Images in the Church of England 2.8

Phillimore continues his discourse on the Act against Images:

The Privy Council in Westerton v. Liddell (Moore, Special Report, p. 171), said of this statute: “No doubt, however, it implies that to retain them is illegal, but it relates, in their Lordships’ opinion, to the destruction of images already ordered to be removed, but which either had not been removed, or, having been so, were still retained for private veneration and worship…”

But I doubt very much whether this Act ought to be construed to prohibit the erection of all images, for the future, in all church, a question not discussed before the Privy Council. There are no express words to this effect. I incline to the opinion that it had a temporary purpose in view, namely, to prevent the restoration of the identical images to church which had been, or ought to have been, taken out of them. It was deemed, as the Thirty-eigth Article deems the Homily on the Perils of Idolatry, “necessary for these times.” I do not think this Act was ever referred to in the ecclesiastical documents of Queen Elizabeth’s reign. I have said that it was repealed by Mary, and it was restored by James I. by the repeal of Mary’s Act. But surely it is reasonable to expect that if it contained universal and perpetual prohibitions of images and books, some reference would have been made to it in the reign of Elizabeth; more especially when it is remembered that the Homily “against the Peril of Idolatry,” in the second book, published by authority in 1562, referred to in the Thirty-fifth of the Thirty-nine Articles, and which, in fact, a fervid controversial sermon against the use as well as the abuse of images, should not, unless I have overlooked it, make any reference to the fact that the statute had abolished all images in 1549, and, as it is contended, the Order in Council of 1547.

Images in the Church of England 2.7

Sect. 6 provides, “That this act, or anything therein contained, shall not extend to any image or picture set or graven upon any tomb in any church, chapel, or churchyard, only for a monument of any king, prince, nobleman, or other dead person, which hath not been commonly reputed and taken for a saint, but that such pictures and images may stand and continue in the like manner and form as if this Act had never been had or made; anything in this Act to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding.”

This statute was repealed by 1st Mar. st. 2, c. 2, which statute is repealed by I Jac. I. c. 25, s. 48.

To me the construction of this extraordinary statute is by no means plain.

It should be remarked, in the first place, that there is a letter of Cranmer to the Archdeacon of Canterbury in 1549, in which he recites that he has received letters missive signed by the king, from the king in council, stating that the Book of Common Prayer, being commanded to be used by all persons in the realm, nevertheless “divers unquiet and evil disposed persons since the apprehension of the Duke of Somersett, have noised and bruted abroad that they should have again their old Latin service, their conjured bread and water, with such like vain and superstitious ceremonies, as though the setting forth of the said book had been the only act of the said duke; we therefore…to put away all such vain expectation,…have thought good…to command,” etc., “all antiphoners,” etc., mentioning the same books as are in the statute, to be delivered up.” – (Card., Doc. Ann., vol. i. p. 85; Perry, Church Ornaments, pp. 56-61.) This order is dated the 25th of December, “the third year of our reign,” but it was not issued till the 14th of February 1549. This statute says nothing about images, and is obviously intended to prevent the restoration of the Latin service by the destruction of the Latin office books in every part of the kingdom. The statute mentions both books and images, graven, carved, or painted, including therefore all pictures; but what does it direct with respect to them? That those who have in their custody any such images, which have heretofore been taken out of, or yet stand in any church, shall deface and destroy them, but shall deliver up the books to certain authorities. There is a penalty for not destroying the books, but none for not destroying the images. The object would seem to be to prevent the restoration to the church, at that time, of the same images which had been abused by worship, and which had been, or ought to have been, removed.

Images in the Church of England 2.6

It appears with respect to this very Cathedral of Exeter, that in the year 1321 there were payments made pictori pro imaginabus, and for a plate whereon to grind his colors. (Olver’s Hist. of Exeter Cathedral, p.185.) I mean to say that the word “image” properly embraces the work of the painter as well as that of the sculptor, though it may occasionally be used in a more limited sense.

The statute 3 & 4 Edward VI. cap. 10, entitled “An Act for the abolishing and putting away of divers books and images,” enacts (sect. 1) “That all books called Antiphoners, Missals, Grailes, Processionals, Manuals, Legends, Pies, Portuasses, Primers in Latin or English, Couchers, Journals, Ordinals, or other books or writings whatsoever heretofore used for service of the Church, written or printed in the English or Latin tongue, other than such as are or shall be set forth by the King’s Majesty, shall be by authority of this present Act clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden for ever to be used or kept in this realm, or elsewhere within any of the King’s dominions.

