Caution in Reformation: Re-examining Article XXII through its Contemporaries

The English Reformation saw mass destruction of religious artwork, including stained glass, images, and icons, which I suggest was in part inspired by Cranmer’s ambiguously negative attitude towards images in Article XXII of the Articles of Religion. Although the Articles were a collaborative project between a wide variety of theological positions, I will refer to Cranmer’s viewpoint throughout this article due to his reformist influence. This essay will view the Articles as confessional, with the phrase ‘requiring all Our loving Subjects to continue in the uniform Profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles’.[1]

However, it is crucial to recognise the breadth within the Church of England, and that the Articles are not, for many, doctrine – an idea perhaps supported by their exclusion from Common Worship. With this breadth in mind, the term ‘Church of England’ will be used throughout in reference to the Church as subscribed to the Articles, both historical and modern. This essay will examine the nature of icons and the context surrounding Cranmer’s condemnation of the Roman Catholic doctrine on icons to conclude that the Article derives from a fear of idolatry through icon misuse, and that space can be found for icons in the Church of England.

Icons and Symbols

In The Art of the Sacred, Graham Howes defines icons (from the Greek eikon)^[2] as ‘images of saints or holy personages’,^[3] usually in the form of a painted wooden panel, but also including images on church walls, vestments, book covers, and other religious paraphernalia.^[4] In such a diverse category, Mariamna Fortounatto and Mary B. Cunningham suggest a shared key characteristic in their Theology of the Icon –icons ‘offer a window into eternal meaning and are thus worthy of honour and devotion’.^[5] This argument is furthered by Howes’ explanation that icons, by depicting and sharing in the ‘sanctity and glory’^[6] of their prototypes are worthy of proskynesis (veneration).^[7] Many scholars use, or at least hint at, the work of Paul Tillich in their approach to icons, which is summarised by William Rowe as follows:

1. If x is a sign then x points beyond itself but does not participate in the reality of that to which it points.
2. If x is a symbol then x points beyond itself and participates in the reality of that to which it points.^[8]

Applying this, icons are symbols, pointing towards the transcendent reality, and having the qualities of what they point to (their prototype), effecting a connection between the mundane and the transcendent. C. Stephen Jaeger explores this further: ‘The viewer appropriates or rather absorbs the qualities of the image, which is a lesson in virtue. Its teaching is charismatic in that it transmits the qualities of the persons represented to the ‘‘audience’’ by some force that inspires imitation.’^[9]

Here we can see similarities between Orthodox approaches to icons and Tillich’s symbols: an icon has the qualities of its prototype, implied by Jaeger in his description of the viewer absorbing the qualities of the image, and the image transmitting the qualities of the referent (by which we can understand that the qualities of the image are that of the referent, as the image transmits its qualities to the viewer, and transmits the qualities of the referent), aligning with Tillich’s argument of symbols having the qualities of what they point to. This view of icons as symbols will be crucial later for an approach to understanding icons as a communication medium using Tillich’s symbol mechanisms.

Church of England Doctrine

Commenting on the first commandment of the Decalogue, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, otherwise known as the Roman Catechism, says:

Let no one think that this Commandment entirely forbids the arts of painting, engraving or sculpture. The Scriptures inform us that God Himself commanded to be made images of Cherubim, and also the brazen serpent. The interpretation, therefore, at which we must arrive, is that images are prohibited only inasmuch as they are used as deities to receive adoration, and so to injure the true worship of God.^[10]

Written in 1563, this Catechism would have been the ‘Romish Doctrine’ that Article XXII references in the phrase ‘Reliques, 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.’^[11] Interestingly, the Catholic Catechism fails to mention proskynesis (veneration), or distinguish clearly between that and latreia (adoration, reserved only for God), which perhaps is from where Cranmer’s criticisms in the Article derive. However, his arguments against the doctrine are vague, condemning it in its entirety.

Therefore, the most comprehensive approach to examining the use of icons in the Church of England is to take Cranmer’s condemnations at their strongest, against the line ‘Let no one think that this Commandment entirely forbids the arts of painting, engraving or sculpture’.^[12] This approach lines up with the mass destruction of images during the Reformation, and Cranmer’s criticism of images in his own writing. Henceforth, for the most rigorous approach, Article 22 will be taken to be a complete condemnation of images.

Images and the Church of England

Despite Article 22, some of the key figures of The Reformation, including Calvin and Cranmer, included images in their writings, and prints could be found even in Bibles produced throughout The Reformation.^[13] William Dyrness argues that the issue at play here is ‘not a complete rejection of the visual, so much as the new theological orientation and the corresponding change that resulted in the way culture was formed’, which lines up with the reactionary nature of the original Article.^[14] It can therefore be concluded from this that Reformation theologians did not take issue with images as a whole, but there is an element of nuance that cannot be deduced from the Article alone.

