Post by Admin on Aug 18, 2024 12:25:14 GMT -5
11. IMPIETY OF ATTRIBUTING A VISIBLE FORM TO GOD. - THE SETTING UP OF IDOLS A DEFECTION FROM THE TRUE GOD.
There are three leading divisions in this chapter.
The first contains a refutation of those who ascribe a visible form to
God, (s. 1 and 2,) with an answer to the objection of those who,
because it is said that God manifested his presence by certain
symbols, use it as a defence of their error, (s. 3 and 4.) Various
arguments are afterwards adduced, disposing of the trite objection
from Gregory's expression, that images are the books of the
unlearned, (s. 5-7.)
The second division of the chapter relates to the origin of idols or
images, and the adoration of them, as approved by the Papists, (s. 8-
10.) Their evasion refuted, (s. 11.)
The third division treats of the use and abuse of images, (s. 12.)
Whether it is expedient to have them in Christian Churches, (s. 13.)
The concluding part contains a refutation of the second Council of
Nicea, which very absurdly contends for images in opposition to
divine truth, and even to the disparagement of the Christian name.
Sections.
1. God is opposed to idols, that all may know he is the only fit
witness to himself. He expressly forbids any attempt to
represent him by a bodily shape.
2. Reasons for this prohibition from Moses, Isaiah, and Paul. The
complaint of a heathen. It should put the worshipers of idols to
shame.
3. Consideration of an objection taken from various passages in
Moses. The Cherubim and Seraphim show that images are not
fit to represent divine mysteries. The Cherubim belonged to the
tutelage of the Law.
4. The materials of which idols are made, abundantly refute the
fiction of idolaters. Confirmation from Isaiah and others. Absurd
precaution of the Greeks.
5. Objection, - That images are the books of the unlearned.
Objection answered,
1. Scripture declares images to be teachers of vanity and lies.
6. Answer continued,
2. Ancient Theologians condemn the formation and worship of idols.
7. Answer continued,
3. The use of images condemned by the luxury and meretricious
ornaments given to them in Popish Churches.
4. The Church must be trained in true piety by another method.
8. The second division of the chapter. Origin of idols or images. Its
rise shortly after the flood. Its continual progress.
9. Of the worship of images. Its nature. A pretext of idolaters
refuted. Pretexts of the heathen. Genius of idolaters
10. Evasion of the Papists. Their agreement with ancient idolaters.
11. Refutation of another evasion or sophism, viz., the distinction of
dulia and latria.
12. Third division of the chapter, viz., the use and abuse of images.
13. Whether it is expedient to have images in Christian temples.
14. Absurd defense of the worship of images by the second so-called
Council of Nice. Sophisms or perversions of Scripture in defense
of images in churches.
15. Passages adduced in support of the worship of images.
16. The blasphemous expressions of some ancient idolaters
approved by not a few of the more modern, both in word and
deed.
(Scriptural argument for rejecting images in worship, 1-4)
1.We are forbidden every pictorial representation of God
As Scripture, in accommodation to the rude and gross intellect of
man, usually speaks in popular terms, so whenever its object is to
discriminate between the true God and false deities, it opposes him
in particular to idols; not that it approves of what is taught more
elegantly and subtilely by philosophers, but that it may the better
expose the folly, nay, madness of the world in its inquiries after God,
so long as every one clings to his own speculations. This exclusive
definition, which we uniformly meet with in Scripture, annihilates
every deity which men frame for themselves of their own accord -
God himself being the only fit witness to himself.
Meanwhile, seeing that this brutish stupidity has overspread the
globe, men longing after visible forms of God, and so forming deities
of wood and stone, silver and gold, or of any other dead and
corruptible matter, we must hold it as a first principle, that as often
as any form is assigned to God, his glory is corrupted by an impious
lie. In the Law, accordingly, after God had claimed the glory of
divinity for himself alone, when he comes to show what kind of
worship he approves and rejects, he immediately adds, "Thou shalt
not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing
that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under
the earth," (Exod. 20: 4.) By these words he curbs any licentious
attempt we might make to represent him by a visible shape, and
briefly enumerates all the forms by which superstition had begun,
even long before, to turn his truth into a lie. For we know that the
Sun was worshipped by the Persian. As many stars as the foolish
nations saw in the sky, so many gods they imagined them to be. Then
to the Egyptians, every animal was a figure of God. The Greeks,
again, plumed themselves on their superior wisdom in worshipping
God under the human form, (Maximum Tyrius Platonic. Serm. 38.)
