Peter McCullough (ed.), Lancelot Andrewes: Selected Sermons and Lectures

Contents
Find Location in text

Main Text

pg 243APPENDIX 1 St. Paul's Cathedral MS 38F22.01, fos. 51r–67r

Notes Settings

Notes

Editor’s Note
Text.
St Paul's Cathedral MS 38F22.01 (see below), hereafter SPMS, fos. 51r–67r.The text presented here is a conservative transcription of the manuscript which preserves its orthography and spelling. Conventional contractions are expanded in square brackets. Scribal overstrikes are preserved, and interlinear additions and corrections are enclosed by carets. Folio numbers (added in the MS in a modern hand) are inserted in the text in boldface square brackets.
SPMS contents and description.
SPMS was unknown to modern scholars until discovered in 2004 by Dr Mary Morrissey. It is a small (258 × 175 mm) vellum-bound volume of 67 leaves titled (on its cover in a contemporary hand) '1588 | 4. Sermons viz: Dr Bright on good Fryday 5 Apr: 1588 at P: Crosse | Etc.'. Its contents are as follows: 'A sermon preached at Paules crosse on Good=fridaye Aprilis 5. 1588. By M[aster] Bright' (1r–16v); 'A sermon preached at the Spittell one mundaye in Easter week Aprilis 8 1588. By M[aster] Doct: Bisse' (fos. 17r–34r); 'A sermon preached at the Spittell one Tewesdaye in Easter weeke 1588 Aprilis 9 by M[aster] Doctor Powell' (fos. 35r–50r);and 'A sermon preached at the spittle by M[aster] Andrewes the Wednesday in Easter weeke. April. 10. 1588' (fos. 51r–67r). The front paste-down bears the bookplate of 'The Earl of Westmoreland 1856' and a nineteenth-century St Paul's bookplate.
The volume was compiled exclusively for the texts it contains, and is not an occasional miscellany. There are no leaves without text, and each is carefully pricked in pencil for lineation, and all margins are double-ruled with red ink. The entire volume is written in the same fair secretary hand, with italic script used for most patristic and biblical quotations. There is no marginal apparatus or later marginalia. All texts in SPMS are clearly copies of anterior witnesses, evidenced by the fact that all of the scribal corrections in it are incidental copying errors, rather than substantive emendations. Uniformity of orthography and spelling across these texts by four different preachers (e.g. the idiosyncratic preference throughout of 'one' for 'on', and 'to' for 'too') possibly suggests that the original witnesses were not prepared by their authors, but by a single recorder who took the sermons down as they were preached. However, the amount of verbal and structural detail shared by XCVI and A1 seems too great to be entirely possible even by a skilled recorder. Yet, several passages contain unambiguous instances of temporal verisimilitude, the most striking of which is Powell's admission, 'I shold now enter into the mattere it selfe but I am warned by those that stand behind me that the tyme is past, which will not suffer me to enter into it and my strength will not hold out' (fo. 45v)—obviously a remark to be found only in a transcript of the text as delivered, rather than as prepared.
The editor, after consultation with Dr Morrissey, would suggest that the texts in SPMS might derive from transcripts of the sermons—as they had been actually delivered—made (after delivery) by their authors. This would most probably have been done for the use of the rehearser, Dr Thomas Holland, whose job it would have been to summarize on the Sunday after Easter the previous three sermons and then to preach his own sermon about them. A Jacobean Spital preacher, Thomas Goff ac knowledged what must have been common practice, his 'courteous imparting of my notes to him [the rehearser] many dayes before' to assist the latter's work (Deliverance from the Grave (1627), sigs. A2rV; the editor is grateful to Dr Morrissey for this reference). That preachers were capable of preparing, after the fact, very exact transcripts of what they had said from the pulpit is demonstrated in the Jacobean cases of John Burgess and John Donne, both of whom were required to produce, after delivery, texts of exactly what they had preached for them to be scrutinized by the authorities (see McCullough, Sermons at Court, 141–7, and Donne, Sermons, vii. 39–42). The theory that these texts were prepared for Holland's use might be further suggested by the fact that only Holland's rehearsal sermon is missing from A1; however the marginal note to Bisse's sermon about Holland's (fo. 29v) casts some doubt on this theory. Perhaps A1 is a copy of what was prepared originally for Holland but then desired by another party. What can be positively concluded, however, on the evidence of the two texts of the Andrewes sermon (discussed below), is that A1 preserves the 1588 Spital sermons as they were preached, not as they might have been prepared to be preached.
