Going places

Usually I live a sedentary life and don’t like going places, other than the daily hour each way commute. I do love going to Annapolis and D.C., and other locales around here, but I generally need to do other things, and don’t get out all the time like when we first moved here. But this week, we went to King’s Dominon, an amusement park, for all of one day. Then tonight we are going to see the Nationals play, and I’m excited to see their new ballpark.  I’ve become a Nats fan since our move here coincided with their first season, and it’s hard to root for the Twins from a distance eternally. Yes, the Nats are bad, but they’ll get better.

Finally, we are going to the snooty and pretentious Gold Cup on Saturday. My company gets a tent there, so it will be fun to get out and see the horses, and the 60,000 people in hats. I do have a seersucker suit that I purchased for the occasion, so I should fit right in.

Baptism and Eucharist – by the book

Writing in 1571, the Archbishop of York Edmund Grindall said:

“…for the ministration of the communion bread, they should not deliver it unto the people into their mouths, but into their hands; nor should use at the ministration of the communion, any gestures, rites, or ceremonies, not appointed by the book of common prayer; as crossing, or breathing over the sacramental bread or wine; nor any showing or lifting up of the same to the people, to be by them worshiped or adored, nor any such like; nor should they use any oil, or chrism, tapers, spittle, or any other [Roman Catholic] ceremony in the ministration of the sacrament of baptism.”

Images in the Church of England 3.5

Archbishop Tenison, before his promotion to Canterbury, wrote a treatise on Idolatry, in which he says:

“But for the images or pictures of the saints in their former estate on earth; if they be made with discretion; if they be the representations of such whose saintship no wise man calleth into question; if they be designed as their honorable memorials, they who are wise to sobriety do make use of them; and they are permitted in Geneva itself where remain in the choir of the Church of St. Peter, the pictures of the twelve prophets one side, and on the other those of the twelve apostles, all in wood; also the pictures of the Virgin and St. Peter in one of the windows. And we give to such pictures that negative honor which they are worthy of. We value them beyond any images besides that of Christ: we help our memories by them; we forebear all signs of contempt towards them. But worship them we do not, so much as with external positive sign: for if we uncover the head, we do it not to them, but at them, to the honor of God who hath made them so great instruments in the Christian Church; and to subordinate praise of the saints themselves. (Archbishop Tenison on Idolatry, chap. xii. pt. 2, p. 297)

Archbishop Wake, in that part of his answer to the Bishop of Meaux which is called “An answer to the fourth article of Images and Relics,” section 1, “Of the Benefit of Pictures and Images” (Gibson’s Preservative against Popery, vol. iii. tit. ix. p. 217), observes:

“(3.) Were the benefits of images never so great, yet you know this is neither that which we dispute with you, nor for which they are set up in your churchs. Your Trent Synod expressly defines that due veneration is to be paid to them. Your catechism says that they are to be had not only for instruction but for worship. And this is the point in controversy betwixt us. We retain pictures, and sometimes even images too in our churches for ornament, and (if there be such uses to be made of them) for all the other benefits you have now been mentioning. Only we deny that any service is to be paid to them; or any solemn prayers to be made at their consecration, for any divine virtues, or indeed for any virtues at all, to proceed from them.”

Images in the Church of England 3.4

It is certainly entitled to the greatest respect at my hands, and must be considered as an important precedent with reference to the case before me, from which it is only distinguishable by the facts:
(1) that the images appear to have been painted and not sculptured;
(2) and to have been single detached figures, and not, as in the case before me, part of an historical scene, or, as the Homily terms it, “the process of a story.”

Lastly, I come to Mr. Phillpotts’ final argument as to the discretion which ought to be exercised. I agree with him, that as to questions of this kind the Ecclesiastical Court has a discretion to exercise. Ornaments and structures which it may be proper, all the circumstances considered, to allow in some cases, it may be improper to allow in others. Much of the decoration of a cathedral may be unsuitable in a parish church. I am urged to exercise this judicial discretion adversely to the erection of the reredos in this case, on the ground of the tendency to adopt the usages of Rome, said to be now prevalent, and on the ground that this structure is an approach to such uses. If there be such a tendency I deeply lament it, but I doubt whether the tendency is to be counteracted in the way proposed. I think there is a great danger of doing unintentionally the work of the Church of Rome by denying the Church of England the innocent aid which the arts of painting and sculpture, within due limits, minister to religion. If the use of all things abused by Rome were taken from our Church, she would be very bare. “It must be confessed,” say our 30th Canon, “that in the process of time the sign of the Cross was greatly abused in the Church of Rome, especially after that corruption of Popery had once possessed it; but the abuse of a thing does not take away the use of it.”