But God makes no comparison between images, as if one were more,
and another less befitting; he rejects, without exception, all shapes
and pictures, and other symbols by which the superstitious imagine
they can bring him near to them.
2. Every figurative representation of God contradicts his being
This may easily be inferred from the reasons which he annexes to his
prohibition. First, it is said in the books of Moses, (Deut. 4: 15,)
"Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner
of similitude in the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb, out of
the midst of the fire, lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a
graven image, the similitude of any figure," &c. We see how plainly
God declares against all figures, to make us aware that all longing
after such visible shapes is rebellion against him. Of the prophets, it
will be sufficient to mention Isaiah, who is the most copious on this
subjects (Isaiah 40: 18; 41:7,29; 45:9; 46:5,) in order to show how
the majesty of God is defiled by an absurd and indecorous fiction,
when he who is incorporeal is assimilated to corporeal matter; he
who is invisible to a visible image; he who is a spirit to an inanimate
object; and he who fills all space to a bit of paltry wood, or stone, or
gold. Paul, too, reasons in the same way, "Forasmuch, then, as we are
the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like
unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device," (Acts
17: 29.) Hence it is manifest, that whatever statues are set up or
pictures painted to represent God, are utterly displeasing to him, as a
kind of insults to his majesty. And is it strange that the Holy Spirit
thunders such responses from heaven, when he compels even blind
and miserable idolaters to make a similar confession on the earth?
Seneca's complaint, as given by Augustine De Civit. Dei, c. 10, is well
known. He says "The sacred immortal, and invisible gods they
exhibit in the meanest and most ignoble materials, and dress them in
the clothing of men and beasts; some confound the sexes, and form a
compound out of different bodies, giving the name of deities to
objects, which, if they were met alive, would be deemed monsters."
Hence, again, it is obvious, that the defenders of images resort to a
paltry quibbling evasion, when they pretend that the Jews were
forbidden to use them on account of their proneness to superstition;
as if a prohibition which the Lord founds on his own eternal essences
and the uniform course of nature, could be restricted to a single
nation. Besides, when Paul refuted the error of giving a bodily shape
to God, he was addressing not Jews, but Athenians.
3.Even direct signs of the divine Presence give no justification for images
It is true that the Lord occasionally manifested his presence by
certain signs, so that he was said to be seen face to face; but all the
signs he ever employed were in apt accordance with the scheme of
doctrine, and, at the same time, gave plain intimation of his
incomprehensible essence. For the cloud, and smoke, and flame,
though they were symbols of heavenly glory, (Deut. 4: 11,) curbed
men's minds as with a bridle, that they might not attempt to
penetrate farther. Therefore, even Moses (to whom, of all men, God
manifested himself most familiarly) was not permitted though he
prayed for it, to behold that face, but received for answer, that the
refulgence was too great for man, (Exod. 33: 20.) The Holy Spirit
appeared under the form of a dove, but as it instantly vanished, who
does not see that in this symbol of a moment, the faithful were
admonished to regard the Spirit as invisible, to be contented with his
power and grace, and not call for any external figure? God sometimes
appeared in the form of a man, but this was in anticipation of the
future revelation in Christ, and, therefore, did not give the Jews the
least pretext for setting up a symbol of Deity under the human form.
