easily seen by any one who has access to the first edition of the Second Book, the additional matter being there all contained in an extraordinary sheet, which comes exactly in the middle of signature Ccc and begins with the words "for the use of fasting," which words at the top of the page on which they were originally printed (then the fifth, now the thirteenth, page of that signature) have been struck out with a pen.  And any one who reads the Homily with care in any edition will see that the summary of what has been said in it, with which its last paragraph begins, does not comprise the subjects treated of in the inserted portion, and that that portion closes with a summary of its own.

Possibly the writer of the Homily as it stood at first was Bishop Grindal, who was strongly persuaded of the value of fasting.63  At any rate it was not written by the author of any

[Continued on Page R33]

61 See his Letters to Peter Martyr as well as to Bullinger himself.

62 See p. 237, line *36*, in this volume: and compare Jewel’s Reply to Harding, Art. XIV, "Of Adoration of Images," Div. 12, "Latria, Doulia"; and Defence of the Apology, Part VI, Ch. xii, Div. 2.

63 "By outward appearance it seemeth that this order of fast" [the weekly fast appointed on account of the great pestilence in 1563] "is generally embraced. Surely my opinion hath been long, that in no one thing the adversary hath more advantage against us than in the matter of fast, which we utterly neglect: they have a shadow."  Grindal’s Letter to Sir William Cecil, dated 21 August, 1563, p. 265, ed. Park. Soc.

 

[Page R33]

one of the first three Homilies: in those the Vulgate translation of the Bible is used; in this the quotations of Scripture are made from the Hebrew or the Greek.  But the inserted portion is from another pen, possibly Archbishop Parker’s.64  The form "Moyses" occurs in it four times, whereas "Moses" is the name in the original part of the Homily.

5.  Against Gluttony and Drunkenness.  A few sentences in this Homily are taken from Bishop Pilkington’s Exposition upon Haggai, which was published in 1560; and a large portion of the remainder is translated or adapted from Peter Martyr’s discourse "De Vino et Ebrietate" in his Commentary on the Book of Judges.  See notes 3–6, 9, and 12 on the Homily.

6.  Against Excess of Apparel.  A few sentences in this Homily also are taken from the same Exposition.  See note 5.  The two Homilies apparently are from one pen, and Dr. Corrie assigns them both to Pilkington.  Considering what was said of that writer [i.e., footnote 54], it is some confirmation of Dr. Corrie’s opinion to find a strong resemblance between a sentence in the former of the two, "Certainly that sin" &c. p. 298, line 7, and one in the Homily against Contention, "It must needs be a great fault" &c. p.137, line 33.

7. 8. 9.  Concerning Prayer.  Of the Place and Time of Prayer.  Of Common Prayer and Sacraments.  These three are probably by one author.  The quotations from Scripture seem to be made from the Vulgate; and each of the three exhibits the same misapprehension of one text, I Tim. 3:8, which an accurate knowledge of the Greek would have prevented.  Each enters more or less into the controversy with popery.  The second of them, no. 8, contains arguments and phrases which we have had before in nos. 1–3 concerning churches; one passage beginning p. 343, line 30, nearly the same with one in no. 1 at p. 154, line 2; and another beginning p. 347, line 38, very similar to one in no. 2, p. 209, line 23, and p. 210, line 19, concerning the progress of the Turks. I should ascribe them all to Jewel.

[Continued on Page R34]

64 See what he says of fasting in a Letter to Cecil written June 3, 1564, Correspondence, p. 216, ed. Park. Soc.

 

[Page R34]

10.  Of Certain Places of Scripture.  A few sentences near the beginning of this Homily are translated from a tract of Erasmus.  See note 1.  The author uses the old form "mought" for "might," a peculiarity which occurs but once besides, p. 530, line 23.

11.  Of Almsdeeds.  The writer of this Homily was largely indebted to Cyprian’s treatise ‘De Opere et Eleemosynis."  He quoted from the Vulgate.  See note 4 on the Third Part, p. 397.

12.  Of the Nativity.

13.  Of the Passion, for Good Friday.  From Taverner’s Postils, under the title "The passion on Palme sonday," pp. 173–181, ed. Cardwell.

14.  The Second Sermon of the Passion.  Perhaps this and no.12 are by one author, and he perhaps one of the older fathers of the Reformation in England.  Their simplicity and earnestness savour much of the Homilies in the First Book, or even of Taverner’s Postils.

