In the Homily against the peril of Idolatry and superfluous decking of churches, the Anglican reformers condemned in the strongest possible terms the use of any images God is trinity or the separate persons of the Father, Christ, or the Holy Ghost, or even saints,whether graven, carved, or painted in church. And yet... I've never in my life been to an Episcopal or Anglican church, some of them quite historic and protestant, that was completely devoid of images. Just think of the stained glass art! Let alone the paintings, wood carvings, statues, icons and crucifixes that often adorn Anglican sanctuaries. How can we in good conscience worship in what our formularies identify as idolatrous church settings?
The underlying context for the Homily is of images being actively worshipped in the Roman church of the time. Images being used as objects of worship is what the Reformers had opposed. Sine there weren't instances of Images present but not worshipped, the Reformers hadn't addressed that possibility.
No disrespect, but I beg to differ. It appears to me that the Reformers addressed it very clearly. Consider this excerpt from the Homily: To the author of this Homily, such arguments and practices contradict Scriptural proscriptions, the admonitions of the early fathers, the practices of the primitive church and, even when not worshipped by some, it is a trap that may ensnare others and therefore should be avoided altogether. The danger is simply too great. What wiggle room could there possibly be to allow even the slightest image in a properly orthodox Anglican church setting? I feel if this is the standard, then we have fallen far from the mark and have done so for quite a long time. Consider also this excerpt as well: "And upon St. John's words, the first Epistle and fifth Chapter, saith thus, St. John (saith he) deeply considering the matter, saith: My little children, keep yourselves from images or idols (1 John 5.21). He saith not now, keep yourselves from idolatry, as it were from the service and worshiping of them: but from the images or idols themselves, that is, from the very shape and likeness of them. For it were an unworthy thing, that the image of the living GOD should become the image of a dead idol. Do you not think those persons which place images and idols in Churches and Temples, yea shrine them even over the Lords table, even as it were of purpose to the worshiping and honoring of them, take good heed to either of St. John's counsel" Here is a link to the full text: http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk2hom02.htm
This quote from the homily seems to me the crux of the issue: "Images placed publikely in Temples, cannot possibly bee without danger of worshipping and idolatrie" As we know, this is not entirely true anymore, as we see in those Anglican churches which have images tastefully off to the side, without any intimation or possibility of worship or idolatry. Even many Presbyterian churches have reintroduced them over the centuries. The Reformers saw that the images of cherubim and other statues had been used and quite present among the Hebrews. They interpreted it as a special dispensation, but the Church in later centuries saw fit to correct this as an amiable error in exegesis: nowhere do we find the words of such a special dispensation. To the superstitious Roman Catholic of the time images meant worship. The flow of images, 'prayer cards' and Statues of Mary had completely saturated in the European world. Once images were completely removed in the Reformation from the context of worship, a century or so later they could be used as the Cherubim were used by Hebrews, as a decoration. It also seems essential to me to look at the architecture and arrangements of images in modern churches. If you see a Statue of Mary on a pedestal, in their alcove surrounded with flowers and candles burning before them, then you know this is heathenish worship going on and has to stop. If you see a stained glass of a saint (for whom Anglicans have no ritual of worship) off on a side window, which for you offers no practical way of worship because its far, or because its hard to see, or because of other aspects, then Lex Orandi Lex Credendi, you know you cannot and could not worship it, and the church does not offer it to you for worship.
I'm afraid that again I have to disagree. While I agree that "Images placed publikely in Temples, cannot possibly bee without danger of worshipping and idolatrie" is an important theme of the Homily, it would be unfair and inaccurate to reduce the Homily's message to that one point. There are more concerns at play here. Even if we were to concede that images as you describe cannot possibly be worshiped, a claim I think underestimates man's long recorded history of making any object, save the true object of our worship, an object of worship. The homilist still point out that these images are lies. Purported pictures of saints are not and cannot be accurate depictions of saints, since there bodies have long decayed and only their souls remain in the presence of GOD. How can lying images be pious aids in devotion?
I would also take issue with any response that seeks to explain away patent inconsistencies between Anglican norms and the current state of Anglicanism as it is practiced with a "Yeah, but..." Article 35 tells us the Homilies, of which this homily is listed as number 2, contaein "a godly and wholesome doctrine." One that we can't cast aside as some outdated artifact of the reformation that we, as a Church, have outgrown and evolved on. It's a doctrine that should be taught by the Church that it "may be understanded of the people." Even if we can, with full confidence and a clear conscience, state that there is no danger of images becoming the idolatrous objects of worship for us, how can we know it won't become so for others? We have no windows into men's souls. St Paul, more than once, tells us that even if we are doing something we are sure we are at liberty to do, if it causes another to stumble and so being judgment on themselves, out of charity we must abstain. We cannot use our liberty in a way that destroys one for whom Christ died. Perhaps we should ask ourselves the following questions: Is the use of images permissible? Perhaps. If it is, is it beneficial? Maybe, but at what cost? Is there a danger that it could be misused or abused? Absolutely yes, as this homily and all its sources attest. Is it necessary? No. If one weighs out the costs against the benefits, and concedes that images are not necessary for our worship experience...I think the answer is clear that images have no place in any church, but especially in one that claims an orthodox Anglican heritage. I say this as one who uses a picture of Jesus in my avatar and has always rather admired a "catholic" setting with crucifixes and statues. Perhaps I need forgiveness for my part in perpetuating a possibly idolatrous practice. Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner.