The mercy-seat, also, (Exod. 25: 17,18,21,) where, under the Law,
God exhibited the presence of his power, was so framed, as to
intimate that God is best seen when the mind rises in admiration
above itself: the Cherubim with outstretched wings shaded, and the
veil covered it, while the remoteness of the place was in itself a
sufficient concealment. It is therefore mere infatuation to attempt to
defend images of God and the saints by the example of the
Cherubim. For what, pray, did these figures mean, if not that images
are unfit to represent the mysteries of God, since they were so
formed as to cover the mercy-seat with their wings, thereby
concealing the view of God, not only from the eye, but from every
human sense, and curbing presumption? To this we may add, that
the prophets depict the Seraphim, who are exhibited to us in vision,
as having their faces veiled; thus intimating, that the refulgence of
the divine glory is so great, that even the angels cannot gaze upon it
directly, while the minute beams which sparkle in the face of angels
are shrouded from our view. Moreover, all men of sound judgement
acknowledge that the Cherubim in question belonged to the old
tutelage of the law. It is absurd, therefore, to bring them forward as
an example for our age. For that period of puerility, if I may so
express it, to which such rudiments were adapted, has passed away.
And surely it is disgraceful, that heathen writers should be more
skilful interpreters of Scripture than the Papists. Juvenal (Sat. 14)
holds up the Jews to derision for worshipping the thin clouds and
firmament. This he does perversely and impiously; still, in denying
that any visible shape of Deity existed among them, he speaks more
accurately than the Papists, who prate about there having been some
visible image. In the fact that the people every now and then rushed
forth with boiling haste in pursuit of idols, just like water gushing
forth with violence from a copious spring, let us learn how prone our
nature is to idolatry, that we may not, by throwing the whole blame
of a common vice upon the Jews, be led away by vain and sinful
enticements to sleep the sleep of death.
4.Images and pictures are contrary to Scripture
To the same effect are the words of the Psalmist, (Psalms 115: 4, 135:
15,) "Their idols are silver and gold, the works of men's hands." From
the materials of which they are made, he infers that they are not
gods, taking it for granted that every human device concerning God
is a dull fiction. He mentions silver and gold rather than clay or
stone, that neither splendour nor cost may procure reverence to
idols. He then draws a general conclusion, that nothing is more
unlikely than that gods should be formed of any kind of inanimate
matter. Man is forced to confess that he is but the creature of a day,
(see Book 3: c. 9 s. 2,) and yet would have the metal which he has
deified to be regarded as God. Whence had idols their origin, but
from the will of man? There was ground, therefore, for the sarcasm
of the heathen poet, (Hor. Sat. I. 8,) "I was once the trunk of a fig tree,
a useless log, when the tradesman, uncertain whether he should
make me a stool, &c., chose rather that I should be a god." In other
words, an earth-born creature, who breathes out his life almost every
moment, is able by his own device to confer the name and honour of
deity on a lifeless trunk. But as that Epicurean poet, in indulging his
wit, had no regard for religion, without attending to his jeers or those
of his fellows, let the rebuke of the prophet sting, nay, cut us to the
heart, when he speaks of the extreme infatuation of those who take a
piece of wood to kindle a fire to warm themselves, bake bread, roast
or boil flesh, and out of the residue make a god, before which they
prostrate themselves as suppliants, (Isaiah 44: 16.) Hence, the same
prophet, in another place, not only charges idolaters as guilty in the
eye of the law, but upbraids them for not learning from the
foundations of the earth, nothing being more incongruous than to
reduce the immense and incomprehensible Deity to the stature of a
few feet. And yet experience shows that this monstrous proceeding,
though palpably repugnant to the order of nature, is natural to man.
It is, moreover, to be observed, that by the mode of expression which
is employed, every form of superstition is denounced. Being works of
men, they have no authority from God, (Isa. 2: 8, 31: 7; Hos. 14: 3;
Mic. 5: 13;) and, therefore, it must be regarded as a fixed principle,
that all modes of worship devised by man are detestable. The
infatuation is placed in a still stronger light by the Psalmist, (Psalm
115: 8,) when he shows how aid is implored from dead and senseless
objects, by beings who have been endued with intelligence for the
very purpose of enabling them to know that the whole universe is
governed by Divine energy alone. But as the corruption of nature
hurries away all mankind collectively and individually into this
madness, the Spirit at length thunders forth a dreadful imprecation,
"They that make them are like unto them, so is every one that
trusteth in them." And it is to be observed, that the thing forbidden is
likeness, whether sculptured or otherwise. This disposes of the
frivolous precaution taken by the Greek Church. They think they do
admirably, because they have no sculptured shape of Deity, while
none go greater lengths in the licentious use of pictures. The Lord,
however, not only forbids any image of himself to be erected by a
statuary, but to be formed by any artist whatever, because every such
image is sinful and insulting to his majesty.
