ARTICLE XXXV.

OF HOMILIES.

THE SECOND BOOK OF Homilies, THE SEVERAL TITLES WHEREOF WE HAVE JOINED INTO THIS ARTICLE, DOTH CONTAIN A GODLY AND WHOLESOME DOCTRINE, AND NECESSARY FOR THESE TIMES; AS DOTH THE FORMER BOOK OF HOMILIES, WHICH WERE SET FORTH IN THE TIME OF EDWARD THE SIXTH; AND THEREFORE WE JUDGE THEM TO BE READ IN CHURCHES BY THE MINISTers diligenTLY AND DISTINCTLY, THAT THEY MAY BE UNDERSTANDED OF THE PEOPLE.

THIS Article expresses its approbation of the two books of Homilies.

At the time of the Reformation, as there could not be found a sufficient number of preachers to instruct the whole nation, so those who complied with the changes that were then made, were not universally well affected to them; so that it was not safe to commit so important a trust to the capacity of the one, or to the integrity of the other. To obviate these difficulties, the two books of Homilies were prepared; the first was published in King Edward's, the second in Queen Elizabeth's reign. The design of them was to combine doctrinal instruction with practical benefit, and by placing the purity of the Gospel before the eyes of the people, reform them from the gross abuses which Popery had introduced.

With respect to the approbation expressed in this Article, it will be necessary to state how far it extends. We profess that the books of Homilies" contain a godly and wholesome doctrine." This profession relates to the main design and purport of them, but does not extend to every passage which may be found in them. Several texts of Scripture are explained in them, according to the received interpretation of the times, on which succeeding ages have thrown a

a See Hooker's Eccl. Pol. 1. 5. sec. 20.

greater degree of light. We are not therefore bound to state that every such passage or argument is convincing, but he who subscribes the Article should certainly read these homilies, and be persuaded of the truth of the general doctrine contained in them. For example, many of them charge the Church of Rome with idolatry upon different grounds. No person therefore who thinks that Church is not guilty of idolatry, can conscientiously subscribe this Article, since he is persuaded that this charge is false and uncharitable.

Further, the Article states, that this "doctrine was necessary for those times." By these words it is not meant that the books alluded to were only fit to serve a temporary purpose, but that they were necessary at that time to instruct the nation, and were particularly useful under existing circumstances. It should be observed, however, that though the doctrine, if once true, must be always true, yet it will not be always of the same necessity to the people. For instance, there are many discourses in the Epistles, that relate to the controversies then subsisting with the Judaising Christians, and other corrupters of religion, who lived in those days. Those doctrines were necessary for that time; but though they are as true now as they were then, yet as we have no commerce either with Jews or Heathens, it cannot be so necessary to enforce them.

E E

ARTICLE XXXVI.

OF CONSECRATIONS OF BISHOPS AND

MINISTERS.

THE BOOK OF CONSECRATION OF ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS, AND ORDERING OF PRIESTS AND DEACONS, LATELY SET FORTH IN THE TIME OF EDWARD THE SIXTH, AND CONFIRMED AT THE SAME TIME BY AUTHORITY OF PARLIAMENT, DOTH CONTAIN ALL THINGS NECESSARY TO SUCH CONSECRATION AND ORDERING; NEITHER HATH IT ANY THING THAT OF ITSELF IS SUPERSTITIOUS AND UNGODLY. AND THEREFORE

EDWARD UNTO THIS TIME, OR HEREAFTER SHALL
BE CONSECRATED OR ORDERED ACCORDING TO THE
SAME RITES, WE DECREE ALL SUCH TO BE RIGHT-
LY, ORDERLY, AND LAWFULLY CONSECRATED AND

ORDERED.

THE most important parts of this Article have already been considered in the examination of the pretended Sacrament of Orders; where it was proved that prayer and imposition of hands alone were essential to the giving of orders,

a

a

See Mason de Minist. Anglic. 1. 2. c. 16; Bedel's Ans. to Waddesorth, c. 11; and Hooker's Eccl. Pol. 1. 5. sec. 77.

and that the forms added in the Roman Pontifical are new and unnecessary, since the Church had subsisted for many ages without them. It only remains, therefore, to consider some objections that have been made upon this subject.

1st. The Article ratifies orders that had been given before it was made, which being done ex post facto, implies that those orders were un lawful when thus given. This objection, however, will be removed by referring to the history of the times. In the third year of King Edward's reign a new form of ordination was agreed on by the Bishops; and when the Book of Common Prayer, with the last corrections of it was authorized by Act of Parliament in the fifth year of that reign, the new form of ordination was also approved, and appointed to be a part of the Common Prayer Book. In Queen Mary's time these acts were repealed, and the books condemned by name. When Queen Elizabeth came to the throne, King Edward's Common Prayer Book was confirmed, and Queen Mary's act repealed without expressly mentioning the Book of Ordination, this being considered as part of the Common Prayer Book, to which it had been previously annexed. On this omission Bishop Bonner founded a distinction, that since the Book of Ordination had been by name condemned in Queen Mary's reign, and was not by name received in Queen Elizabeth's, it was