In his Catechism, Cranmer allows images of saints: ‘I will not utterly deny them, but they may be had. Still for charity sakes they should be kept out of the church. For the goodness that may come from them is not comparable to the evil of idolatry.’^[15] Here, we can begin to understand that the issue of this iconoclasm can be traced back to the roots of fears of idolatry, and this is further emphasised in the second Book of Homilies, as authorised by Article XXXV, which equates ‘images’ and ‘idols’ in the homily ‘Against peril of Idolatry’:

But, lest any should take occasion by the way of doubting by words or names, it is thought good here to note first of all, that, although in common speech we use to call the likeness or similitudes of men or other things images, and not idols, yet the Scriptures use the said two words, idols and images, indifferently for one thing alway. They be words of diverse tongues and sounds, but one in sense and signification in the Scriptures.^[16]

The homily’s specific condemnation is the ‘worshipping of images’,^[17] which makes them idols, and therefore engages the image-worshipper in idolatry. Denominations that allow icons stress the difference between the proskynesis afforded to icons and the latreia afforded only to God, in this way avoiding idolatry by reserving different levels of respect to each, worshipping God alone. E.J. Bicknell recognises this in A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, in which he outlines the peril of idolatry resulting from superstitious approaches to images, consequently highlighting again that the issue of images does not derive from the images themselves but the potential misuse of them.^[18] Furthermore, the homily’s equation of image and idol could be used in a rereading of the Article–if the Church sees fit to equate the two, as in the Bible, perhaps we can review Article 22:

“The Romish Doctrine concerning […] Worshipping, and Adoration, as well as Idols as of Reliques [..] is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God”.^[19]

Veneration can be defined as the worship of God through a medium, which, in this case, is the icon. This may be, in the case of saintly icon veneration, requesting their prayer to God on the venerator’s behalf, through the medium of the saint through their icon, or, in the case of divine icon veneration, worshipping God through the medium of the icon. It could be argued that it is impossible to worship God without a medium of transmission, including mediums such as speech, thought, and music, therefore, as long as this medium is not held to be divine itself, idolatry cannot be alleged. This aligns with Tillich’s definition of a symbol, of a medium connecting the mundane and transcendent, offering ‘a window into eternal meaning’^[20], with the word ‘symbol’ itself deriving from the Greek ‘to draw together’.^[21]

The veneration goes not to the material icon itself, but to the transcendent prototype. Therefore, with this understanding that the veneration is indeed worship of God through a medium, which is necessary for worship from the mortal plane in the first place, and concluding that the prohibition of ‘images’ is founded in caution against accidental idolatry, it can be argued that the Articles, when read in context with their contemporaries, leave space for icons in Church of England practice.

The limitation of this, as addressed by Cranmer, Bicknell, and the homily, is the potential for idolatry. Howes explores the risk of this in an Orthodox context:

Yet, as social anthropologists like Campbell and Kenna have shown, when Orthodox theologians’ pronouncements and the sentiments and behaviour of many devout Greek peasants are taken together, discrepancies become apparent. The peasants do not seem to recognise the theologians’ injunction that the icon as a channel of grace is not powerful in itself and must not be treated as such. ‘Escalation’ occurs, and they certainly speak of and act towards the icons as if they were powerful in themselves. The tissues and pieces of cotton wool with which the church icons are dusted are kept for amulets and for use in the household cult of icons.^[22]

This adds to our understanding of the Reformed theologians’ prohibition of images–with vague and thin lines between veneration and worship, magnified by the potential of viewing images themselves as powerful, the origin of their caution is clear.

In this idea of caution for the laity’s misuse of images, the earlier arguments as to the differentiation between veneration and adoration apply. When this distinction is correctly observed, there is no threat of idolatry, but these boundaries are unclear, and behaviours attributed to each are not defined even in the icon-inclusive Roman Catholic tradition. Bicknell explains an Anglican attitude to the Roman standpoint:

Official Roman theology has recognized this by the distinctions that it draws between various degrees of reverence. Latria is the supreme worship due to God alone. Hyperdulia, a degree of reverence due to the Blessed Virgin alone. Dulia that degree of reverence due to the saints and their images. These distinctions are excellent on paper, but have proved to be very difficult to observe in practice. There is no such thing as a devotional thermometer. No precise rules have been laid down. We cannot wonder that at the Reformation a clean sweep was made of all images.^[23]

Once again, Bicknell’s phrasing of a ‘clean sweep’ supports the idea that, whatever Cranmer meant in the Article, its practical application was the prohibition of images as a result of caution of their misuse. This issue of caution is important, but Cranmer’s own explanation of it can be used to justify the use of images. Where Cranmer argues that ‘For the goodness that may come from them is not comparable to the evil of idolatry’,^[24] the ‘medium’ argument again becomes relevant–any medium of transmission between the divine and mundane could be subject to misunderstanding and idolatry, and it is a key role of the Church to educate the laity as to the avoidance of such dangers. By Cranmer’s logic, any medium of mortal-divine transmission might not be worth its risk, and his isolation of images in particular is unsubstantiated.