“But concerning those our ceremonies,” says Hooker, “which they reckon for most Popish, they are not able to avouch that any of them was otherwise instituted than unto good, yea, so used at the first. It followeth, then, that they all are such as having served to good purpose, were afterwards converted into the contrary. And sith it is not so much as objected against us, that we retain together with them the evil wherewith they have been infected in the Church of Rome, I would demand who they are whom we scandalize, by using harmless thing unto that good end to which they were first instituted.”

The very learned and pious Dr. Donne says: “God, we see, was the first that made images, and he was the first that forbade them. He made them for imitation; He forbade in danger of adoration. For – qualis dementiae est id colere, quod melius est – what a drowsiness, what a laziness, what a cowardliness of the soul is it, to worship that which does but represent a better thing than itself. Worship belongs to the best. Know thou thy distance and thy period, how far to go and where to stop. Dishonor not God by an image in worshipping it, and yet benefit thyself in following it. There is no more danger out of a picture than out of a history, if thou intend no more in either than example.” (Works, vol. v. p. 250, ed. 1839, Sermon cx.)

Images in the Church of England 3.3

I have now to consider the effect of the judgment delivered in the Court of Arches in the year 1684.

It appears that shortly before that time certain parishioners applied for a faculty to put up in painting, as I understand, pictures of the thirteen Apostles in the parish church of Moulton, in the diocese and county of Lincoln, and I think over the Holy Communion Table, abut certainly at the east end. The Surrogate of the Chancellor of Lincoln granted the faculty, but the Chancellor revoked it, and the Bishop, Dr. Thomas Barlow, appears also to have refused his consent. An appeal was prosecuted to the Court of Arches.

As to the Bishop, I learn from Wood that “He was esteemed by those who knew him well to have been a thorough-paced Calvinist, though some of his writings show him to have been a great scholar, profoundly learned both in Divinity and the civil and canon law.” – (Wood’s Athenae Oxonieneses, vol.iv. 335, ed. Bliss.)

He wrote various tracts on “Cases of Conscience,” and among them, A breviate of the case concerning setting up images in the parish church of Moulton. The tract was published contrary to his expressed testamentary wishes, after his death; and the bookseller writes a preface which shows that he clearly misunderstood the proceedings in the Arches; his error appears, as is often the case, to have been perpetuated by copying. It appears again in a paper called the Old Whig, in 1736, and is thence transcribed into a history of the county of Lincoln. Unfortunately at the time of the trial there were no published ecclesiastical reports; but I have been supplied from the records of the Arches Court with a copy of the libel of the appeal, and of the sentence of the Judge. The libel appears to contain, as probably was the case in those days, a summary of the pleadings on both sides in the court below; the case was entitled “Cook and Others v. Tallent.”

Tallent, who was a clergyman, and also a parishoner, objected to the grant of a Faculty “pro erectione sive pictione effigierum apostolorum in ecclesia,” and alleged “that, by the book of Homilies, and more especially by the Homilies against the Peril of Idolatry, and also by the injunctions of King Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth, the painting and setting up the apostles’ effigies in any church or chapel is very dangerous in regard they are superstitious, and do tend to idolatry (as by the said homilies and injunctions to which he refers himself) it doth at large appear. Wherefore he prayed the faculty obtained from the said Court might be pronounced null and void, insomuch as doth related to the setting up of the said effigies.”

It was alleged, on the other hand, by the parishioners, “that the setting up of those pictures was out of an honest and pious intention to beautify the said church, and a work commendable and not to be discountenanced, being not at all repugnant to the injunctions of King Edward the Sixth, Queen Elizabeth, or the Homilies of the Church of England, nor monuments of feigned miracles, nor do any ways tend to superstition.” The statute of Edward the Sixth is not referred to…”That the setting up of the said effigies was no ways offensive to them or any of them, saving only one Thomas Scarlett, who did object against the same as superstitious and idolatrous. Licetque insuper allegaveint that by the opinion and judgment of all orthodox divines the paintings of the effigies of the blest apostles in any church or chapel is not idolatrous or superstitious, but do serve only for ornament, and to put people in remembrance of the holy lives and conversations of those they do represent; and that by the injunctions of Edward the Sixth and the ecclesiastical laws of this land, it is required that all persons and vicars and other ecclesiastical persons shall admonish their parishioners that the same do serve for no other end and purpose; and, therefore, since there is no apparent danger of superstition, the effigies of the holy Apostles in the parish church of Moulton aforesaid may and ought to continue as they are now painted, otherwise it may be of dangerous consequence, since that under such pretended fears of superstition and idolatry most of the churches, chapels, colleges, and other pious and religious places in England may be in danger of being pulled down and demolished, and so in all probability the hatred of idolatry would usher in licentious sacrilege.”

