The Homilies considered; in a Letter to the Rev. C. R. Elrington, D. D. M. R. I. A., Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. By JOHN JEBB, D. D. F. R. I. A. Bishop of Limerick, Ardfert, and Aghadoe.

The Judgment of the Tract Committe of the Association for Discountenancing Vice, &c. respecting the Homilies Reviewed, and Vindicated, in a Letter to The Rev. C. R. Elrington, D. D. M. R. I. A. By a Member of the Tract Committee.

The Homilies re-considered, in a Letter to the Right Rev. Dr. Jebb, Bishop of Limerick, in answer to his Letter to the Rev. Dr. Elrington, &c. entitled "The Homilies Considered." By the Rev. H. GRAVES, A. M.

Remarks upon the Rev. Mr. Graves's Letter to the Lord Bishop of Limerick, entitled the Homilies re-considered. By C. R. ELRINGTON, D. D. Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin.

(Concluded from page 232.)

Our readers, we hope, remember that we last month proposed to consider in the present Number, the kind and degree of authority given by the Church of England to the Books of Homilies.'

We will venture too, to regard the account we then gave them of the occasion and contents of the pamphlets in our list, still so far in their recollection, as to allow us to proceed to this task without preface or recapitulation.

The grounds upon which authority is claimed for the Homilies, are so well known as to render a repetition of them superfluous: and we may add, that both parties in the present question are so far agreed in their statement of them, that we have only to consider how far they support this claim. First, then, we say, that if we only knew of the Homilies, that they were deliberately chosen by the Church of England to instruct her members in the fundamental principles of the Christian faith, this alone ought to bestow authority on them, very great, both in kind and degree, with all who profess to be her true children. But we are chiefly concerned with those from whom she exacts a subscription to her Articles. And that such would be bound in foro conscientiæ by the Homilies, so far as they contained explanations of the doctrines stated in the Articles, could hardly, we think, be doubted by any fair mind. For in exacting a subscription to the Articles, it is plain that it must have been intended to obtain an assent to their meaning; and if the same authorities that framed the Articles, and imposed the subscription, had given an explanation of that meaning, in the way in which we have supposed them to have done, no one who was not inclined to palter in a double sense, could regard himself, we apprehend, free to subscribe them in any other. We know in what light such conduct would be viewed in a compact between individuals; and though a less rigorous system of morals often regulates men's transactions with public bodies, they are seldom prepared to own it, even to themselves; and this at least, we may assume, is a case in which it could hardly be avowed. But our readers are all aware, that the subscribers to the Articles are not left to collect in this way, the authority

which the Church of England assigns to the Books of Homilies. For one of those very Articles contains her solemn approbation of these books, as fitted for the very important use to which she designed them, by containing "Godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for the times." And this declaration, whether we consider its natural force, or the purpose of its insertion in the Articles, seems to leave no doubt upon the question that we have to discuss. For, if the Church had employed the Homilies, (professing, as they do, to give full and detailed explanations of every important doctrine of the Christian faith,) in the religious instruction of her children, we saw that it would have been reasonable to conclude that they must express her sense in matters of doctrine, and of course must be authoritative with all whom a subscription to her Articles bound to that sense. But it might have been urged, had the matter been thus left to inference, that we were ascribing more to this act of the Church, than it would fairly bear. That in choosing the Homilies for a popular use, she must have been more solicitous about their practical tendency, than their doctrinal exactness; and that therefore, though it might fairly be presumed that she considered them useful discourses, it by no means followed equally clearly, that they spoke her sense in matters of doctrine. It would be very easy to shew, that this latter mode of accounting for the conduct of the Church, is some what too proleptical; attributing to this early period an indifference concerning divine truth, and a belief in the possibility of securing Christian practice independently of it, which were both the growth of later times; but it is unnecessary-for the Church comes forward to remove all doubt which might be felt of the correctness of the former inference, by distinctly declaring, that she does approve of the doctrines of the Homilies, and that this approbation was the ground of her selection of them, for the use in which she employs them.