15.  Of the Resurrection. From Taverner, pp. 189–199, ed. Cardwell.  Apparently by a different author from no. 13.  A collation of the original form of both is given among the Various Readings at the foot of each page.  It will be seen that the changes in this are much more numerous than in no. 13, but not many of them are important.  The omission of the words "that the stone of the grave was removed from the entrance thereof, and shewed them in p. 430, line 28, was probably an oversight.  But the omission of the words "in form of bread" in p. 433, line 22, was doubtless intentional, and ought to be borne in mind when attempts are made to found an argument for the presence of Christ in the consecrated elements upon the retention of the words "under the form of bread and wine" in the promise of more Homilies which closes the First Book: for its import is shewn by another omission, "now received in this holy Sacrament," in p. 435, line 18.

16. 17.  Concerning the Sacrament.  For Whitsunday.  These two have been ascribed to Jewel: and the style, the method of argument, the handling of controverted points, the references to history, especially to the history of Popes, the citations from Scripture and from the Fathers, all go to establish the conjecture.

[Continued on Page R35]

[Page R35]

18.  For Rogation Week.

I.  The first three Parts form one discourse, with which the fourth Part (so called) has no connection.  The former first appeared separately, without date, but certainly before the publication of the Second Book, and probably in 1560 or 1561.  Queen Elizabeth’s Injunctions, issued in 1559, permit the customary perambulation of the bounds of parishes, but direct that the parishioners shall, "at their return to the church, make their Common Prayers," and also "that the Curate in their said common perambulations, used heretofore in the days of Rogations, at certain convenient places shall admonish the people to give thanks to God, in the beholding of God’s benefits, for the increase and abundance of his fruits upon the face of the earth, with the saying of the 103rd Psalm, Benedic, anima mea," &c., and shall "inculcate these or such sentences [thus], Cursed be he which translateth the bounds and doles of his neighbour [Deut.27:17], or such other order of prayers as shall be hereafter appointed."65  In the Interpretations of the Injunctions drawn up by the Bishops in 1560 the direction upon the nineteenth is "that in the procession [in Rogation Week] they sing or say the two Psalms beginning Benedic, anima mea, Domino [103, 104], with the Litany and Suffrages thereto, with some Sermon or a Homily of thanksgiving to God and moving to temperancy in their drinkings."66  And it is likely that our

[Continued on Page R36]

65 Cardwell’s Documentary Annals, I, 187, Inj. XVIII and XIX.

66 Ibid. p.204.  See Bp. Grindal’s direction to the Archdeacon of Essex "for avoiding of superstitious behaviour and for uniformity to be had in the Rogation Week, now at hand," dated 13 May 1560, among his Remains, p. 240, ed. Park. Soc.  And compare with the "Interpretation" of 1560, on which this note is added, the "Item" upon the same subject among the "Advertisements" prepared by the Bishops in 1565, Docum. Ann. I, 293; and Abp. Grindal’s Injunctions at York for the Laity, item 18, at p.141 of his Remains.

Much curious and interesting information about "Parochial Perambulations in Rogation week," comprising an account of harmless customs still kept in some places as well as of old superstitions and abuses, is given in Sir Henry Ellis’ edition of Brand’s Popular Antiquities, I, 116–124.  One of the superstitious practices is mentioned by Tyndale in his Answer to Sir Thomas More, p. 62, ed. Park Soc., "the saying of Gospels to the corn in the field in the Procession week, that it should the better grow:" and it is curious to observe that the "Sermon in the Crosse Dayes or Rogation Weke" among Taverner’s Postils, pp. 278–282, ed. Cardwell, approves this practice as sure to be effectual, provided we "intreate and heare the word of God wyth deuoute and religiouse myndes."

 

[Page R36]

Homily, in three Parts, was thereupon composed and set forth.

The writer has one peculiarity, which is scarcely found elsewhere in the volume.  He often omits to mark the third person singular of a verb by the usual inflexion, writing "take," "consider," where others would use "taketh," "considereth."67  This is found still more frequently in the first and separate edition, as is shewn in the Various Readings at the foot of the pages; for the printers gradually removed it, so that in successive editions of the Second Book it disappeared almost entirely.  This peculiarity, the use of certain words, the obscurity of the style in some parts, and the devout earnestness and solemnity of the tone throughout, together lead me to believe that the author was Archbishop Parker.68  But, whoever was the writer, we do not seem to have the composition exactly as it, or its different portions, stood at first.  It seems to be made up from several sermons, written originally upon different texts.  One such text is plainly Rom. 11:16, cited in page 471, and again, near the end of the Homily, in page 492.  Another, upon which much of the Third Part appears to have been founded, is Ephes. 5:15–16.  See note 6 on that Part.