(Pope Gregory's error in this refuted from Scripture and the
fathers, 5-7)
5.Scripture judges otherwise
I am not ignorant, indeed, of the assertion, which is now more than
threadbare, "that images are the books of the unlearned." So said
Gregory: a but the Holy Spirit goes a very different decision; and had
Gregory got his lesson in this matter in the Spirit's school, he never
would have spoken as he did. For when Jeremiah declares that "the
stock is a doctrine of vanities," (Jer. 10: 8,) and Habakkuk, "that the
molten image" is "a teacher of lies," the general doctrine to be
inferred certainly is, that every thing respecting God which is learned
from images is futile and false. If it is objected that the censure of the
prophets is directed against those who perverted images to purposes
of impious superstition, I admit it to be so; but I add, (what must be
obvious to all,) that the prophets utterly condemn what the Papists
hold to be an undoubted axiom, viz., that images are substitutes for
books. For they contrast images with the true God, as if the two were
of an opposite nature, and never could be made to agree. In the
passages which I lately quoted, the conclusion drawn is, that seeing
there is one true God whom the Jews worshipped, visible shapes
made for the purpose of representing him are false and wicked
fictions; and all, therefore, who have recourse to them for knowledge
are miserably deceived. In short, were it not true that all such
knowledge is fallacious and spurious, the prophets would not
condemn it in such general terms. This at least I maintain, that when
we teach that all human attempts to give a visible shape to God are
vanity and lies, we do nothing more than state verbatim what the
prophets taught.
6. The doctors of the church, too, partly judged otherwise
Moreover, let Lactantius and Eusebius be read on this subject. These
writers assume it as an indisputable fact, that all the beings whose
images were erected were originally men. In like manner, Augustine
distinctly declares, that it is unlawful not only to worship images, but
to dedicate them. And in this he says no more than had been long
before decreed by the Libertine Council, the thirty-sixth Canon of
which is, "There must be no pictures used in churches: Let nothing
which is adored or worshipped be painted on walls." But the most
memorable passage of all is that which Augustine quotes in another
place from Varro, and in which he expressly concurs: - "Those who
first introduced images of the gods both took away fear and brought
in error." Were this merely the saying of Varro, it might perhaps be
of little weight, though it might well make us ashamed, that a
heathen, groping as it were in darkness, should have attained to such
a degree of light, as to see that corporeal images are unworthy of the
majesty of God, and that, because they diminish reverential fear and
encourage error. The sentiment itself bears witness that it was
uttered with no less truth than shrewdness. But Augustine, while he
borrows it from Varro, adduces it as conveying his own opinion. At
the outset, indeed, he declares that the first errors into which men
fell concerning God did not originate with images, but increased with
them, as if new fuel had been added. Afterwards, he explains how the
fear of God was thereby extinguished or impaired, his presence being
brought into contempt by foolish, and childish, and absurd
representations. The truth of this latter remark I wish we did not so
thoroughly experience. Whosoever, therefore, is desirous of being
instructed in the true knowledge of God must apply to some other
teacher than images.
7.The images of the papists are entirely inappropriate
Let Papists, then, if they have any sense of shame, henceforth desist
from the futile plea, that images are the books of the unlearned - a
plea so plainly refuted by innumerable passages of Scripture. And yet
were I to admit the plea, it would not be a valid defence of their
peculiar idols. It is well known what kind of monsters they obtrude
upon us as divine. For what are the pictures or statues to which they
append the names of saints, but exhibitions of the most shameless
luxury or obscenity? Were any one to dress himself after their model,
he would deserve the pillory. Indeed, brothels exhibit their inmates
more chastely and modestly dressed than churches do images
intended to represent virgins. The dress of the martyrs is in no
respect more becoming. Let Papists then have some little regard to
decency in decking their idols, if they would give the least plausibility
to the false allegation, that they are books of some kind of sanctity.