This might seem enough; but we think, that farther, the most reasonable account that can be given of inserting this recognition of the Homilies among the Articles of the Church, is that it was designed, not only solemnly to declare the Church's approbation of the doctrines contained in the Homilies, but to ensure in all her ministers, an accordance with her in this particular. This will appear more clearly from considering the object where the mode of proceeding is the same. No one, for example, can suppose, that the recognition of the Sacred Canon, in the 6th Article, or of the three Creeds in the 8th, has any reference to the use of either in the Church servicethat is secured and regulated in another and a fitter way; and they are here mentioned, that the Church may declare her own principles concerning them, and secure our agreement with her. And the like account is to be given of her course concerning the Homilies. The notice of them in the Articles. is not to be understood as designed to provide for their use in Churches; that was already sufficiently secured by the Royal injunctions, and the directions in the Rubrick-much more fitly, we may add, than by this reference in the Articles-in a way equally authoritative,

and more effectual, as containing directions concerning particulars necessary to regulate their use, and not included in the Article. These considerations shew that we have given the right account of the purpose of this Article; and though this was not necessary to establish our view of the effect of the full and explicit approbation of the Homilies, which it expresses, it plainly gives to that view very satisfactory confirmation.

Do we then, we may be asked, subscribe to the Homilies, as we do to the Articles? To this we reply-we do not. There is in the two cases, an obvious and well defined difference. The Articles consisting of bare statements of doctrine, assent to the Articles, and to the doctrines contained in them, would be the same thing. The Homilies, as is well known, contain, besides statements of doctrines and detailed explanations of them, numerous authorities in support of these, and long and painful arguments; adding, moreover, practical deductions, enforced by warm exhortations, and solemn denunciations; and enlivening the whole by an occasional sprinkling of very animated vituperation. Now, if our 'assent to the Homilies were given in the gross, as it is to the Articles, assuredly it never could be understood to extend to the entire of these very miscellaneous contents. As one * whose casuistry is never likely to do much injury says, "In speaking thus largely, it is presumed that men's speeches will be taken according to the matter whereof they speak." But though the limitations arising from so great and marked a difference, might seem safely to be left to discretion, under the guidance of conscience, it is fortunate perhaps, that they are not so left by our Church; for a range of this description often serves to perplex painfully a tender mind, and to give to minds of a different character, a notion of unrestrained liberty, upon which they have little scruple in acting.

As the matter stands, however, there is no room for the difficulty aimed at in the captious question to which we have been replying; for the Church's approbation is confined to the DOCTRINES contained in the Homilies, and to those, of course, our assent is limited too. So that we may with a safe conscience, differ from the writers in the weight to be assigned to an authority quoted by them, or in the force of any argument that they may urge. We may consider the hortatory part of a Homily as unskilfultoo warm or too cold; and the vituperative deficient, or in excess, and yet feel no apprehensions that we are violating the spirit or even the terms of our subscription to the Articles.

Our readers are now in possession of the reply which we would make to the question, "What is the kind and degree of authority given by the Church of England to the Books of Homilies?" They see that we consider the kind the same as that assigned to the Articles and (if we understand the distinction intended) the degree only so much below that assigned to these, as necessarily follows,

• Hooker.

in the way that we have pointed out, from the difference of the two documents: We consider them fully authenticated declarations of the doctrines of our church--and that by her recording her approbation of them, and exacting our assent to it, they are essentially distinguished from all those works of our early Reformers, (however useful and venerable,) which she has not avowed as containing her views of doctrine, or obliged us to subscribe to as agreeing with ours. Under this conviction, whenever we have desired to acquaint an enquirer with the principles of the Church of England, we have never hitherto hesitated to direct him to the source whence our own knowledge of them was derived-to her Articles, her Homilies, and her Liturgy. We have advised him to read her Articles for authoritative enunciations of her doctrines, her Homilies for authoritative expositions of them-and to seek in her Liturgy that acquaintance with her rites and discipline of which it is the fit authority; and to study there too, the faithful portraiture of her sober, but fervent, spirit of devotion, which its pure, and tender, and rich offerings, at the throne of the heavenly grace, are so admirably fitted to supply.