Sect. 2 enacts, “That if any person or persons, of what estate, degree, or condition soever he, she, or they be, body politic or corporate, that now have or hereafter shall have in his, her, or their custody, any of the books or writings of the sorts aforesaid, or any images of stone, timber, alabaster, or earth, graven, carved, or painted, which heretofore have been taken out of any church or chapel, or yet stand in any church or chapel, and do not before the last day of June next ensuing deface or destroy, or cause to be defaced and destroyed, the same images and every of them, and deliver or cause to be delivered all and every the same books to the mayor, baliff, constable, or churchwardens of the town where such books then shall be, to be by them delivered over openly within three months next following after the said delivery to the archbishop, bishop, chancellor, or commissary of the same diocese, to the intent the said archbishop, bishop, chancellor, or commissary, and every of them, cause them immediately either to be openly burnt or otherwise defaced and destroyed; shall for every such book or books willingly retained in his, her, or their hands or custody, within this realm, or elsewhere within any of the king’s dominions, and not delivered as aforesaid, after the said last day of June, and be thereof lawfully convict, forfeit and lose to the king our sovereign lord, for the first offense xxs. and for the second offense shall forfeit and lose (being thereof lawfully convict) iv li. and for the third offense shall suffer imprisonment at the king’s will.”

Russian Orthodox monopoly

The Russian Orthodox Church seems to be actively intimidating Protestants in Russia. News here, video here. This is perhaps the result of misplaced fear and insecurity. I think that it will also be counter-productive in the long run. The Orthodox in the west have to compete in the open market of religion, if you will, whilst the Russians are using the iron hand to impose Orthodoxy. In the end I think that a more creative theology that engages with modernity will emerge from the West, and that the Church in Russia will stultify and wither if it is identified so closely with the State.

Richard Hooker on the Church and State

Writing about Richard Hooker and his conception of the Church of England, C.S. Lewis says:

The prince as ‘Supreme Head’ of the Church is, in fact, the bottle-neck through which the decisions of the local Church-Nation pass in order to become law. And that Nation-Church owes an allegiance to the universal Church: yet the universal Church might swerve from scripture and we should then have to disobey her. (That is, all parts of her, except ourselves, might conceivably become ‘unsound’.) Where then does ultimate sovereignty lie? I think Hooker would answer, ‘Nowhere except in Heaven’. He allows no unambiguous sovereignty on earth either civil or ecclesiastical. Judged by the standards of Austin and of modern Catholicism, the church and state which Hooker welds together are both headless. And I do not think this is an oversight. Hooker felt no need either for omnicompetent prince or for infallible Pope. He was much more afraid of tyrannies and idolatries than of ambiguities and deadlocks.

Images in the Church of England 2.5

In the same year, but subsequently to this letter, Cranmer issued his Visitation Articles to the diocese of Canterbury, and among them the following:

“Item. Whether they have not removed, taken away, and utterly extincted and destroyed in their churches, chapels, and houses, all images, all shrines, coverings of shrines, all tables, candlesticks, trindles or 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.” – (Cardwell, Doc. Ann., vol. i. p.50)

This is a repetition, almost verbatim, of the twenty-eigth injunction already referred to, except that it is extended of houses, and that the words all images are introduced; but it seems to me that they, like the pictures and the painted windows, must be in the category of monuments of feigned miracles, pilgrimages, and idolatrous superstition. The inquiry is, whether all images of that kind had been removed.

It may be as well to observe here, that in construing the word image, as used in the ancient and modern formularies of our Church, I adopt generally the definition of Dr. Richardson, “anything made, formed, figured, or fashioned, graved, carved, or painted in imitation, likeness, or representation, a semblance or resemblance, picture or copy, a picture, statue, or effigy.” (Dict., tit. Image.)

Images in the Church of England 2.4

Sir Phillimore continues by discussing the legality of Cranmer’s injunction:

This document, whatever name it is entitled to, orders the removal of “all the images remaining in any church or chapel.”

The injunctions I held in Martin v. Maconochie had legal authority.