The Sermons Other than Andrewes's.
The Good Friday sermon for Paul's Cross (fos. 1r–16v) is by 'M[aster] Bright' ('D[octor] Bright' on the front cover)—probably Arthur Bright, MA (Cantab) 1576, DD 1589, Rector of Castle Camps, Cambs. (1585–90), and subsequently Rector of St Botolph's Bishopsgate and prebend of St Paul's (1590; d. 1618) (Venn)—is on Rev. 5: 6–10 (the adoration of the Lamb by the 24 Elders). It is a workmanlike moralization of the vision. It is striking, however, for its forceful appeal to uniformity in worship ('some stand either altogeather, or to much for preachinge agaynst prayer, some contrariwise stand altogeather for preach prayer and are to much agaynst preachinge, some will have all preachinge & no prayer, some will have all prayer and no preachinge', fo. 10r). In particular, Bright decries the lack of uniformity in ceremonial gesture, 'yet now adayes it is taken for a token that a man hath well p[ro]fited in hearinge the word of God if he can be present at preachinge & prayers & shew no outward signe of reverence, no vncoveringe of the head, no knelinge, no standinge vp … many will come into the church even vp to the pulpitt & so depart agayne never vncoveringe ther heads, others will be vncovered at sermon yet covered at prayers' (fo. 10v). On both matters, Bright presses the same points in the same terms as Andrewes in his catechistical lectures in Cambridge (1585) and throughout his later career (cf. 'Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine', this edn., pp. 31–48). The sermon also contains an apologia for Psalm-singing in churches, and suggests that a collection for the redemption of captives was taken at the sermon (fos. 11r, 15v).
'M[aster] D[octor] Bisse'—probably Dr Philip Bisse, Archdeacon of Taunton (d. 1613, Foster)—preached on Easter Monday on Matt. 13: 27–30 (the parable of the tares). Clearly aimed at the presbyterian classis movement and puritanism more generally, his sermon is a forceful rejection of those who 'forsake & leave the church … or seeke such a puritye of the church as that all these evils might be ridde out of it' (fo. 18r). Bisse argued that the presence of the wicked within the church militant was a fact of its life from the time of the Apostles (citing Judas), and that it was Christ's business alone—at Judgement—to separate the wheat from the tares. Bisse admitted that there were various sorts of wickedness sown by Satan in the Church of England, but anatomized these to show what lessons the godly could learn from their negative example. Passim, he refuted accusations by Catholics that justification sola fide led to a dearth of works of charity (fos. 27rv), called for a greater commitment to clerical residency and frequent preaching (fos. 29r–30v), decried the sin of simony (fos. 30v–31r), and made the conventional appeals to City charity for the poor and the redemption of captives (fos. 26r–27r).
'M[aster] Doctor Powell'—either Dr William Powell, formerly rector of All Hallows Bread Street, and then Archdeacon of Bath; or Dr David Powell (d. 1598), canon of St Asaph (Foster, ODNB)—took as his text for Easter Tuesday James 1: 26–7, the famous apostolic definition of true religion as works of charity. Powell did little to control the text's potential applicability against sola fideism. Indeed, on this infamously controverted point he said only, 'every one shalbe encoraged to doe good, and lett vs never stand to dispute with the papists concerninge meritts and good workes, let me have care to serve God and to doe good to my breathren, and then if the lord shall give me salvation what is that to me, whether he give it me for desart or for of his free mercye these are but triffles, & are not to be stood one, lett vs goe one in good workes' (fo. 50r). Significantly, of the two preceding sermons, it is Powell's that Andrewes singles out for special commendation (main text, p. 66, l. 37; A1, p. 261, ll. 9–10). On the spiritual as well as the social benefits of good works, Powell's conclusion is strikingly similar to Andrewes's: 'wherby we consecrate & vowe our selves in Godlines to God, to serve him in holines, and in righteousnes to our neighboures wherin lastly we have p[ro]mises in this life, and also of the ioyes of the life to come, here is the matter forme efficient and finall cause of religion' (fo. 46v).