II.  The Exhortation to be used at the perambulation of boundaries, which is called the Fourth Part of the Homily, may possibly be by the same author, though it does not exhibit all the characteristics above mentioned.  It was evidently written for the purpose to which it is addressed. It contains a few very rare words, chiefly concerning agriculture, which perhaps were even then provincial.

19.  Of Matrimony.  Half of this Homily is translated from a Hortatory Address of Veit Dietrich of Nuremberg, and half from a Homily of St. Chrysostom.  See notes 1 and 8 upon it. Dietrich, otherwise called Theodor, was born at Nuremberg in 1507, studied at Wittemberg, where he won the esteem of Luther and Melancthon, became Pastor of St. Sebald’s in his native city, and died there so early as 1549.69  He wrote Sermons for Children, "Kinder Postilla," on the Gospels for the Sundays and Holy Days throughout the year, a folio volume, which purports to have been printed at Nuremberg in

[Continued on Page R37]

67 See the item, "Verbs in the third person singular," in the article "Words" &c. in the General Index.

68 The words, brittle casualty, contentation, expend, nurture, otherwhere, otherwhiles, sequester, stayed, in worth, self for selves, which occur either frequently or in peculiar uses in the Homily are found similarly in the Archbishop’s Correspondence before cited.  The difficulty of his style must be felt by any one who reads the "Correspondence", and even at the time Bp. Sandys complained of his "sundry dark sentences, hard to scan forth." Correspondence of Abp. Parker, p. 124.

69 See Zedler’s Universal Lexicon, XLIII, 743.

 

[Page R37]

1556, though his Preface or Dedication is dated ten years earlier; and several single sermons and tracts by him are also extant.  His great celebrity as a preacher is recorded by Joachim Camerarius the elder in his Life of Melancthon, pp. 256, 257, ed. 1655.

20.  Against Idleness.  Perhaps by Jewel.  There is not indeed much in the Homily that is characteristic: but the blended quotation from St. Bernard and Peter of Blois in page 519, (where see note 4), was doubtless taken from some Florilegium; and most of the quotations concerning pride in the Homily for Whitsunday (no. 17) in page 465, together with the numerous epithets of the Spirit in page 468, are to be found in several such Collections.70

21.  Of Repentance. Two thirds of the First Part of this Homily are translated from Rudolph Gualther.  See note 1 upon it. Instead of "since" used argumentatively the writer has "sith that."  This occurs nine times in this Homily, but nowhere else throughout the volume.

22.  Against Rebellion.  This was not in the Second Book as first published. It was occasioned by the Rising in the North, which began in November 1569, and came to an end before the ensuing Christmas;71 and it was no doubt written and set forth

[Continued on Page R38]

70 To suppose that Jewel was content to make quotations at second hand in a book intended for popular use and printed without his name is no disparagement either to his learning or his industry.  His studied and acknowledged works give most ample proof of both.  It was the custom of the time, and it has been common enough in all times since, to rely too much on published books.  If a person familiar with Bullinger’s treatise "De Origine Erroris" examines Cranmer’s Common Place Book, he may follow him in his perusal of that work by the patristic extracts which he has transcribed from it; but the remainder of the two large volumes, and the Notes on Justification preserved at Lambeth, give abundant evidence that Cranmer was very well acquainted with the actual writings of the Fathers.

71 Some information concerning the Rebellion is furnished in the notes at pp. 559, 570, 581, 582, 594.  But there is a letter from Bishop Jewel to Bullinger, dated "7 Augusti, 1570", which touches so many points in the Homily, that I think it well to give some extracts from it here.

"Quod vulgo apud vos obscuris rumoribus ferebatur de mutatione status nostri, nihil erat. ... Duo quidem comites nostrates, et juvenes, et fatui, et obaerati, et perditi, quibus alea magis quam religio curae esset, sub extremum autumnum in ultimis Angliae finibus aliquot millia rusticorum conscripserunt.  Ea freti multitudine, edicta etlam ausi sunt publicare homines levissimi, velle se nescio quos (neque enim quenquam nominabant) e sacro reginae senatu submovere, et avitam religionem constituere.  Quid quaeris?  Non mora: excitantur in castris altaria: comburuntur sacra biblia: dicuntur missae.  Post aliquot hebdomadas mittitur in illos comes Sussexius, vir bonus et strenuus et magni consilii, cum exigua manu.  Illi se paulatim recipere et retro cedere.  Sussexius insequi prudenter atque acriter, et urgere cedentes.  Ad extremum miseri, cum hostes infestis signis sibi viderent imminere, homines imperiti rerum, qui hostem nunquam prius viderant, non ausi experiri fortunam belli, perculsi conscientia sceleris, amentes et caeci, destituunt exercitum sine duce, et relictis castris clam noctucum paucis profugiunt in Scotiam.  Habes historiam nostrarum rerum ....