In this, in the innocency of our heart, we would have imagined ourselves performing the part of true and obedient sons of the Church of England. But we learn from the books before us that we are in one important particular altogether wrong—that in assigning this place and office to the Homilies we are acting as INNOVATORS and SECTARIES :—

"Thus much, however, I will venture to affirm, that, in the best and purest ages, from the Reformation downward, of the English Church, the Homilies were regarded but as plain discourses, well suited, at the time when they were set forth, for the instruction of the people, in places where, from want of ability, or want of license, sermons could not be preached by the officiating ministers; and the notion of accounting those discourses to be authoritative Church-documents, and rules or standards of belief, is a perfect novelty,-introduced by sectaries, who thought, but thought erroneously, that their own peculiar sentiments might derive a sanction, from those venerable, but, in some respects, obsolete formularies. Bishop of Limerick, p. 21.

"The Books of Homilies stand on quite another footing, than the Book of Articles, and the Book of Common Prayer. Ibid.

Now if we were unable to shew that this strong assertion of his Lordship is not quite as exact as it is large and positive, we will not say that we would abandon* "the notion" to which he has

* It will be seen that we do not very curiously weigh the exact force of each of the phrases used by the Bishop of Limerick-" authoritative Church documents," "rules of belief," and "standards of belief," but understanding by all of them, documents to which the Church is pledged by adoption and distinct recognition; her members by the duty they owe her, and her ministers additionally by subscription, we care not which of them we use to express our "notion" of the Homilies. We say this to avoid any logomachy, which might arise from our jumbling the above terms a little in the course of our arguments, which, adhering pretty closely to the sense just assigned, we have not been solicitious to avoid.

assigned so recent an origin. The view which we have adopted seems so directly and fairly derived from the acts and the language of our Church, that no objection of this description could materially weaken our confidence in it. We should on the contrary attribute our inability to overthrow, or at least considerably reduce his Lordship's assertion, to our limited acquaintance with the writings in which a contradiction of it might be found. Still though our views might remain unchanged, we would feel that their reception with others would be greatly affected by such an objection in limine. It would be an awkward objection, indeed, to any views, that if they be true, it was reserved for our times to fix the character of a book which our Church has enjoyed the possession of for nearly three centuries, and to ascertain the meaning of a simple sentence which has been read and weighed and subscribed by hundreds of educated persons every year of that long period. We acknowledge ourselves, therefore, interested in removing the objection, or at least diminishing its force. And we are too sensible of the disadvantages under which our simple assertion in opposition to the Bishop of Limerick's would lie, to leave the decision of the matter to such a comparison. But before we produce our authorities, we would premise, that our readers are by no means to expect in them, a regular series from the earliest period of the reformation to the present time. We think that such a series might be furnished by persons better able to conduct the search, and better circumstanced for the prosecution of it. But it was by no means necessary for our purpose, and want of leisure and of books, confines us to a much less ambitious proceeding. We only desire, that as we do not claim credit for any authorities which we do not produce, upon any notion of ours that such might easily be had-so, that we

As connected with this subject, we may give the following remarks from Dr. Elrington:

"I cannot accuse Mr. Graves of intentional fallacy, I am satisfied he is above it, but certainly nothing can have been more unfortunate to his success as a disputant, than this inattention to the distinction between words as used by the Bishop of Limerick, for it sets aside the greater part of his pamphlet. The Bishop of Limerick maintains that the Homilies are not authoritative, Mr. Graves labours through many a weary page, to prove, what no man in his senses could deny, that they are authorized. A Brief to be read in Churches for charitable purposes, is authorized, an Act of Parliament is authoritative; in like manner the Homilies are authorized, the Articles are authoritative.

The distinction here laid down, is doubtless very intelligible, and perhaps, in some cases important, but that it is of much moment in the present, we cannot persuade ourselves. If it be once determined, that a document is fully authorized, it appears to us, that the question whether it be authoritative, is to be settled from an examination of its own nature; that is, by being authorized it becomes authoritative, as far as it claims to be so. And, without reasoning the matter in a way needlessly general, it would seem that a document containing statements of doctrines and explanations of them, from its very nature claims assent, and that by being authorized for the purpose of public instruction, assent is secured to it, as far as the source authorizing is competent to secure it. Lest, however, some should continue to disagree with us, we remind our readers that our argument does not depend on this mode of conferring authority.