(There would be no "uneducated" at all if the church had done its duty)
But even then we shall answer, that this is not the method in which
the Christian people should be taught in sacred places. Very different
from these follies is the doctrine in which God would have them to be
there instructed. His injunction is, that the doctrine common to all
should there be set forth by the preaching of the Word, and the
administration of the sacraments, - a doctrine to which little heed
can be given by those whose eyes are carried too and fro gazing at idols.
And who are the unlearned, whose rudeness admits of being taught
by images only? Just those whom the Lord acknowledges for his
disciples; those whom he honours with a revelation of his celestial
philosophy, and desires to be trained in the saving mysteries of his
kingdom. I confess, indeed, as matters now are, there are not a few in
the present day who cannot want such books. But, I ask, whence this
stupidity, but just because they are defrauded of the only doctrine
which was fit to instruct them? The simple reason why those who
had the charge of churches resigned the office of teaching to idols
was, because they themselves were dumb. Paul declares, that by the
true preaching of the gospel Christ is portrayed and in a manner
crucified before our eyes, (Gal. 3: 1.) Of what use, then, were the
erection in churches of so many crosses of wood and stone, silver and
gold, if this doctrine were faithfully and honestly preached, viz.,
Christ died that he might bear our curse upon the tree, that he might
expiate our sins by the sacrifice of his body, wash them in his blood,
and, in short, reconcile us to God the Father? From this one doctrine
the people would learn more than from a thousand crosses of wood
and stone. As for crosses of gold and silver, it may be true that the
avaricious give their eyes and minds to them more eagerly than to
any heavenly instructor.
(Origin of the use of images, and consequent corruption of worship,
although sculpture and paintings are gifts of God, 8-16)
8. The origin of images: man's desire for a tangible deity
In regard to the origin of idols, the statement contained in the Book
of Wisdom has been received with almost universal consent, viz.,
that they originated with those who bestowed this honour on the
dead, from a superstitious regard to their memory. I admit that this
perverse practice is of very high antiquity, and I deny not that it was
a kind of torch by which the infatuated proneness of mankind to
idolatry was kindled into a greater blaze. I do not, however, admit
that it was the first origin of the practice. That idols were in use
before the prevalence of that ambitious consecration of the images of
the dead, frequently adverted to by profane writers, is evident from
the words of Moses, (Gen. 31: 19.) When he relates that Rachel stole
her father's images, he speaks of the use of idols as a common vice.
Hence we may infer, that the human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual
forge of idols. There was a kind of renewal of the world at the deluge,
but before many years elapse, men are forging gods at will. There is
reason to believe, that in the holy Patriarch's lifetime his
grandchildren were given to idolatry: so that he must with his own
eyes, not without the deepest grief, have seen the earth polluted with
idols - that earth whose iniquities God had lately purged with so
fearful a judgement. For Joshua testifies, (Josh. 24: 2,) that Torah
and Nachor, even before the birth of Abraham, were the worshipers
of false gods. The progeny of Shem having so speedily revolted, what
are we to think of the posterity of Ham, who had been cursed long
before in their father? Thus, indeed, it is. The human mind, stuffed
as it is with presumptuous rashness, dares to imagine a god suited to
its own capacity; as it labours under dullness, nay, is sunk in the
grossest ignorance, it substitutes vanity and an empty phantom in
the place of God.
To these evils another is added. The god whom man has thus
conceived inwardly he attempts to embody outwardly. The mind, in
this way, conceives the idol, and the hand gives it birth. That idolatry
has its origin in the idea which men have, that God is not present
with them unless his presence is carnally exhibited, appears from the
example of the Israelites: "Up," said they, "make us gods, which shall
go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of
the land of Egypt, we wet not what is become of him," (Exod. 22: 1.)
They knew, indeed, that there was a God whose mighty power they
had experienced in so many miracles, but they had no confidence of
his being near to them, if they did not with their eyes behold a
corporeal symbol of his presence, as an attestation to his actual
government. They desired, therefore, to be assured by the image
which went before them, that they were journeying under Divine
guidance. And daily experience shows, that the flesh is always
restless until it has obtained some figment like itself, with which it
may vainly solace itself as a representation of God. In consequence of
this blind passion men have, almost in all ages since the world began,
set up signs on which they imagined that God was visibly depicted to
their eyes.