Andrewes's Sermon.
A nineteenth-century hand has entered in the right margin of the first page of Andrewes's text (fo. 51r), 'Note. A remarkable circumstance this being the original Sermon differs materialy from the one in print. See Bp. Andrews Sermons pt. 2. page 1.' The text of A1 does indeed depart significantly from that of XCVI (hereafter, references to this text are by line number as presented in this edition). But the differences are in matter cut or condensed from the latter in the former, not in the presence of anything substantially different between the two. It is this editor's summary judgement that XCVI gives the text as it was prepared to be preached, and that A1 is a transcript of what Andrewes was actually heard to say on the day, when, presumably because of pressures of time, he made cuts during delivery.
In the first instance, A1 contains nothing not in the structure and argument of XCVI, except for minor variations in exempla and diction which are entirely consistent with the delivery of a prepared text from memory. Thus, for example, XCVI's 'So hath the King of Kings His Lawes and Statutes, His Precepts and Commissions by authority delegate' (p. 42, ll. 3–4) was recorded in A1 (p. 244, ll. 4–5) as, 'so the lord of lords hath his lawes & statutes Rom. 7. his p[re]cepts and commissions.' The epithet 'King of Kings' is replaced by a logical cognate ('lord of lords'); the scriptural reference to Romans is articulated where in the printed text it sits silently in the margin; and the qualifying prepositional phrase 'by authority delegate' is forgotten. Many passages in A1 preserve the same arguments as XCVI, but do so in drastically abbreviated form. One section (A1 p. 259, ll. 8–38) contains the same exempla as XCVI (p. 62, l. 1p. 63, l. 2), but in a completely different order. Often what is lost in this category of changes (condensations and rearrangements of XCVI) is the verbal play for which Andrewes is famous. For example, although the key terms 'venture' and 'assurance' are present in A1 (p. 253), lost through abbreviation is XCVI's rich thematic wordplay on the same mercantile terminology (p. 53). Also notable are the frequent instances of A1 occluding what in XCVI are sharp changes of topic signalled in print by paragraph breaks. Compare, for example, A1 (p. 258, ll. 15–19),
we must glory of nothing for that we have nothing or o[ur] owne, neither must we trust any thing, for that we have nothing of o[ur]selves, let vs trust in god that giveth all things to every one to enioy, for it is the great goodnes of god that not only giveth vs all things to have them, but it is the same goodnes of god that giveth vs to enioy them …
with XCVI (p. 61, ll. 6–10),
we must glorie of nothing, for that we have nothing of our owne; neither must we trust any thing, for that we have nothing of our owne.
That giveth us all things to enjoy:] Not onely to have, but to enjoy. For, so to have them, that we have no joy of them …
A1 not only misses the paragraph break, but runs the argument of the two into a single sentence, presumably because the preacher did not, as in the prepared text, clearly begin a new argument by re-quoting the relevant portion of his scriptural text ('That giveth us all things to enjoy'). These changes of abbreviation could reflect any combination of three things: (1) the 'filter' of a note-taker; (2) abbreviation by Andrewes during delivery because of time constraints; or (3) a hasty post-delivery reconstruction by Andrewes. Similarly, any of these might also have resulted in the absence in A1 of the more nuanced wordplay and unusual diction in XCVI (compare the absence in A1 of the majority of unique usages documented above in the Headnote to the XCVI text).
As a final point on the minor departures between A1 and XCVI, it should be noted that very occasionally A1 contains exempla not found in XCVI. These are, however, minor additions that only elaborate points already present in XCVI, and which probably simply occurred to the preacher on the spot. The best examples of this are the addition (A1, pp. 247–8) of Philip of Macedon and Philip of Spain as further anecdotal evidence of military commanders who hire mercenaries (XCVI, p. 45, l. 40), and the detailed application in A1 (p. 262) of the papal bull Regnans in Excelsis and the assassination of William of Orange as examples of papal treachery. These are only obliquely touched in XCVI (p. 71).
