With these words, Thomas Wilson, Prebendary of Westminster, continued in the Introduction to The Ornaments of Churches Considered, With a Particular View to the Late Decoration of the Parish Church of St. Margaret Westminster (1761) to address the controversy described in the title, surrounding the plan to install a stained glass depiction of the Lord's crucifixion.
Referring to the Injunctions, issued at the outset of Elizabeth's reign, and to the 1559 Articles of Visitation, Wilson set forth an interpretation of these documents which had been defended not only by Laudians but also in Jacobean Conformist thought. In other words, here was a well-established historical interpretation which saw in the Church of England the stance of James VI/I, "I am no Iconomachus, I quarrel not the making of Images, either for public decoration, or for men’s private uses":
But it appears to me that these Passages do by no Means prove what they are intended to evince; but are evidently levelled only at Pictures of false and feigned Miracles. If any Man will venture to affirm that the Miracles of our Saviour or his Apostles are false and feigned, he may indeed insist with Reason, that Pictures of them are prohibited by our Church; but as they cannot possibly be ranked under that Title, we have Reason to conclude, that a proper Use of them was neither disapproved nor forbidden by the Rule of the Reformation. There is the more Reason for this, as our first Reformers were a good deal influenced by the Example of the Lutheran Churches, where they were then retained. Indeed Luther himself was so far from being averse to them, that he reproved Carolostadius [i.e. Karlstadt] for taking them from Churches, in which they were placed, and observed that, they were rather to be removed from Men’s Minds.
Indeed whilst Men were every Day detecting and exposing the idle Tales of false and feigned Miracles, it would have been extremely ill-judged to have left the Paintings which related them, in Places which might give them Credit; it would have been little less than asserting in one Language what they denied in another. But, does it follow, because a Lie was not suffered to continue in their Temples, that they ought also to have been stripped of the most sacred Truths, Truths which every Art should endeavour to implant in our Minds.
Whether Wilson - and Jacobean Conformity and the Laudians - were historically correct is rather beside the point. (Although we might note that the evidence of Parliamentarian iconoclasm during the civil wars clearly shows that not insignificant imagery survived the Reformation in parish churches.) The point is that here was a very well-established defence of imagery within the Jacobean and Caroline Church of England, being repeated in the mid-18th century by a cleric who, by royal appointment, was a prebendary of Westminster Abbey, and who publicly articulated such views as a faithful exposition of the teaching of the Church of England. What is more, he was defending the installation of a stained glass image of the Lord's crucifixion which had considerable lay and clerical support and which would, indeed, come to pass.
Also worthy of note is the view that the Lutheran understanding of imagery had significant influence on the Church of England. While Diarmaid MacCulloch would forcefully tell us otherwise, marshalling extensive evidence to demonstrate the influence of the Zurich view of imagery on the Reformation in England, what also cannot be denied is that Elizabeth herself had considerably more Lutheran-like views on imagery (as the Laudian Heylyn noted), and that invoking the Lutheran defence of images would become entirely uncontroversial for a Jacobean Conformist like Donne. Add to this the widespread view across the 'long' 18th century that the Lutheran churches were the natural partner of the Church of England, and it becomes entirely understandable why Wilson in 1761 would be stating - with good reason - that the Lutheran position on imagery was also that of the Church of England.
Comments
Post a Comment