Conclusion

In conclusion, when viewing Article 22 in context, a space for icons in Church of England worship can be found. Cranmer’s potential condemnation of them can be suggested to have come from a fear of idolatry through the risk of their misuse, as opposed to strict and sound theological arguments against images themselves. Therefore, with adequate understanding and proper intentions, a space can be found for icons in the Church of England, unhindered by the prohibition in Article 22.

---

[1] Church of England. ‘Articles of Religion’. Accessed 31 October 2024. https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion.

^[2] Fortounatto, Mariamna, and Mary B. Cunningham. ‘Theology of the Icon’. In The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, edited by Elizabeth Theokritoff and Mary B. Cunningham, 136–49. Cambridge Companions to Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, p.136 https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521864848.010.

^[3] Howes, Graham. The Art of the Sacred: An Introduction to the Aesthetics of Art and Belief. London: I. B. Tauris, 2007, p.6

^[4] Fortounatto and Cunningham, ‘Theology of the Icon’, p.136

^[5] ibid

^[6] Howes, The Art of the Sacred, p.7

^[7] ibid

^[8] Rowe, William L. ‘Tillich’s Theory of Signs and Symbols’. The Monist 50, no. 4 (1966): 593–610, p.593

^[9] Jaeger, C. Stephen. Enchantment: On Charisma and the Sublime in the Arts of the West. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014, p.123

^[10] McHugh, John A., and Charles J. Callan, trans. The Catechism of the Council of Trent. Accessed 31 October 2024. https://www.saintsbooks.net/books/The%20Roman%20Catechism.pdf.

^[11] ‘Articles of Religion’.

^[12] McHugh and Callan, The Catechism of the Council of Trent.

^[13] Dyrness, William A. Reformed Theology and Visual Culture: The Protestant Imagination from Calvin to Edwards. Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp.95-97

^[14] ibid, p.94

^[15] Cranmner, Thomas. Catechismus: That Is to Say a Short Introduction into Christian Religion. London: W. Lynne, 1548.

^[16] Cranmner, Thomas, and John Jewell. The Two Books of Homilies Appointed to Be Read in Churches. Edited by John Griffiths. Oxford University Press, 1859, p.168

^[17] ibid, p.168

^[18] Bicknell, E.J. A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. Edited by H.J. Carpenter. Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd., 1942, pp.364-5

^[19] ‘Articles of Religion’. Emphasis and rewording my own.

^[20] Fortounatto and Cunningham, ‘Theology of the Icon’, p.136

^[21] Baggley, John. Doors of Perception: Icons and Their Spiritual Significance. London: Mowbray, 1987, p.33

^[22] Howes, The Art of the Sacred, p.7

^[23] Bicknell, The Thirty-Nine Articles, p.364

^[24] Cranmner, Catechismus.

---

Bibliography

Baggley, John. Doors of Perception: Icons and Their Spiritual Significance. London: Mowbray, 1987.

Bicknell, E.J. A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. Edited by H.J. Carpenter. Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd., 1942.

Church of England. ‘Articles of Religion’. Accessed 31 October 2024. https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion.

Cranmner, Thomas. Catechismus: That Is to Say a Short Introduction into Christian Religion. Oxford: Oxf, 1548.

Cranmner, Thomas, and John Jewell. The Two Books of Homilies Appointed to Be Read in Churches. Edited by John Griffiths. Oxford University Press, 1859.

Dyrness, William A. Reformed Theology and Visual Culture: The Protestant Imagination from Calvin to Edwards. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Fortounatto, Mariamna, and Mary B. Cunningham. ‘Theology of the Icon’. In The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, edited by Elizabeth Theokritoff and Mary B. Cunningham, 136–49. Cambridge Companions to Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521864848.010.

Howes, Graham. The Art of the Sacred: An Introduction to the Aesthetics of Art and Belief. London: I. B. Tauris, 2007.

Jaeger, C. Stephen. Enchantment: On Charisma and the Sublime in the Arts of the West. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014.

McHugh, John A., and Charles J. Callan, trans. The Catechism of the Council of Trent. Accessed 31 October 2024. https://www.saintsbooks.net/books/The%20Roman%20Catechism.pdf.

Rowe, William L. ‘Tillich’s Theory of Signs and Symbols’. The Monist 50, no. 4 (1966): 593–610.

---

© Grace Butler, 2024

This work is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

Cover Image: St Luke painting the first Christian icon” by jimforest is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.