"Omnes istas turbas nobis dedit sanctissimus pater.  Is enim pro sua sanctitate et sapientia submiserat in Angliam ad suos bullam (aureamne dicam an plumbeam ?) magni ponderis.  Ea menses aliquot inter paucos obscure ferebatur. Significabat videlicet bonus pater, Elizabetham reginam Angliae non esse; sibi enim illius instituta non placere; itaque mandare se, ne quis illam agnoscat principem, neve illi obtemperet imperanti; qui secus fecerit, illum se omnibus diris devovere atque exitio dedere .... Mitto ad te exemplar illius putidissimae atque inanissimae bullae, ut intelligas quam illa bestia solenniter hoc tempore atque impudenter insaniat."

 

[Page R38]

in the early part of 1570.  Five editions of it at the least were published separately,72 till in 1571 it was counted as the last Homily in the Second Book by the Convocation which then ratified the Thirty-nine Articles, and thenceforward it was printed in that volume accordingly.

4. OF THIS EDITION.

It only remains to give some account of what has been done in the present volume.

Text.  The eminent scholar who prepared the Oxford edition of 1812, the earliest critical edition of the Homilies, formed his text "for the most part on the principle of adhering to the last recension published by public authority, that is to say, to the edition of 1623," thinking that it "was not only reprinted, as stated in the title-page, but also revised by authority of the crown," and that it "has some claim to be considered as the standard text" inasmuch "as no later recension has ever been made by public authority:" but he was well aware of "the numerous errors of every sort by which that edition is defiled,"

[Continued on Page R39]

72 They are described in the Catalogue which follows.

 

[Page R39]

and that "the early editions of Queen Elizabeth’s recension exhibit a much better text;" nay, he even printed the Homily against Rebellion from what he believed to be the first edition of it, and intimated his opinion that a future editor might perhaps think it "advisable to restore the text of Queen Elizabeth throughout the whole volume with the exception of some particular expressions."73  Had he but known how very many editions earlier than 1623 are still extant, and observed how each, with scarcely an exception, is a reprint from its immediate predecessor, but introduces deviations, evidently arbitrary, which are mostly repeated and perpetuated by those which succeeded it, that opinion of his would certainly have been confirmed.  Take one of the earliest editions, and compare it with the edition of 1623, and you will find so many differences, that, knowing the latter to have had some changes made in it by authority, you will be inclined to ascribe the same authority to all.  If however you trace these variations through the intermediate editions, and notice how many of them, not fewer than thirty on an average, originate in each, and that not one of all the editions exhibits the accuracy and regularity which betoken the care bestowed by a good editor of the present day, you will see that far the largest number of their differences must be referred either to the negligence or the wilfulness of the printers,74 and that the earliest edition of all is likely to give the purest text.

It is upon this principle, and in accordance with Dr. Elmsley’s opinion above recorded, that the text of this edition has been formed.  Adhering slavishly to no single edition, it is yet based upon the earliest of each portion of the volume.  In the First Book indeed Cranmer himself admitted so great a change in 1549 by dividing the several Homilies into Parts, and the revision at the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign altered so many words and phrases throughout, that it has not been thought right to print it from the first, nor even from any Edwardian, edition.  The text of 1559 therefore, the earliest known Elizabethan text,

[Continued on Page R40]

73 Advertisement prefixed to the edition of 1822.

74 Upwards of thirty variations have been caused by injudicious attempts to correct errors made in previous editions, such as the following:

p. 17, line. *23*. were; wer; we; be.

p. 215, line *9*. a finite; an infinite; a small.

p. 298, line *18*. sweating; swearing; swilling.

p. 561, line *12*. region; religion; realm.