These questions are a most helpful pointer to guide us in our orientation. The sole difference between the church then and today is an improved exegesis on the 2nd Commandment, wherein the use of images was impermissible then, and can be "indifferent" today, if other considerations are taken into account. What are those other considerations? You outline them so well: pastoral matters of the spiritual life of the person in question. If he has temptations or tendencies in the wrong direction he shall be warded off from any use of images by his pastor. If he has no temptations, he may be allowed. I should also add that the use of images (outside of worship) is not an indication of orthodoxy. We can find drawings of Christ and of the saints in Anglican Prayerbooks starting from the late part of the reign of Elizabeth on. As to the danger of misuse, I have found that there is essentially no danger to this misuse historically. In terms of recorded history there have not been known epidemics in the past 500 years of a plucky soul trying to worship Images, because 1) the entire Church would pounce on them for this idolatry; 2) the instances of their use are like the Cherubim used by the Hebrews, used incidentally and ornamentally, never constituting a part of the Liturgy. There has also never been a Rite or a Rubric of Worship for images in the Prayerbooks, so even if the plucky person braved the 1) Church-wide opporobrium and 2) hardships of circumstance, they would 3) find no practical Rite or list of Prayers to offer to the Images. Within the Anglican tradition you are basically out of luck if you try to worship Images.
Do drawings in a prayerbook trump a holy formula? I am still unable to see how your points un-say what the homilist so clearly said: "Images placed publikely in Temples, cannot possibly bee without danger of worshipping and idolatrie". His admonition isn't to keep images out of worship; it is to keep them out of the Temples, that is, the churches.
Since we don't swear to the Homilies, just that they teach good and godly doctrine, we can acknowledge that the Homilist was a very holy man, and the homily on Images is also exceeding holy and appropriate. We may say that, look exegesis of the 2nd Commandment has show the prohibition on Images to be relative, not absolute. As you have said: are Images permissible? perhaps. But can cause danger? Yes. As long as we agree to both of those statements we reconcile the Homilist to the subsequent pattern of the Church, converting his absolutes into relatives.
I think converting absolutes into relatives is exactly what has led to the current chaos in the anglican communion...perhaps my posts are overstating the homilist's position (I would certainly be open to being wrong on this since I've always rather fancied myself an anglo-catholic kind of guy) but minimizing the authority of the homily for Anglicans or saying that godly doctrine his homily contains may be freely ignored isnt very convincing.
We have to be carefull here,,'Peril of Idolatry'? Worshipping other Gods? To have a picture, or image, formalised usually of God in Christ Jesus, in our Churches, or in one's home is not to worship false Gods! Neither is it idolatrous to recognise the part our forfathers played in the development of Christ's , Body the Church, over the whole world. In the British Isles in the 1640's a terrible Civil War, was fought to simply preserve the ancient catholic church in these Islands in the short term they lost ,but sacrificed themselves for the Church! Even the King and the Archbishop of Canterbury were murdered,,whilst the clergy were hanged and imprisoned, the laity having their churches taken from them and losing the right to Catholic sacraments. It might be, or possibly would be wrong, , if we worshipped them and gave them attributes that rightly belong to the Holy Trinity, but simply to erect pictures of early Church, Holy men and women, of S.Charles the Martyr, or William Laud who was legally murdered by the Calvinists , is I think to simply betray the faithfull. We should remember and teach, that we worship Christ and Him Crucified!
I have always felt that way HC, but nevertheless, the homilist declares "Images placed publikely in Temples, cannot possibly bee without danger of worshipping and idolatrie." He uses no less than scripture, the Fathers, and the witness of the primitive church to argue his point. I know that the seventh council authorised and encouraged the right use of images in worship but the 7th council is not often recognized, at least explicitly, by the Anglican reformers.