9. Any use of images leads to idolatry
After such a figment is formed, adoration forthwith ensues: for when
once men imagined that they beheld God in images, they also
worshipped him as being there. At length their eyes and minds
becoming wholly engrossed by them, they began to grow more and
more brutish, gazing and wondering as if some divinity were actually
before them. It hence appears that men do not fall away to the
worship of images until they have imbibed some idea of a grosser
description: not that they actually believe them to be gods, but that
the power of divinity somehow or other resides in them. Therefore,
whether it be God or a creature that is imaged, the moment you fall
prostrate before it in veneration, you are so far fascinated by
superstition. For this reason, the Lord not only forbade the erection
of statues to himself, but also the consecration of titles and stones
which might be set up for adoration. For the same reason, also, the
second commandment has an additional part concerning adoration.
For as soon as a visible form is given to God, his power also is
supposed to be annexed to it. So stupid are men, that wherever they
figure God, there they fix him, and by necessary consequence
proceed to adore him. It makes no difference whether they worship
the idol simply, or God in the idol; it is always idolatry when divine
honours are paid to an idol, be the colour what it may. And because
God wills not to be worshipped superstitiously whatever is bestowed
upon idols is so much robbed from him.
Let those attend to this who set about hunting for miserable pretexts
in defence of the execrable idolatry in which for many past ages true
religion has been buried and sunk. It is said that the images are not
accounted gods. Nor were the Jews so utterly thoughtless as not to
remember that there was a God whose hand led them out of Egypt
before they made the calf. Indeed, Aaron saying, that these were the
gods which had brought them out of Egypt, they intimated, in no
ambiguous terms, that they wished to retain God, their deliverer,
provided they saw him going before them in the calf. Nor are the
heathen to be deemed to have been so stupid as not to understand
that God was something else than wood and stone. For they changed
the images at pleasure, but always retained the same gods in their
minds; besides, they daily consecrated new images without thinking
they were making new gods. Read the excuses which Augustine tells
us were employed by the idolaters of his time, (August. in Ps. 113).
The vulgar, when accused, replied that they did not worship the
visible object, but the Deity which dwelt in it invisibly. Those, again,
who had what he calls a more refined religion, said, that they neither
worshipped the image, nor any inhabiting Deity, but by means of the
corporeal image beheld a symbol of that which it was their duty to
worship. What then? All idolaters whether Jewish or Gentile, were
actuated in the very way which has been described. Not contented
with spiritual understanding, they thought that images would give
them a surer and nearer impression. When once this preposterous
representation of God was adopted, there was no limit until, deluded
every now and then by new impostures, they came to think that God
exerted his power in images. Still the Jews were persuaded, that
under such images they worshipped the eternal God, the one true
Lord of heaven and earth; and the Gentiles, also, in worshipping
their own false gods, supposed them to dwell in heaven.
10. Image worship in the church
It is an impudent falsehood to deny that the thing which was thus
anciently done is also done in our day. For why do men prostrate
themselves before images? Why, when in the act of praying, do they
turn towards them as to the ears of God? It is indeed true, as
Augustine says, (in Ps. 113,) that no person thus prays or worships,
looking at an image, without being impressed with the idea that he is
heard by it, or without hoping that what he wishes will be performed
by it. Why are such distinctions made between different images of
the same God, that while one is passed by, or receives only common
honour, another is worshipped with the highest solemnities? Why do
they fatigue themselves with votive pilgrimages to images while they
have many similar ones at home? Why at the present time do they
fight for them to blood and slaughter, as for their altars and hearths,
showing more willingness to part with the one God than with their
idols? And yet I am not now detailing the gross errors of the vulgar -
errors almost infinite in number, and in possession of almost all
hearts. I am only referring to what those profess who are most
desirous to clear themselves of idolatry. They say, we do not call
them our gods. Nor did either the Jews or Gentiles of old so call
them; and yet the prophets never ceased to charge them with their
adulteries with wood and stone for the very acts which are daily done
by those who would be deemed Christians, namely, for worshipping
God carnally in wood and stone.