Images in the Church of England 3.2

These wise observations lead me to the consideration of an argument put forward by the appellants, which deserves especial notice.

It is to this effect, that assuming for the sake of argument the letter of Cranmer to be law, and the statute of Edward not merely to prohibit the replacing or retaining of particular images in churches at a particular period, but to contain a general enactment rendering illegal for the future images in all churches; nevertheless even on this assumption the present structure would not fall under the edge of these prohibitions, inasmuch as it is not in the sense of them, an image or a series of images.

The images contemplated in these prohibitions were detached separate images, which, if immovable, might be kissed, decked with robes and jewels, worshipped; if moveable, carried in procession. These are the class of images of which Barrow speaks in his Exposition of the Decalogue, on the Second Commandment. He censures “affording to them the same expressions of reverence and respect, that we do or can present unto God himself, with great solemnity dedicating such images to them, with huge care and cost, decking them, with great semblance of devotion, saluting them, and casting themselves down before them; carrying them in procession, exposing them to the people, and making long pilgrimages to them.”…

But this reredos contains an historical emblematical representation of certain scenes in the history of our redemption, pictures in stone bassi relievi, not of detached figures, but of a particular story. Let me consider this argument; and first, I must express my decided opinion that whether the structure be legal or not, it is in no way distinguishable, having regard either to the principle or to the letter of the prohibitions, from paintings on canvas, or on the wall, or on the windows.

Quite consistently the Homily on the Peril of Idolatry commends Epiphanius, who “rejected not only carved, graven, and molten images, but also painted images out of Christ’s church,” and the bishops who would not allow paintings on cloths or on walls.

It was mainly on this ground that the painted window in St. Margaret’s Church was vehemently, though unsuccessfully, opposed.

The substance of the articles against the churchwardens in that case was “that they had caused to be set up, in defiance of the laws and canons ecclesiastical, a painted glass in the eastern window, over the communion table, whereon is represented by delineation and colors one or more superstitious picture or pictures, and more particularly, the painted image of Christ upon the Cross.”

I do not think that the carved delineations on this reredos are liable to the abuses, the existence of which caused the orders for the removal of images; they are not liable to have candles burnt before them; to be decked with jewels and precious raiment, or to be kissed or worshipped, or treated as workers of false and feigned miracles; I do not think that according to any reasonable probability this stone screen presents any “peril of idolatry” to the frequenters of the church.

I am fortified in this opinion by considerable authority. In “The Homily against the Peril of Idolatry,” I find it stated that the “Bishop of Nola caused the walls of the temple to be painted with stories taken out of the Old Testament, that the people, beholding and considering those pictures, might the better abstain from too much surfeiting and riot.”…”And these” (says the writer) “were the first paintings in churches that were notable of antiquity. And so by this example came in painting, and afterward images of timber and stone, and other matter, into the churches of Christians. Now, if ye well consider this beginning, men are not so read to worship a picture on a wall, or in a window, as an embossed and gilt image, set with pearl and stone. And a process of a story painted with the gestures and actions of many persons, and commonly the sum of the story written withal, hath another use in it than one dumb idol or image standing by itself. But from learning by painted stories it came by little and little to idolatry.”

Images in the Church of England 3.1

These orders of the Queen relate to false feigned images; that is, I suppose, images of false saints or false miracles.

The formulary of the Church most relied upon by the respondent was one of the Homilies published in this reign. I think their authority has been much overstated. They are referred to in the 46th, 49th and 80th of our canons; and the Thirty-fifth of our Articles (“Of the Homilies”) says:

“The second book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in churches by the ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.”

Bishop Burnet, speaking of the Thirty-fifth Article, observes, I think with accuracy:

“That by our approbation of the two books of Homilies it is not meant that every passage of scripture or argument that is made us of in them is always convincing; all that we profess about them is, that they contain a godly and wholesome doctrine.”

