As Browne observes, it is commonly agreed with respect to the Homilies that
The kind of assent, which we are here called on to give to them, is general, not specific. We are not expected to express full concurrence with every statement, or every exposition of Holy Scripture contained in them, but merely in the general to approve of them, as a body of sound and orthodox discourses, and well adapted for the times for which they were composed.[1]
This consensus has been easily reached in large part because it was recognized early on that many of the Homilies contain arguments or language that the clergy as a body (to say nothing of Anglicans at large) cannot reasonably be expected to affirm. Indeed, there can be found in them historical statements that are “highly questionable, or even demonstrably false.”[2] Even so, this does not preclude them from being valuable, which raises the question of why they are not typically read in churches today, as the Article says they should be. The reasons for this are largely practical—first and foremost, the Homilies were written “to meet the exigencies of the times.” If those exigencies, namely a dearth of learned and competent preachers, no longer obtain in the present, then there is no pressing need for them to be read in churches as there once was. Thus, “The reading of them publicly, as it would no longer answer any good purpose, has fallen into general disuse with the tacit consent of the governing part of the Church.”[3] That said, these considerations primarily apply to the Church of England, as the Homilies have never, even nominally, been required to be read in America.
But while it has historically been held that the Homilies are to be received in a qualified way—in their general import rather than in every single particular—Anglo-Catholics tend to deny that they have any authority whatsoever. This is perhaps most strongly evidenced by their arguments for image veneration. In defending this practice, they frankly admit that “it is not at all possible to affirm Nicea II and the Homily on Idolatry simultaneously.”[4] They conclude, therefore, that “the Homily on Peril of Idolatry is wrong.” More broadly, “the Homilies are nothing other than historical documents.”[5] However, as they recognize, the matter cannot be left to rest here, for as we have seen, the current Article upholds the Homilies as teaching “a godly and wholesome doctrine” in their contours, if not in every detail. To reject the Homilies, then, is to reject (or at least diminish) the Articles themselves, which they do not hesitate to do. One says, “They have no binding authority over any Anglican in our jurisdiction”;[6] another writes, “The Book of Homilies is a hodge-podge, derivative authority, hyper-linked to the Thirty-Nine Articles, themselves a historicized authority (via the United States amendments of 1801, etc.).”[7]
It is therefore instructive to note their example and bear in mind that the Homilies, far from an obscurity that can be shelved without concern, in fact stand or fall with the Articles. If we wish to honor and preserve the latter as an integral part of our faith and practice, we must take care to treat the former with the degree of reverence that is due them.
Notes
- See also Burnet, Articles, 492; Claughton, Articles, 121–22; Tomline, Christian Theology, 462; Beaven, Articles, 105; Boultbee, Articles, 282; Cloquet, Articles, 602; Macbeth, Articles, 186; Maclear and Williams, Articles, 394–95; Gibson, Articles, 726; Kidd, Articles, 256; Tait, Articles, 221; Green, Articles, 289; Bicknell, Articles, 403; and Thomas, Articles, 449. ↑
- Gibson, Articles, 726. See also Waite, Articles, 506. ↑
- Tomline, Christian Theology, 463. ↑
- Mark Perkins, “Reading the Anglican Formularies in Light of the Ecumenical Councils,” Earth & Altar, 20 November 2020, https://www.earthaltar.org/post/reading-the-anglican-formularies-in-light-of-the-ecumenical-councils. See also Mark Perkins, “‘Enfolded Within Some Great Living Being, Whose Tracts We See,’” Earth & Altar, 21 December 2020, https://www.earthaltar.org/post/enfolded-within-some-great-living-being-whose-tracks-we-see-everywhere, and Ben Jefferies, “Nicea II: A Revocare,” Earth & Altar, 2 July 2025, https://www.earthaltar.org/post/nicea-ii-a-revocare. ↑
- Perkins, “Reading the Anglican Formularies,” https://www.earthaltar.org/post/reading-the-anglican-formularies-in-light-of-the-ecumenical-councils. ↑
- Perkins, “Reading the Anglican Formularies,” https://www.earthaltar.org/post/reading-the-anglican-formularies-in-light-of-the-ecumenical-councils. ↑
- Jefferies, “Revocare,” https://www.earthaltar.org/post/nicea-ii-a-revocare. ↑