11. Foolish evasions of the papists
I am not ignorant, however, and I have no wish to disguise the fact,
that they endeavour to evade the charge by means of a more subtle
distinction, which shall afterwards be fully considered, (see infra, s.
16, and chap. 12 s. 2.) The worship which they pay to their images
they cloak with the name of "idolodulia", and deny to be "idolatria".
So they speaks holding that the worship which they call "dulia" may,
without insult to God, be paid to statues and pictures. Hence, they
think themselves blameless if they are only the servants, and not the
worshipers, of idols; as if it were not a lighter matter to worship than
to serve. And yet, while they take refuge in a Greek term, they very
childishly contradict themselves. For the Greek word "latreuein"
having no other meaning than to worship, what they say is just the
same as if they were to confess that they worship their images
without worshipping them. They cannot object that I am quibbling
upon words. The fact is, that they only betray their ignorance while
they attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the simple. But how
eloquent soever they may be, they will never prove by their
eloquence that one and the same thing makes two. Let them show
how the things differ if they would be thought different from ancient
idolaters. For as a murderer or an adulterer will not escape
conviction by giving some adventitious name to his crime, so it is
absurd for them to expect that the subtle device of a name will
exculpate them, if they, in fact, differ in nothing from idolaters whom
they themselves are forced to condemn. But so far are they from
proving that their case is different, that the source of the whole evil
consists in a preposterous rivalship with them, while they with their
minds devise, and with their hands execute, symbolical shapes of God.
12. The functions and limits of art
I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all visible
representations of every kind are unlawful. But as sculpture and
painting are gifts of God, what I insist for is, that both shall be used
purely and lawfully, - that gifts which the Lord has bestowed upon
us, for his glory and our good, shall not be preposterously abused,
nay, shall not be perverted to our destruction. We think it unlawful
to give a visible shape to God, because God himself has forbidden it,
and because it cannot be done without, in some degree, tarnishing
his glory. And lest any should think that we are singular in this
opinion, those acquainted with the productions of sound divines will
find that they have always disapproved of it. If it be unlawful to make
any corporeal representation of God, still more unlawful must it be to
worship such a representation instead of God, or to worship God in
it. The only things, therefore, which ought to be painted or
sculptured, are things which can be presented to the eye; the majesty
of God, which is far beyond the reach of any eye, must not be
dishonored by unbecoming representations. Visible representations
are of two classes, viz., historical, which give a representation of
events, and pictorial, which merely exhibit bodily shapes and figures.
The former are of some use for instruction or admonition. The latter,
so far as I can see, are only fitted for amusement. And yet it is
certain, that the latter are almost the only kind which have hitherto
been exhibited in churches. Hence we may infer, that the exhibition
was not the result of judicious selection, but of a foolish and
inconsiderate longing. I say nothing as to the improper and
unbecoming form in which they are presented, or the wanton license
in which sculptors and painters have here indulged, (a point to which
I alluded a little ago, supra, s. 7.) I only say, that though they were
otherwise faultless, they could not be of any utility in teaching.
13. As long as doctrine was pure and strong, the church rejected images
But, without reference to the above distinction, let us here consider,
whether it is expedient that churches should contain representations
of any kind, whether of events or human forms. First, then, if we
attach any weight to the authority of the ancient Church, let us
remember, that for five hundred years, during which religion was in
a more prosperous condition, and a purer doctrine flourished,
Christian churches were completely free from visible
representations, (see Preface, and Book 4, c. 9 s. 9.) Hence their first
admission as an ornament to churches took place after the purity of
the ministry had somewhat degenerated. I will not dispute as to the
rationality of the grounds on which the first introduction of them
proceeded, but if you compare the two periods, you will find that the
latter had greatly declined from the purity of the times when images
were unknown. What then? Are we to suppose that those holy
fathers, if they had judged the thing to be useful and salutary, would
have allowed the Church to be so long without it? Undoubtedly,
because they saw very little or no advantage, and the greatest danger
in it, they rather rejected it intentionally and on rational grounds,
than omitted it through ignorance or carelessness. This is clearly
attested by Augustine in these words, (Ep. 49. See also De Civit. Dei,
lib 4 c. 31) "When images are thus placed aloft in seats of honour, to
be beheld by those who are praying or sacrificing, though they have
neither sense nor life, yet from appearing as if they had both, they
affect weak minds just as if they lived and breathed," &c. And again,
in another passage, (in Ps. 112) he says, "The effect produced, and in
a manner extorted, by the bodily shape, is, that the mind, being itself
in a body, imagines that a body which is so like its oven must be
similarly affected," &c. A little farther on he says, "Images are more
capable of giving a wrong bent to an unhappy soul, from having
mouth, eyes, ears, and feet, than of correcting it, as they neither
speak, nor see, nor hear, nor walk."
