Homilie 2:21 and 1:10

Discussion in 'Theology and Doctrine' started by AnglicanAgnostic, May 2, 2019.

  1. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    180
    Likes Received:
    57
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    Here are some edited highlights from these two Homilies.


    AN HOMILIE AGAINST

    disobedience and wilfull

    rebellion The second book of homilies XX1

    As in reading of the holy Scriptures, we shall finde in very many and almost infinite places, as well of the olde Testament, as of the new, that Kings and Princes, as well the euill as the good, doe raigne by Gods ordinance, and that subiects are bounden to obey them (Psalms 18.50, 20.6, 21.2, Proverbs 8.15-16): that GOD doth giue Princes wisedome, great power, and authority:


    By these two places of the holy Scriptures, it is most euident that Kings, Queenes, and other Princes ( for hee speaketh of authoritie and power, be it in men or women) are ordeined of GOD, are to bee obeyed and honoured of their subiects: that such subiects, as are disobedient or rebellious against their Princes, disobey GOD, and procure their owne damnation



    so hath hee constituted, ordeyned, and set earthly Princes ouer particular Kingdomes and Dominions in earth (Ecclesiasticus 17)


    But whereas indeede a rebell is worse then the worst prince, and rebellion worse then the worst gouernement of the worst prince that hitherto hath beene: both rebels are vnmeete ministers, and rebellion an vnfit and vnwholsome medicine to reforme any small lackes in a prince, or to cure any little griefes in gouernment,

    ( 1st book of Homilies X)
    Here let vs marke well, and remember that the high power and authoritie of Kinges, with their making of lawes, iudgements and offices, are the ordinances not of man, but of GOD: and therefore is this word (through mee) so many times repeated. Here is also well to bee considered and remembred, that this good order is appointed by GODS wisedome, fauour, and loue, especially for them that loue GOD, and therefore hee sayth, I loue them that loue mee.



    I could go on (and some people probably think I do).

    I don't know how some people especially Americans from Moderators down can live with themselves if they support the ideals of the American rebellion of the later 18th century in the light of these godly homilies. Especially as they had treaties with Louis as king of France to help them, which is against the BoCP.
     
  2. Phoenix

    Phoenix Moderator Staff Member Anglican

    Posts:
    89
    Likes Received:
    91
    Since I was invoked, I suppose I will venture for an answer: these homilies are indeed godly, even for those of us who support the American rebellion, because we all share the spirit of the Homilies, even if we may disagree with the letter in some cases. The spirit is a godly subjection to political authority. The letter is a godly subjection to the divine right of kings, which is a political theory, and not a matter of faith proper.

    The cases where it is acceptable to disagree with the letter of the homilies relate to matters outside of Faith proper: such as politics, or events of the day from the 16th century. Events of the day pass one into another. Political theory changes, and is not a matter of salvation. The aspects that relate to politics or issues of the day from the 16th century we may pass over, while still retaining a righteous and pious affection for the Homilies and the godly spirit contained therein, affirming that they as a whole do very much contain godly doctrine.
     
  3. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    180
    Likes Received:
    57
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    Ok I will begrudgingly admit the possibilty of this :hmm:. But I will still maintain it is in contravention of the BoCP ( not the Homilies) have treaties with Louis as King of France. :o
     
  4. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    180
    Likes Received:
    57
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    Ok: I've changed my mind a bit, as the wiki link from the official Anglican website says; " Each homily is heavily annotated with references to holy scripture, the Church Fathers and other primary sources.". So I will trawl (or is it troll) through the scriptural references and hopefully get back to you.

    Come on you lot, isn't anyone going to bite about this statement of mine,
    " But I will still maintain it is in contravention of the BoCP ( not the Homilies) to have treaties with Louis as King of France.
     
  5. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,045
    Likes Received:
    765
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    Maybe I am just too thick, so can you expand further? I am trying to see a potential opposition between the BoCP and having treatise with Louis as King of Farnce
     
  6. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    180
    Likes Received:
    57
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    Ok Thanks for asking and I'm sure it wasn't prompted :D .
    In my 1662 BoCP immediately after Article 39 it says

    "THIS Book of Articles before rehearsed, is again approved, and allowed to be holden and executed within the Realm, by the assent and consent of our Sovereign Lady ELIZABETH, by the grace of God, of England, France, and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, &c."

    Yes I know every one misses the fine print- Elizabeth is by the Grace of God, Sovereign of France (Yes France) and if Elizabeth was sovereign of France then later on Louis wasn't.

    Cause for thought isn't it?
     
  7. Fr. Brench

    Fr. Brench Member Anglican

    Posts:
    32
    Likes Received:
    25
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
  8. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    180
    Likes Received:
    57
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    You're onto it. Yes we did give up on the claim 1800/1801 probably because we couldn't fight to restore the French monarchy while claiming it was ours anyway. ( Gosh am I the only one that feels sorry for the French not having our monarch).

    My concern is where does this issue leave you "Anglican Badgers". Do you have to assent to Elizabeth I of England being Queen of France as well? Do you still have to assent to the monarch being monarch of France today, as "oathers" may be stuck in a 1662 world.
     
  9. Phoenix

    Phoenix Moderator Staff Member Anglican

    Posts:
    89
    Likes Received:
    91
    As you say, the notes which talk about political succession stand outside the Articles of Religion proper. Therefore they are not, and have never been, a direct object of religious subscription. Political authority was established through another instrument, the Oath of Supremacy, which is not required on this forum.

    As discussed previously, matters of political and temporal order involve questions of mutable/changing political theory, and thus stand outside of immutable doctrine.

    Thus how all this relates to the “Anglican Badgers.”
     
  10. AnglicanAgnostic

    AnglicanAgnostic Active Member

    Posts:
    180
    Likes Received:
    57
    Country:
    New Zealand
    Religion:
    none
    I'm not saying the French issue is part of the 39 articles per se but it comes under the
    " consent to all, and every thing contained, and prescribed in, and by the Book intituled, The Book of Common Prayer "
    part of the oath. Does this still apply?

    The "political and temporal order" issue seems to have been removed from the Homilies, now the B.o.C.P. , will it be removed from Scripture:o

    Maybe I do some of your revolutionary leaders a disservice. In 1775 Bostonian leaders (and possibly BoCP and Homily believers) to assuage there consciences invited Prince Charles Edward Stuart to be a figurehead of a provisional American government . As Fr Brench's link says he never relinguished his claim to the French throne.
     

Share This Page