 

[Page R40]

has been followed, except in two respects.  On the one hand an endeavour has been made by means of the earliest editions to get rid of the many unauthorised changes which had crept into the successive editions of King Edward’s time, and which were not removed in 1559; and on the other hand later editions of Queen Elizabeth have been followed in omitting the changes in the First Part of the Homily of the Fear of Death, which were not retained after 1559, and in substituting "governor" for "head" as the title of the Sovereign in the First Part of the Homily of Obedience.75  The bulk of the Second Book has been reprinted from the first edition, except where the second supplies a word or two which seem to have been added by authority, and where the previous edition of the Homily for Rogation Week gives a manifestly better text.76  Of the Homily against Rebellion the second edition has been followed, as being the first which exhibits it in six Parts; but here also a small addition has been admitted from the third.77  It must be observed however that throughout the volume erroneous readings have been set right wherever any later edition, as far down as the year 1623, has been found to correct them, and that some also have been amended upon other authority than that of actual editions of the Homilies, and two or three upon no external authority at all.78

[Continued on Page R41]

75 The words which were added by way of explanation in 1559 are placed within (parentheses), thus, "under pretence (or colour)", "admit (or receive)", p. 60, lines *20*, *23*.  I should have been glad to omit them altogether.

76 See page 357, note a; page 490, note k; page 491, note x.

77 See page 596, note g.

78 In p. 118 a marginal abstract is supplied from Becon’s edition of his collected Works, and another in p. 127.  In p. 190, line *26*, "error" is printed for "errors" in accordance with the passage of St. Jerome there cited, as well as with the context; and in a similar way the words "are reckoned" are supplied in p. 527, line *32*, as the rendering of "censentur" in the passage there translated from Gualther.  In p. 280, line *29*, "through" is printed for "though", and in p. 397, line *3*, " it is not more hard" for "it is more hard", on the authority of Archbishop Whitgift’s Selection of Homilies put forth in 1586 together with a Form of Prayer for use in the Diocese of Canterbury; the latter correction being also found in his own handwriting in the copy of the second edition of the Second Book at Lambeth.  And in p. 581, line *32*, "printed" is restored for "painted" from the very first edition of the Homily against Rebellion.

For omitting "if" before "we shall heap" in p.136, line *38*, and "as" before "they first came" in p. 246, line *32*, there is no ancient authority to vouch, but the former change has been made by Dr. Corrie.  In p. 186, line *35*, "born" is omitted, as in the actual text of the first edition, although the Corrections at the end of it direct that the word shall be inserted, and although it has been printed in every subsequent edition accordingly; for it is plain that the words "of a Jew" there are equivalent to "from being a Jew", or, as we should now say, "from Judaism".  It is no wonder that strange uses of the word "of" perplex modern readers, as in our I,ord’s precept that we should make to ourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, Luke 16: 9, or in David’s entreaty, Hold not thy tongue, O God, of my praise, Ps. 109:1, Deus, laudem meam ne tacueris, Vulg., printed in all our Prayer Books since 1632 O God of my praise with Deus laudam at the head of the Psalm; but it is curious to see a critic of that time destroying the sense of a passage because he did not understand it himself.

 

[Page R41]

In thus recovering the text the editor has had to use a discretion, of which he does not flatter himself that every exercise will be approved by every reader.  But he has used it honestly, with no bias, not seeking to produce such sense or such English as he might himself think best, but only wishing and trying to determine the true reading in every instance by the actual evidence before him, "neque id reponere quod scribere debuerat auctor, sed quod scripsit."79  The more he considers the principle on which he has been working, the more strongly he is convinced of its soundness; and he ventures to think that on the whole he has succeeded in putting together a more genuine text, nearer to the words actually written by the authors of the several Homilies or by the authorised editors and revisers of them,80 than is contained in any other edition whatever, not excepting the very earliest.

Various Readings.  The authorities upon which it is constructed may be gathered from the Various Readings given at the foot of each page.  To these reference is made in the text by the letters of the small alphabet.  They are intended to exhibit, and no pains have been spared in the attempt to make them exhibit faithfully, the entire succession of changes in the text to the end of the reign of James I.  For this purpose they supply a complete collation of

[Continued on Page R42]

79 Wyttenbach, Praefat. ad Plutarch. Moral. IV.

80 Some may think that Dr. Elmsley’s opinion ought to have been closely followed throughout, and that it would have been better to alter "some particular expressions" in accordance with the edition of 1623, adopting the revision of that year as well as the one made in 1559.  But it must be observed, not only that we have the Homilies upon the authority of Queen Elizabeth rather than of King James I, but also that that edition is so full of errors, many of them errors of omission, that it really is not possible to determine with certainty which of the changes in it were intended by the editor and which are due to the carelessness of the printer.

