Talk:Anglican Doctrine

Archelator recently added the Second Book of Homilies to the list of formularies

In order to maintain an unbiased tone in line with the aim of this wiki, and the given definition of formularies as "an officially authorized doctrinal or liturgical standard which expresses the teaching of the Church", the Second Book of Homilies should not be listed as formularies. The Court of Arches Declaration of 19 November 1838 on Breeks vs Woolfrey: “it is not to be necessarily inferred that the Church of England adopted every part of the doctrines contained in the Homilies.” and The Lambeth Conference of 1888: “It is true that the English Church possesses a body of teaching in the Book of Common Prayer, in the Catechism, and in the Thirty-nine Articles, to say nothing of the Book of Homilies. But these repositories of teaching, precious as they are, do not appear to the Committee to possess the qualities which ought to belong to a declaration, such as is contemplated in the remarks now made.”

Additionally, numerous early Anglican authors witness to this fact that they are not formularies, such as Laud, Montagu, Bramhall, Cosin, Ellis, Davenport, Heylyn, Beveridge, Burnet, Collier, Hey, Zouch, White, Knox, Laurence, Jebb etc.

Therefore, whilst the Second Book of Homilies do demonstrate a doctrine permissible in the Church of England, they are not dogmatic statements and should not be listed (without proper qualification) on the same level as the Articles, BCP etc.

As Archelator changed it back, and pointed to the articles, I thought it would be useful to give some quotations (remember we are to subscribe wholly to the articles and BCP):

“There is nothing against me, till it be proved (which is not yet done,) that I have positively denied the pope to be antichrist. And, secondly, I do not conceive that the article of the Church of England, which confirms the homilies, doth also confirm every phrase that is in them. Nor thirdly, do I conceive that the homilies in those places which are cited, do make the pope the great antichrist.” - Archbishop William Laud

“The Church of England condemneth not the historical use of Images. The Book of Homilies contains a general godly doctrines yet is it not in every point the publick, dogmatical, resolved doctrine of the Church. The Homily that seemeth to condemn all making of Images, is to be understood with a restriction of making them to an unlawful end. Many passages therein were fitted to the present times, and to the conditions of the people that then were. The final resolution of this controversy. I willingly admit the Homilies as containing certain godly and wholesome exhortations to move the people to honour and worship Almighty God; but not as the public dogmatical resolutions confirmed of the Church of England. The XXXIII. Article giveth them to contain godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times: which they may do, though they have not dogmatical positions, or doctrine to be propounded and subscribed in all and every point; as the Books of Articles and of Common Prayer have. They may seem, secondly, to speak somewhat too hardly, and stretch some sayings beyond the use and practice of the Church of England, both then and now: and yet what they speak may receive a fair, or at least a tolerable construction and mitigation enough.” - Bishop Richard Montagu

“It seems that the author of the homilies wrote them in haste, and the Church did wisely to reserve this authority of correcting them, and setting forth others: for they have many scapes in them in special, though they contain in general many wholesome lessons for the people; in which sense our ministers do subscribe unto them, and in no other.” “The Homilies are popular Sermons, and though it be very true, that they contain and set forth in general “a godly and wholesome doctrine, necessary both for those times,” wherein they were made, and for these times of ours besides, yet will not that necessity go so far, as to make every particular word, and every popular or free expression in those Homilies, to be the strict and determinate doctrine of the Church, whereunto all men are tied to subscribe, and hold them every one, no less than the Articles themselves: for then you and I, and all others of our profession, shall be bound to believe and teach, as the determinate doctrine of our Church, that Nebuchadnezzar was “a beast, and went upon four legs?” that “S. Ambrose excommunicated Theodosius the Emperor,” and that, being so excommunicate or given over to the Devil, he was “to be shunned and avoided by all good men:” which words I presume you would rather excuse, as popular declamations, and excesses of speech, than admit them for the positive and necessary doctrines of the Church of England. And yet, notwithstanding these words, we are all bound to subscribe to the general aim and doctrine of those Homilies, wherein they are found, that it was and is behoveful for the times.” - Bishop John Cosin

“There are many things in the Homilies worthy of all praise; other matters neither please us nor the more learned among them. Nor are Protestants, because of these words in the Article, directly bound to hold every word or sentence in the Homilies; for, as was said long since by Turrecremata, when the Church herself approves the works of certain doctors, it is not therefore to be understood that everything contained in those works is approved, as in the Constitutions of the Sixth Synod the works of certain doctors were approved, as is read in the Decrees, dist. 15; but the synod did not approve every word and clause, as the doctors agree. This opinion, too, the Parisian doctors most exactly set forth in explaining the Bull of Urban V., approving the doctrine of St. Thomas, in which he wrote to those of Toulouse, that ‘his doctrine ought to be held to be well expressed and Catholic. But the Parisians say that the approbation aforesaid is not universal, but implies that the doctrine is useful and in many things probable.’ Those things therefore which savour of sound doctrine should prudently be read by the people, the rest should be neglected.” - Christopher Davenport

“This Sacrifice or oblation, once for ever made, and never more to be repeated, was, by our Saviour’s own appointment, to be commemorated and represented to us, for the better quickening of our faith: whereof, if there be nothing said in the Book of Articles, it is because the Articles related chiefly unto points in controversy; but in the Book of Homilies, which do relate unto the Articles, as confirmed in them, and are (though not dogmatical, but rather popular discourses,) a comment, as it were, on those points of doctrine, which are determined of elsewhere, we find it thus &c.” - Peter Heylyn

“In these Homilies the Scriptures are often applied as they were then understood and not so critically as, they have been explained since that time. But by this approbation of the two Books of Homilies, it is not meant that every passage of Scripture, or argument that is made use of in them, is always convincing, or that every expression is so severely worded, that it may not need a little correction or explanation: All that we profess about them, is only that they contain a godly and wholesome doctrine.” This rather relates to the main importance and design of them, than to every passage in them. Though this may be said concerning them, that considering the age they were written in, the imperfection of our language, and some lesser defects, they are two very extraordinary Books. Some of them are better writ than others, and are equal to any thing that has been writ upon those subjects since that time. Upon the whole matter, every one who subscribes the Articles, ought to read them, otherwise he subscribes a blank; he approves a book implicitly, and binds himself to read it, as he may be required, without knowing any thing concerning it. This approbation is not to be stretched so far, as to carry in it a special assent to every particular in that whole volume; but a man must be persuaded of the main of the doctrine that is taught in them.” - Bishop Gilbert Burnet

etc.

Article 28 only binds us to hold that they "contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine", and not that every part of them is dogmatical, as has already been formally decided upon by the Court of Arches. Therefore, they should not be listed as of the same authority of the BCP, Articles, Ordinal. Numerous works "contain a godly and wholesome doctrine", but this does not mean that every single part is to be considered a godly and wholesome doctrine.

Again, I would like to emphasise the goal of this wiki of to retain an unbiased tone and making proper qualifications where there is disagreement between those with "legitimate diversity".