Other writers of eminence have expressed the same opinion.

The Homily against the Peril of Idolatry was directed against the worship of images. It is impossible not to see that it is in reality a strong controversial tract, perhaps “necessary for those times,” but by no means having the force of statutable authority for all its propositions for all times.

The Twenty-second of our Articles of Religion says:

“The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration, as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”

That is undoubtedly the doctrine of our Church. This article, written in 1553, was adopted by authority in 1562. The article of the Council of Trent, which was dated December 4, 1563, “de invocatione, veneratione, et reliquiis sanctorum et sacris imaginibus,” though it condemns idolatry, orders due honor and worship (venerationem) to be paid to images of our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints. The Church of England, holding her middle course, says this worshipping has no warranty in Scripture, immo verbo Dei contradicit (according to the Latin version), but in no article does she say that the erecting of all images in churches is repugnant to the Word of God. On the contrary, Bishop Taylor observed that “the wisdom of the church was remarkable in the variety of sentences concerning the permission of images;” that “at first, when they were blended in the dangers and impure mixtures of Gentilism, and men were newly recovered from the snare, and had the relics of a long custom to superstitions and false worshipings, they endured no images but merely civil; but that as the danger ceased, and Christianity prevailed; they found that pictures had a natural use of good concernment to move less knowing people, by the representment and declaration of a story; and then they, knowing themselves permitted to the liberties of Christianity, and the restraints of nature and reason, and not being still weak under prejudice and childish dangers, but fortified by the excellence of a wise religion, took them into lawful uses.”…Soon afterwards he uses these remarkable expressions: “they transcribed a history…into a table, by figures making more lasting impressions than by words and sentences. While the Church stood within these limits she had natural reasons for her warrant, and the custom of several countries, and no precept of Christ to countermand it.” – (Bp. Taylor’s Tenth Disc. on the Decalogue.)

Images in the Church of England 3.0

In Queen Elizabeth’s injunctions “concerning both the clergy and laity of this realm,” issued in 1559, the first year of her reign, are the following passages:

III. “Item, that they, the parsons above rehearsed, shall preach in their churches and every other cure they have, one sermon every month of the year at least, wherein they shall purely and sincerely declare the word of God, and in the same exhort their hearers to the works of faith, as mercy and charity, specially prescribed and commanded in Scripture; and that the works devised by man’s fantasies, besides Scripture (as wandering of pilgrimages, setting up of candles, praying upon beads, or such like superstition), have not only no promise of reward of Scripture for dong them, but contrariwise great threatenings and maledictions of God, for that they be things tending to idolatry and superstition, which of all other offenses God Almighty doth most detest and abhor, for that the same diminish most his honor and glory.” (Card., Doc. Ann., vol.i. pp. 212, 213.)

XXIII. “Also, that they shall take away, utterly extinct, and destroy all shrines, covering of shrines, all tables, candlesticks, trindalls, rolls of wax, pictures, paintings, and all other monuments of feigned miracles, pilgrimages, idolatry, and superstition, so that there remain no memory of the same in walls, glass windows, or elsewhere within their churches and houses.” And in Injunction XXV. , men are exhorted not to bestow their substance upon “the decking of images” and “other like blind devotions.” – (Ibid. p. 221.)

In 1551, Burnet thinks, previously to the last injunctions, certain bishops and divines addressed the Queen against the use of images, citing passages in Deuteronomy, St. John, Tertullian and other writers. In 1560 Bishop Jewell put out his famous challenge to the Papists, defying them to prove, inter alia, “that images were then set up in the church” (that is, in the primitive churches) “to the intent the people might worship them,” using almost the words of St. Stephen, already adverted to, but very remarkable words to have been used in 1560, showing pretty clearly that he who was supposed to be the writer of the Homily on the peril of idolatry did not object on principle to all images in churches, but to images set up to be worshipped.

About the same time the Queen put out a “proclamation against the defacers of monuments in churches.”