 

[Page R42]

the edition of 1623 at one end of the period and of the first edition of every portion of the volume at the other, and intermediately between the two extreme points they specify the particular edition in which each variation is first found.  They also give a complete collation of the first Elizabethan edition of the First Book, printed in 1559 of the Homilies for Good Friday and for Easter Day from that edition of Taverner’s Postils which was reprinted at the University Press in 1841, of the first edition of the Homily for Rogation Week or rather of the first three Parts of it (so called), and of the second edition (which indeed may he considered practically as the first) of the Homily against Rebellion.81  But they do not, except in a very few instances, shew such variations as were merely transient, being found in only a few editions, and disappearing before the close of the period in question: that would have required a verbatim collation of every edition, an amount of labour from which no adequate benefit seemed likely to result.  And they contain no collation whatever of any edition later than the year 1623.

Great pains have been taken to state the variations clearly, but it may be well to say here, for example, that a reading specified as "from 1547 G 6" is found for the first time in Grafton’s sixth edition of the First Book, and is continued in all editions afterwards, and that a reading said to be "till 1547 G 6" is found in Grafton’s first five editions, but not in his sixth nor in any one later.  Only those expressions must not be understood to comprise any of Whitchurch’s editions of the First Book in 1547, nor Grafton’s edition of it in 1551, nor either of the octave editions, nor the editions of both Books printed in 1587 and 1595.  These editions were not followed by those which came after them; they contribute nothing to the succession of the text; a full collation of them therefore would only encumber the page, and the reader is not to suppose them to be included any where unless they are expressly named.

Among the Various Readings will be found a few notes on matters otherwise concerning the text.  Of some words or phrases, which are either ungrammatical or in any respect such

[Continued on Page R43]

81 The editions of which a complete collation is given are precisely indicated in the "List of the Copies used for this Edition" which is subjoined to this Preface.

 

[Page R43]

that a reader might reasonably suspect them to be errors of this edition, I have thought fit to state that they are "so in all" the editions collated.  I have said the same of a few other words, which do not appear to me to be genuine, though found in all editions; and in some few cases of this kind I have ventured to go further, and to suggest the word which perhaps the author wrote.

Paragraphs.  Punctuation.  The ancient editions will not serve as guides in the division of the text into Paragraphs, nor in the Punctuation.  Very few of them agree with each other in these particulars; none is even consistent with itself; and none appears to represent the mind of the several authors.  Liberty has therefore been taken to arrange these throughout in the way that seemed best for the argument and the sense, and it is hoped that several places which have been difficult or even unmeaning will now be found clear and effective.

Italic character.  The Italic character in the text is strictly confined to quotations from Scripture.  It has been used in preference to inverted commas, partly in compliance with old custom, but chiefly because the commas are commonly understood to mark quotations made verbatim without alteration of any kind, whereas the Italic character serves to indicate the whole extent of an adopted passage, even when some slight change has been made in its form to fit it to the sentence into which it is woven.

Spelling.  In reprinting any book so old as the Homilies it is confessedly a difficult matter to determine how far the antique modes of spelling shall be retained and how far they may be altered to the modern fashion, and I fear that in this volume they have not been treated from first to last with exact uniformity.  Upon the whole the rule followed is nearly this, to disregard the final e, the interchange of i and y, and such other little things as belong to the spelling only, and do not affect the sense or the etymology of words,82 but to retain scrupulously every

[Continued on Page R44]

82 The following words, which have been made modern in the text, are given here, because some persons may doubt whether I have done right in altering them all.  Several of them occur in the old editions in their modern form. accompt, accompted, compted; auctority, aucthority; capitayne; christen for christian, especially in the plural number; commeth, &c.; counterfaict for counterfeit; crepe for creep; crouch for crutch; damosel; elles for else; emperial; errour; falshed; farder for further; furth for forth; geve, forgeve, &c.; hable, hability; hole for whole, holsomely; hundreth for hundred; intertained; lenger for longer; maister and mayster for master; marchaunt, marchaundise; mary for marrow; middest; moneth; obreyde, obreyleth, for upbraid; onless; perfite and perfitte for perfect; person for parson; querels for quarrels, quereled; rannsome; reken for reckon; rendre, suffre,&c.; slea for slay; sterres for stars; then for than; venime for venom.  The old editions always have drawen, knowen, &c. for drawn, known, &c., and in some places doen for done.

I have adopted the modern distinction between divers and diverse, between doth and doeth, between travail and travel, between altogether and all together.  The old editions most commonly have al for all, and it is sometimes difficult to settle this last distinction; but in the only passage in which it is of serious importance, a passage affecting essentially the doctrine of Justification, p. 26, line *29*, several of the earliest editions rightly have "all together".