The most significant differences between the two texts, however, are in the passages completely absent from (rather than merely condensed in) A1. These fall into three categories. First, there is a consistent omission throughout A1 of summary recapitulations of arguments found at the end of paragraphs in XCVI. These are documented in Appendix 2. Second, there are three drastic omissions of entire sections from the latter portion of the XCVI text (p. 65, l. 16p. 66, l. 4; p. 69, l. 14p. 71, l. 11; p. 73, l. 8p. 79, 1. 33), and, third, what is essentially a recomposition of the sermon's conclusion.
That the major cuts come in the last third of the sermon suggests that Andrewes abandoned them because of the constraint of time when in the pulpit. Powell had found himself in a similar situation (see above), but Andrewes perhaps tacitly abbreviated his sermon rather than (as Powell) admitting vocally that he was being tapped on the back and urged to bring matters to an end. The first cut (XCVI, 65–6) simply reduces the number of exempla used to define 'what is it to do good?' However, the choice of these, rather than others, may have been ideologically prompted. The missing matter includes the sermon's most stinging rebuke of City magnates' patronage of puritanism in its sarcastic warning that such persons should not dare to criticize lazy clergy as long as they themselves were lazy with their riches.
That the two other passages missing in A1 were intended for delivery, and not added in a later revision, is strongly suggested by the fact that the divisios of both sermons include them. The first omission (XCVI, 69–71), on the 'quality' of good works, should follow logically from the preceding treatment of the 'quantity' of good works, as advertised in both divisios as the second part of the second 'affirmative' charge to do good works (XCVI, p. 41, ll. 21–4; A1, p. 244, ll. 7–10). In the body of A1, however, Andrewes departs from his divisio by first withholding the discussion of the 'quantity' of works (XCVI, p. 68, l. 3p. 69, l. 14) and completely excising the discussion of their 'quality' (p. 69, l. 14p. 71, l. 11). A1 instead contains only the application of works to 'the church' (XCVI, p. 71, l. 12p. 73, l. 7); A1, p. 261, l. 37–p. 262, l. 40), and then inserts the now repositioned passages on the 'quantity' of works (XCVI, p. 68, l. 3p. 69, l. 14; A1, p. 262, l. 40–p. 263, l. 32).
Immediately after the repositioned material on works' 'quantity' comes the largest omission in A1 (of XCVI, p. 73, l. 8–p. 72, l. 33). This eliminates the entire concluding portion of the sermon which had been announced in both divisios: the 'reason' (XCVI) or 'occasion' (A1) of doing good works, that laying up the 'foundation' of good works leads to 'the end' of obtaining 'eternall life' (XCVI, p. 41, ll. 25–27; A1, p. 244, ll. 10–12). That is, A1 omits discussion of the third and final verse of the preacher's announced and divided text (1 Tim. 6: 19). As suggested, the omission of the final part of a sermon strongly suggests the preacher's need to abbreviate because of time running short. But it is also certainly significant that the portion cut is by far the most theologically avant-garde, and thus controversial, part of the prepared (XCVI) text. Without this, A1 reads like a far more conventional exhortation to good works as a duty of the faithful, and loses entirely the more radical arguments which hint at the role of works in the economy of salvation. Andrewes may indeed have run out of time, having planned to elaborate a position on works even more avant-garde than that ventured by Powell. But Andrewes might also have chosen on the day to keep mum, especially if Powell's remarks on the Tuesday had raised eyebrows, or worse.
The conclusions of the two texts are similar, but reflect the changes Andrewes seems to have had to make between the version preserved in XCVI, and that in A1. The controlling conceit of both is the fear of hearing the apostle's 'charge' not in this life, or from a preacher, but from Christ himself at Judgement. However, the final paragraph of A1 differs entirely from that of XCVI because it packs into its short space the images and arguments of works as a 'foundation' for life in heaven—precisely the material treated in extenso in the body of the XCVI text but cut in delivery. This new conclusion, therefore, was either a chance to make points, however briefly, that time had not allowed; or, it was a case of having deliberately saved potentially controversial language for the relative safety of the very few last minutes before leaving the pulpit. The absence of a concluding prayer in A1 is most likely either because the note-taker stopped when the sermon did, or, if the text was prepared by Andrewes for the rehearser, because it was not an integral part of the sermon itself and therefore not of importance for his rehearsal purposes.
logo-footer Copyright © 2018. All rights reserved.
Access is brought to you by Log out