Dear Friend & Colleague, I'm afraid I must agree with our friend when he says that the idea was to keep the images out of worship. They were influenced by the Trentist notions of Rome! Whilst some misplaced believers destroyed images in England during the calvinist era, of Henry's Viii's son, King Edward, there was more still in the time of S.Charles, at least as I understand. (1640/ 60) Your point regarding the Seventh Council being not often recognised, is quite true yet according to my sources, Cranmer, Hooper and ridley acknowledged their belief in the formula then accepted in Convocation, covering the belief of the Seven Councils. I cannot find the source of the latter statement other than Calendar of State trials. Google Books. Another thought is that whilst some Anglicans object to the &th, Council, I am assured that the Church in England, still officially acknowledge this Council accoding to C.B.Moss' 'Church of England and the Seventh Council.' 1956'.
If we analyze the matter closely we are not touching doctrine here. The doctrine is as you've outlined: -Images in theory permissible, but in practice allowed or not allowed based on the spiritual health of the recipient. What we are analyzing here is the pastoral application of doctrine: should images be allowed on a this or that case basis. The Reformers during their image-saturated era had said to remove images from sight to dissuade Christians from idolatry which they practiced in that era. Once the change was effected and new generations grew up without knowing idolatry, the same Church later altered the pastoral application of the above doctrine: Images (paintings of Christ) were once again allowed in Prayerbooks, but still no statues in Churches, which would resemble Roman Catholic Marian worship far too much. So even today we do not see statues allowed in Anglican churches. However paintings and/or depictions were reintroduced within Church buildings in the nineteeth century, if they could depict Christian history without danger of idolatry. It is a pastoral application of doctrine.
yet we are told by the homilist that the 2nd commanment is a moral commandment, a scriptural proscription binding on all believers for all time. The church cannot reintroduce what is a contradiction to scripture. the church does not have that power. forgive me but if this isnt a doctrinal issue, there is precious little that is. after all, as you very perceptively pointed out earlier " lex orandi lex credendi".
Dear and good friend, Most assuredly,The Homilies did not have the same authority as the Articles and the Articles have no where near the place in our faith as the Councils and early Fathers. Eusibius, the early church historian, writing within the first three centuries of the Body of Christ, tells us that there was a statue, at least one, which was raised in honour of Christ and his lady sister! Now though I've heard it mentioned by later writers, I have never heard Eusibius or any later writers ,or any eastern church criticised for casting or erecting the piece. I don't know ,or can't remember who wrote the Homilies, but they were written to be a help towards new and practically untrained presbyters, with immense difficulties in combating errors, both from the New Rome of Trent and the protestant desire to return to Israel of the Old Testament. What I'm trying to say is that the Church, from Apostolic times, unto today, has permitted Icons as long as people worship only Christ ,Our saviour. They are not necessary, but can be a help! Yours in Christ!
Dear Friend , When I was a P.P. I had pictures in the Church, even though I prefer Icons and lived with this very well. I informed the parish, that we worshipped Christ and the Saints, these latter were just the people of God as mentioned in Jude. One day however, one of our hopefulls came with a statue, given to him by his aunt, a Roman Nun. A statue of the Sacred Heart! He was shocked and I was adamant,the question arose from where my objections sprang! The cult of the Sacred Heart, arose ,if I'm rightly informed in Canada, in the 17th, Century and encouraged the worship of a single ,though vital piece of Our Lord's own Person. This ran counter to the teachings of a Council! To my mind this is the sort of sculpture or decoration that is rejected. There used to be extant a whole host of these including the Sacred Heart of Mary! It is these Cults and their produce that cause the problem,(not today, but certainly our yestreens.). We have to exercise care and charity and have to use what wisdom we have not to throw out the baby with the bathwater! God Bless!-
End of first line, ,'we worshipped Christ.' And the Saints, these latter were just the people of God, as mentioned in jude. Sorry, i missed a full stop out. reads now as I intended it! 'Age and decay caused it , I hadn't even had my 11's's sherry!'
Dear HC, you raise some great points on this issue. It is true that the Homilies do not, in and of themselves, have the authority as other resources, such as the Articles or the councils, yet the arguments the homilist uses to support his position come from or are supported by scripture, the writings of church fathers, and the primitive church. Thus the homilist appeals to what I understand to be some of the highest if not the highest authorities in catholic Christianity. Also, while Eusebius provides us with excellent proof that, in at least one place in the primitive church, images were approvingly used, I think it's important to note a couple of things that immediately jump out to me from his passage. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xii.xix.html I don't think the display Eusebius spoke of would be wrong to the homilist. The homilist never said all images were prohibited in all places, in fact he makes a point in stating quite the opposite. He merely states that images have no place in the Temple, that is, the house of god the church. The statues Eusebius spoke of were not in a church building, but outside the house building of the healed woman. I suppose that in that kind of setting, statues depicting a biblical event are permissible.
\Well ? I've read a lot of books and documents, including Schaft, but ,I can't remember coming across that passage! Obviously I'm on a learning stretch! never tthe less, the custom within Anglicanism is accept the teaching and practice of the Universal Church beginning with the Apostolic Customs. This with reference to Archbishop Bramhall.