 

[Page R44]

ancient form and likewise every particular of orthography by which the meaning of a word may be more clearly seen or its derivation better traced.  Many of these old forms are only found in the earliest editions, having passed out of use long before the end of the reign of James 1.  They have been restored to the text in this edition, not from any mere love of archaisms, but from the conviction that they will tend to refute the very common opinion that the Second Book was all written by one author, Bishop Jewel, and in the hope that they may even help some student by and by to discover some of the other writers.83  The form "mought," for example, occurs four times in the Homily concerning Certain Places in Scripture and only once besides; we find "sith that" nine times in the Homily of Repentance, but no where else: shall we attribute this to the caprice of the printers, or rather to the peculiar usage or the several authors?

These archaisms are included in the article, "Words obsolete or rare in form, meaning, or construction," in the General Index; an article, which persons who are well acquainted with the progress of our language may think needlessly copious, but which may perhaps lead some readers to consider how greatly

[Continued on Page R45]

83 It is for this reason that in words which really begin with the Latin prepositive "in", but which in English have been spelt with i or with e according as the writers took them directly from the Latin or mediately through the French, I have generally printed that form (whether "increase" or "encrease", for example) which I found in the earliest edition.  But I have now come to the conclusion that I need not have been so particular, that, even if the several writers observed any certain rule, the printers have from the first neglected it, and that the modern usage in all such words may as well be adopted in future editions.

 

[Page R45]

the usage and signification of even the commonest words become changed in lapse of time.84

Marginal References.  Great pains were taken with the Marginal References to Scripture in the Oxford edition of 1840, and much was then accomplished in the way both of verifying them and of making them complete by the addition of the verses; but without the help of the earliest editions and the use of the Vulgate translation it was impossible to set them right.  Even in the first editions there are errors, not all owing to the printers’ carelessness;85 every edition in its turn added to their number; and the difficulty of correcting them was at the same time increased by their being allowed to slip to points in the margin away from the words to which they belong, so that at length in several instances the reference and the quotation stood on different pages.  They have now been revised throughout; and it is hoped that here also, as well as in the text, the intentions of the writers are better represented than they have ever been before.  And care has been taken to lessen the risk of error in future editions by using the letters of the small Greek alphabet to direct the render to the right reference in the margin wherever the number or the uncertainty of quotations seemed likely to cause any mistake.  It has not however been thought desirable to print the references exactly as they stand in the early editions, with the names of the different books taken from the Vulgate, I Regum for I Samuel, Paralipomena for Chronicles, Sapientia for Wisdom, and the like; but the usage of modern editors has been followed, and the convenience of modern readers consulted, by adopting the titles of the books from our Authorised Version.  A few undoubted errors also have been tacitly corrected, but in all other respects they are given with scrupulous fidelity, hooks [ ] being used to shew that the numbers of the verses, the Hebrew numeration of the Psalms wherever they are cited according to the Vulgate reckoning, many additional

[Continued on Page R46]

84 One item in that article is "his=its".  The word "its" was not invented even when our Authorised Translation of the Bible was made under James I; but a passage in p. 289, line *14*, "the thing which of the own nature is indifferent", with the various reading, "of it own nature", shews curiously how the want of it was felt half a century before.

85 See for instance p. 529, n. 8.

 

[Page R46]

references,86 and a few remarks besides, are matter for which the editor alone is responsible.

With other notes or references in the margin no liberty whatever has been assumed: all are printed just as the early editions give them.

Notes.  The Notes at the foot of pages, to which reference is made in the text by means of Arabic numerals, are not included within hooks, inasmuch as there is no mixture of matter among them, and it seemed to be better to state here once for all that they are wholly supplied by the editor.  The largest portion of them consists of the original Latin or Greek of passages cited in the homilies from the Fathers and other writers; and in this part of my work I have been much helped by the Cambridge edition of 1850, the only one hitherto in which such passages have been given.  Yet I have nowhere rested upon that or any other compilation; I have examined every passage for myself in the original authors ; and it will be seen that I do not in all places acquiesce in the selection made by the learned editor.  The labour has not been perfectly successful: one passage cited as "St. Augustine’s words," with "In Epist. ad Julianum Comitem 30" in the margin, p. 538, line 15, has baffled all research; the marginal reference "Chrysostom" in p. 165 is very unsatisfactorily answered in note 8 there; and the import of "Dialogorum Lib. iii" in the margin of p. 465 has not been discovered.87  No one who has had experience in similar work will be surprised at these failures; and any reader who observes how the Fathers and other writers are quoted, often by name only, and seldom with precise reference, will be ready to make allowance for the difficulty of the task.  It is but by a happy accident that a sentence cited in p.144, line 11, as "that which is written" has been found, not in the Bible, but in the Decretum, extracted by Gratian from a Sermon of St. Augustine.