But this document is of another kind. It derived no validity from the Supremacy Act, or from the Proclamation Act, for that was repealed before it issued. It is in truth a Latin letter by Cranmer to the Bishop of London, in which he recites an English letter from the Council to him. That English letter is not signed by the King. It indeed purports to be issued by him, with the consent of the Protector and Council, who do sign it; but it is certainly not signed by the King, nor issued with any of the usual formalities; while I observed that a very similar document, called “The King’s order for bringing in Popish Rituals,: in 1549, contains, at the beginning, “By the Kinge,” and at the end, “By the Kinge, inscriptio hoc est.” – (Card. Doc. Ann. vol. i pp. 85-87) The injunctions are subscribed by the King. Sir John Dodson treated this document, of the 24th February 1547, as of no legal authority. Burnet speaks of it as “a letter.” I do not recollect that in any of the cases in which this document has been discussed, the force of a law was ever ascribed t it, or in any of the subsequent ecclesiastical instruments.It was referred to in the judgment of the Privy Council, but I think it is a misconception to suppose that they decided it to have legal authority. It was introduced as an historical fact, and they considered it in that light. Their Lordships say: “On the 21st of February 1548, N.S., “another proclamation was issued, upon the authority of which it is contended that all images, including crosses, were to be taken down.” They do not say that the contention was founded in law, and they inadvertently call the document a proclamation, which it was not. They afterwards say: “…The intention was not to introduce within the inhibition articles of a description not before forbidden, but to do away with the distinction between images which had been and images which had not been abused.” (Westerton v. Liddell, Moor’e Special Report, pp. 168-9.) That was undoubtedly the effect of the document, but I do not remember that the legal character of it was ever argued before them. They treat it, I think, as an historical fact. Whatever was its character, it could not, in their opinion, apply to crosses, the legality of which they were considering.

Images in the Church of England 2.3

The next reference is to a document which has been greatly relied upon by the respondent.

On the 24th February 1547, Cranmer sent to the Bishop of London what is called “Mandatum ad amovendas et delendas imagines,” in which, among others, is the following passage:

“After our right hardy recommendations to your good lordship; where now of late in the king’s majesties’ visitation, among other godly injunctions commanded to be generally observed through all parts of this his highnesses realm, one was set forth, for the taking down of all such images as had at any time been abused with pilgrimages, offerings or censings; albeit that this said injunction hath in many parts of the realm been well and quietly obeyed and executed, yet in many other places much strife and contention hath risen and daily riseth, and more and more increaseth, about the execution of the same, some men being so superstitious or rather willful as they would by their good wills retain all such images still, although they have been most manifestly abused, and in some places also the image which by the said injunctions were taken down, be now restored and set up again, and almost in every place is contention for images, whether they have been abused or not; and while these men go about on both sides contentiously to obtain their minds, contending whether this or that image hath been offered unto, kissed, censed, or otherwise abused, parties have in some places been taken in such sort, as further inconvenience is very like to ensue if remedy be not provided in time; considering therefore that almost in no places of this realm is any sure quietness, but where all images be wholly taken away and pulled down already, to the intent that all contention in every part of this realm for this matter may be clearly taken away, and that the lively images of Christ should not contend for the dead images, which be things not necessary, and without which the churches of Christ continued most godly many years. We have thought good to signify unto you that his highness’ pleasure with the advice and consent of us the lord protector and the rest of the council is, that immediately upon the sight hereof, with as convenient diligence as you may, you shall not only give order that all the images remaining in any church or chapel within your diocese be removed and taken away, but also by your letters signify unto the rest of the bishops within your province his highness’ pleasure for the like order to be given by them and every of them within their several dioceses; and in the execution thereof we require both you and the rest of the bishops foresaid to use such foresight as the same may be quietly done with as good satisfaction of the people as may be.” (Ibid. p.47.)

Housekeeping note

The site that previously hosted An Outline of An Anglican Life seems to have dropped it for now, so I have added it from my Adobe Share site. You can download the document from the link to the right. I’ve also added the AMiA study on women’s ordination, authored in part by the Rev. John Rodgers. It is much to be regretted that the AMiA has yet to stand strongly against women’s ordination, although we are still in early days. Reading this study might be of good use to you.

Ocean City and beyond

We just returned from Ocean City, MD and points north. It was a wonderful time, as any time by the beach usually is. We were in traffic next to two buses of Brad Paisley near the Wilson Bridge on our way out there. The hotel that we were at, the Princess Royale, had two women’s retreats going on while we were there. One was Calvary Chapel, I think from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The other was Christ Community Church of somewhere (see this link).

Ocean City is a massive conglomeration of mess, with huge buildings and tourist trap places hawking food, candy and t-shirts all over the place. The beach is the best thing about the place, other than that, it’s sort of a spring break, Las Vegas type location. But as you drive north on the strip, you move from Maryland to Delaware, and suddenly things are nice, clean, and attractive. Delaware must have good zoning laws. The buildings are short, the signage is better, and things are more clean and appealing. This was our first time in Delaware. Today we drove up to Rehoboth Beach on our way home. There were lots of really nice developments on the way, with great town-homes and condos. It looks like a good place to live. The Atlantic is a wonderful body of water. This is the view from our deck:

We took our time getting out there, and ate at my favorite place by the water, Hemingway’s in Stevensville, across the bridge from Annapolis. Get the fish and chips if you go, it is fantastic. 

Spending two days alone with my wife is a rare experience, and one that is always superb. Adding the beach to that time is icing on the cake.