“Elizabeth. – The Queen’s Majesty understanding that by means of sundry people, partly ignorant, partly malicious or covetous, there hath been of late years spoiled and broken certain ancient monuments, some of metal, some of stone, which were erected up as well in churches as in other public places within this realm, only to show a memory to the posterity of the persons there buried, or that had been benefactors to the buildings or donations of the same churches or public places, and not to nourish any kind of superstition; by which means not only the churches and places remain at this present day spoiled, broken, and ruinated, to the offense of all noble and gentle hearts, and the extinguishing of the honorable and good memory of sundry virtuous and noble persons deceased; but also the true understanding of divers families in this realm (who have descended of the blood of the same persons deceased) is thereby so darkened as the true course of their inheritance may be hereafter interrupted, contrary to justice; besides many other offenses that hereof do ensure, to the slander of such as either gave or had charge in times past, only to deface monuments of idolatry and false feigned images in church and abbey; and therefore, although it be very hard to recover things broken and spoiled, yet both to provide that no such barbarous disorder be hereafter used, and to repair as much of the said monuments as conveniently may be, Her Majesty chargeth and commandeth all manner of persons hereafter to forbear the breaking or defacing of any parcel of any monument, or tomb, or grave, or other inscription and memory of any person deceased, being in any manner of place: or to break any image of kings, princes, or noble estates of this realm, or of any other that have been in times past erected and set up for the only memory of them to their posterity, in common churches, and not for any religious honor, or to break down and deface any image in glass windows in any church without the consent of the ordinary, upon pain that whosoever shall herein be found to offend, to be committed to the next gaol…” – (Card., Doc. Ann., vol.i. p. 289)

Images in the Church of England 2.9

The letter of Bishop Sandys to Peter Martyr, dated April 1, 1560, and part of which is referred to by the learned Assessor, leads me, on a study of the whole, to a conclusion different from that which he arrived at. Bishop Sandys writes:

“We had not long since a controversy respecting images. The Queen’s Majesty considered it not contrary to the Word of God, nay, rather for the advantage of the Church, that the image of Christ, crucified, together with those of the Virgin Mary and St. John, should be placed as heretofore in some conspicuous part of the church, where they might more readily be seen by all the people. Some of us Bishops thought far otherwise, and more especially as all images of every kind were, at our last visitation, not only taken down, but also burnt, and that too by public authority; and because the ignorant and superstitious multitude are in the habit of paying adoration to this idol above all others. As to myself, because I was rather vehement in this matter, and could by no means consent that an occasion of stumbling should be afforded to the Church of Christ, I was very near being deposed from my office, and incurring the displeasure of the Queen. But God, in whose hand are the hearts of kings, gave us tranquility instead of a tempest, and delivered the Church of England from stumbling-blocks of this kind.” – (Zurich Letters, First Series, No. 71, Parker Society Ed., 1842, pp. 73-74.) There is no reference in this letter to the statute of Edward VI. or the letter of Cranmer.

By this construction of the statute at least the most monstrous consequences are avoided. Can it really be the law that any person now possessing, in his private house, or any body, politic or corporate, possessing in their library any one of these books is liable to these penalties; not only all Her Majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects, but all persons, of whatever religion they may be, who have a collection of books of devotion in their private houses? Is every picture, painted on canvas or glass, or carved in stone, for ever forbidden to the Church of England? I hope I am not wrong in having recourse to a construction of the statute which avoids these consequences.

Business writing

Some time ago, I was asked a few questions about what would be valuable to learn about business writing. These were my thoughts:

Think about what types of business writing are needed and frequently encountered in the workplace. What are expectations or standards of quality that most companies expect?  

The most obvious and ubiquitous form of communication now is e-mail. It is crucial to internal and external presentation that thought is given to font choice, color choice, length, and tone. Using fonts like Comic Sans or pink type in business communication can communicate an unprofessional demeanor.
I belive that almost every American buisness today uses PowerPoint and Excel heavily. It is very helpful for writers to understand how to effectively construct charts and PowerPoint presentations that are not cluttered and communicate effectively. I would refer learners to the works of Edward Tufte, particularly on avoiding ‘chart junk’ and on some of the potential pitfalls of PowerPoint.

What writing skills would businesses like people to acquire?  

Essential grammar skills remain foundational to all communication. Beyond that the way we write is changing from long, linear documents to ‘chunks’ of information that can be swapped in and out of different documents. Writing in this type of module fashion vs. a linear fashion can be difficult to excel at. Blogs are catching on in some sectors of the marketing world, and I think viewing examples of corporate blogs that communiate well – and how to author such blogs – would be beneficial.

What types of documents would you classify under business writing? Resumes? Press Releases? Letters/Memos? Reports? Announcements? Advertisements?, etc  

All of the above, and I would add: marketing datasheets, user manuals, online help files, corporate blogs, and web page content.