[Continued on Page R47]

86 In the Homilies for Good Friday and Easter Day I have supplied from Taverner’s Postils several references which are omitted in all editions of the Homilies, but I have not thought it necessary to place these within hooks [i.e., square brackets].

87 I suspect the explanation of this last reference is to be found in the fact that all the quotations in p. 465 were taken at second hand from some Florilegium of other book which contained also a quotation from the Dialogues ascribed to Pope Gregory the Great, and that the reference was transcribed although the quotation was rejected.  See before, # 20.  Against Idleness.

 

[Page R47]

Similar to these are the notes in which short extracts are given from the Vulgate.  That is the form in which all the writers of the Homilies best knew the Bible, and from which most of them appear to have made their quotations, translating it on each occasion for themselves.88  Well educated persons continued to be familiar with it down to the time of Lord Bacon or later, but the New Translation of King James displaced it gradually, and to members of the Church of England it is now almost wholly unknown.  This in fact is the chief obstacle to the frequent use of the Homilies in our churches, and a clergyman intending to read any of them publicly would do well to put the quotations from Scripture into language with which his people are familiar, the language of the Anthorised Version.  Wherever I have noticed a discrepancy between that Version and the quotations given in the Homilies, and have been able to trace it to the Vulgate, I have subjoined the extract from this in a foot note, with the double object of justifying the Homilist and helping the reader to follow him.89  Quotations from the Greek of the New Testament are also given in a few places where it seemed expedient to supply them.

There are a few notes in which some explanation is attempted of obsolete and very rare words, and a very few which give some account of such obsolete ceremonies and customs as are mentioned or alluded to in the Homilies.  Others again, not many in number, are concerned with historical statements, correcting in some instances certain errors in matters of fact, most of which were discovered very many years ago, and none of which have ever been thought by unprejudiced minds to impair the usefulness of the volume, or to falsify the character given of it in the thirty-fourth Article.  But there are none which deal with doctrine.  Although I have felt it my duty to furnish the reader with means for guarding against false interpretations of Scripture, and to obviate mistakes in history by placing before him statements drawn from authentic sources, I have judged it better, if there be any enunciations of doctrine which seem to

[Continued on Page R48]

88 This will account for the misapprehension of several passages of scripture, for example, of Matth. 6:33, repeatedly.

89 The edition from which I have made my quotations is one of the Louvain recension, put forth "ex officina Christophori Plantini" at Antwerp in 1565.

 

[Page R48]

him incautiously or inadequately uttered, that he should try such passages for himself by the test to which the Homilies from first to last appeal, the written word of God.

It is no new thing, in bringing a literary undertaking to a close, to have to acknowledge much ready assistance, given not only by personal friends, but also by many with whom the author or editor had previously little or no acquaintance.  I have received this in many departments of my work.  But the greatest help, the most essential service, has been rendered by those who have liberally trusted me with copies of rare editions from their respective libraries, His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the Societies of Exeter, Corpus Christi, and Wadham Colleges in Oxford, the Master and Senior Fellows of St. John’s College in Cambridge, the Reverend Dr. Cardwell, the Reverend Dr. Corrie, who edited the Cambridge edition and has furthered this in various ways, the late Reverend Dr. Bliss, the late Reverend Robert Riland Mendham, and his cousin and heir the Reverend John Mendham.  For it would not have been possible to make a sufficient examination of the various editions, in order to a true restoration of the text, without bringing together a much larger number of copies than is yet to be found in any single library, nor without having many of them at hand for use from the beginning to the end of the undertaking.  To all these therefore I am bound to express my gratitude, and glad to avow my obligations.  Yet I do not doubt but they would think themselves best rewarded, if the volume to which they have thus lent their aid should help at all towards the object which I have kept in view throughout the labour of preparing it, the furthering of the glory of God by setting in clearer light the agreement of the Church of England with the Gospel of our Blessed Lord and Saviour.

JOHN GRIFFITHS.

St. Giles’, Oxford

March 19, 1859

Next Section        Home Here        SAW Home