Jun 5, 2026 · 37 min · 8 segments
Here you will find an exposition of why my feelings towards the English Reformation's restriction of images have changed. I hope this is helpful to you!
Now, they didn't restrict all ceremonies, hence you had Richard Hooker defending many of the ceremonies of the Church of England over and against the non-conformist faction that eventually became the Puritans.
But nevertheless, the established church did clamp down quite a bit on ceremony.
And at first, this was pretty troubling to me because if you look at the early church, you find the use of relics, you find the venerative use of pictures.
And so it puzzled me for a little while why it was that the English church claiming to follow the consensus of the fathers would do something like this.
But then I read the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity in 2023 for the first time, and I've been rereading it now, of course, with the Anglican Catechetical Initiative.
And in Book 5, Richard Hooker talks about ecclesiastical ceremonies.
So he distinguishes two kinds of laws that are operative in the church.
We have divine law, those things that are constitutive of apostolic teaching, the teaching of the prophets and the apostles then come down to us through Holy Scripture.
But then you also have matters of ecclesiastical law, things that were not commanded by the apostles but nevertheless fall within the purview of the church to institute.
One such thing includes liturgical colors.
It is deeply unlikely [chuckles] that liturgical colors are apostolic.
Nevertheless, the church and her authority has the right to make an injunction.
And of course, the use of vestments, the use of liturgical colors and such doesn't contradict anything in Holy Scripture, and in fact is an aid to the heart to recognize the beauty of holiness.
But nevertheless, because these are matters of ecclesiastical law, they fall within the lawful purview of the church, per Richard Hooker's argument, to institute and to take away at times.
But the jurisdiction that institutes a certain law needs to be just as wide, as it were, as the jurisdiction that takes it away.
So in Book 7 of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, for instance, Richard Hooker argues that bishops, priests, and deacons must remain, that even the Church of England doesn't have the right to take it away, even if we say it's a matter of an ecclesiastical law, because the law extends beyond the bounds of the jurisdiction of the Church of England everywhere, and it has done so since the time of the apostles.
So even if it were a matter of ecclesiastical law, the church still doesn't have a right to take it awayIn order to take such a thing away, you would actually need, per his argument, a whole council of the whole church to do so because of the extent of the law.
But there are certain ecclesiastical laws that are regional, that are synodal.
One such of these, as it turns out, were the use of icons.
The Synod of Elvira famously, or infamously, depending on what side you're talking about, in the fourth century took away the use of pictures in Spain, the use of religious imagery, and no one really batted an eye seemingly over that.
I've documented on this channel before and on my Substack post, which I'll link below in response to Ben Jeffries, Father Ben Jeffries, that seemingly we have very early evidence of uncomfortability among some fathers with the use of icons, such that it's just kind of standard in the scholarship right now to say that the iconoclasts had the stronger argument insofar as it touches whether icons are actually apostolic or not.
If so, if that is the case, and I do believe it's the case that they are not in fact apostolic, then the church has a right to institute them or to take them away if need be.
And Richard Hooker in Book 7 argues that, in fact, this is true of many such ceremonies, that some such ceremonies are instituted for a bad reason but can be really easily converted to a good use and therefore retained.
Other ceremonies were instituted for a good use, have been turned to a bad use, and now you're basically too deep in, and you need to take them away for a time.
Now, they didn't restrict all ceremonies, hence you had Richard Hooker defending many of the ceremonies of the Church of England over and against the non-conformist faction that eventually became the Puritans.
But nevertheless, the established church did clamp down quite a bit on ceremony.
And at first, this was pretty troubling to me because if you look at the early church, you find the use of relics, you find the venerative use of pictures.
And so it puzzled me for a little while why it was that the English church claiming to follow the consensus of the fathers would do something like this.
But then I read the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity in 2023 for the first time, and I've been rereading it now, of course, with the Anglican Catechetical Initiative.
And in Book 5, Richard Hooker talks about ecclesiastical ceremonies.
So he distinguishes two kinds of laws that are operative in the church.
We have divine law, those things that are constitutive of apostolic teaching, the teaching of the prophets and the apostles then come down to us through Holy Scripture.
But then you also have matters of ecclesiastical law, things that were not commanded by the apostles but nevertheless fall within the purview of the church to institute.
One such thing includes liturgical colors.
It is deeply unlikely [chuckles] that liturgical colors are apostolic.
Nevertheless, the church and her authority has the right to make an injunction.
And of course, the use of vestments, the use of liturgical colors and such doesn't contradict anything in Holy Scripture, and in fact is an aid to the heart to recognize the beauty of holiness.
But nevertheless, because these are matters of ecclesiastical law, they fall within the lawful purview of the church, per Richard Hooker's argument, to institute and to take away at times.
But the jurisdiction that institutes a certain law needs to be just as wide, as it were, as the jurisdiction that takes it away.
So in Book 7 of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, for instance, Richard Hooker argues that bishops, priests, and deacons must remain, that even the Church of England doesn't have the right to take it away, even if we say it's a matter of an ecclesiastical law, because the law extends beyond the bounds of the jurisdiction of the Church of England everywhere, and it has done so since the time of the apostles.
So even if it were a matter of ecclesiastical law, the church still doesn't have a right to take it awayIn order to take such a thing away, you would actually need, per his argument, a whole council of the whole church to do so because of the extent of the law.
But there are certain ecclesiastical laws that are regional, that are synodal.
One such of these, as it turns out, were the use of icons.
The Synod of Elvira famously, or infamously, depending on what side you're talking about, in the fourth century took away the use of pictures in Spain, the use of religious imagery, and no one really batted an eye seemingly over that.
I've documented on this channel before and on my Substack post, which I'll link below in response to Ben Jeffries, Father Ben Jeffries, that seemingly we have very early evidence of uncomfortability among some fathers with the use of icons, such that it's just kind of standard in the scholarship right now to say that the iconoclasts had the stronger argument insofar as it touches whether icons are actually apostolic or not.
If so, if that is the case, and I do believe it's the case that they are not in fact apostolic, then the church has a right to institute them or to take them away if need be.
And Richard Hooker in Book 7 argues that, in fact, this is true of many such ceremonies, that some such ceremonies are instituted for a bad reason but can be really easily converted to a good use and therefore retained.
Other ceremonies were instituted for a good use, have been turned to a bad use, and now you're basically too deep in, and you need to take them away for a time.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