This undoubtedly is the reason why John (1 John 5: 21) enjoins us to
beware, not only of the worship of idols, but also of idols themselves.
And from the fearful infatuation under which the world has hitherto
laboured, almost to the entire destruction of piety, we know too well
from experience that the moment images appear in churches,
idolatry has as it were raised its banner; because the folly of
manhood cannot moderate itself, but forthwith falls away to
superstitious worship. Even were the danger less imminent, still,
when I consider the proper end for which churches are erected, it
appears to me more unbecoming their sacredness than I well can tell,
to admit any other images than those living symbols which the Lord
has consecrated by his own word: I mean Baptism and the Lord's
Supper, with the other ceremonies. By these our eyes ought to be
more steadily fixed, and more vividly impressed, than to require the
aid of any images which the wit of man may devise. Such, then, is the
incomparable blessing of images - a blessing, the want of which, if we
believe the Papists, cannot possibly be compensated!
14. Childish arguments for images at the Council of Nicea (787)
Enough, I believe, would have been said on this subject, were I not in
a manner arrested by the Council of Nice; not the celebrated Council
which Constantine the Great assembled, but one which was held
eight hundred years ago by the orders and under the auspices of the
Empress Irene. This Council decreed not only that images were to be
used in churches, but also that they were to be worshipped. Every
thing, therefore, that I have said, is in danger of suffering great
prejudice from the authority of this Synod. To confess the truth,
however, I am not so much moved by this consideration, as by a wish
to make my readers aware of the lengths to which the infatuation has
been carried by those who had a greater fondness for images than
became Christians. But let us first dispose of this matter. Those who
defend the use of images appeal to that Synod for support. But there
is a refutation extant which bears the name of Charlemagne, and
which is proved by its style to be a production of that period. It gives
the opinions delivered by the bishops who were present, and the
arguments by which they supported them. John, deputy of the
Eastern Churches, said, "God created man in his own image," and
thence inferred that images ought to be used. He also thought there
was a recommendation of images in the following passage, "Show me
thy face, for it is beautiful." Another, in order to prove that images
ought to be placed on altars, quoted the passage, "No man, when he
has lighted a candle, putteth it under a bushel." Another, to show the
utility of looking at images, quoted a verse of the Psalms "The light of
thy countenance, O Lord, has shone upon us." Another laid hold of
this similitude: As the Patriarchs used the sacrifices of the Gentiles,
so ought Christians to use the images of saints instead of the idols of
the Gentiles. They also twisted to the same effect the words, "Lord, I
have loved the beauty of thy house." But the most ingenious
interpretation was the following, "As we have heard, so also have we
seen;" therefore, God is known not merely by the hearing of the
word, but also by the seeing of images. Bishop Theodore was equally
acute: "God," says he, "is to be admired in his saints;" and it is
elsewhere said, "To the saints who are on earth;" therefore this must
refer to images. In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is
painful even to quote them.
15. Ridiculous misuse of Scripture texts
When they treat of adoration, great stress is laid on the worship of
Pharaoh (Gen. 47:10), the staff of Joseph (Gen. 47:31; Heb. 11:21) ,
and the inscription which Jacob set up (Gen.28:18).
In this last case they not only pervert the meaning of Scripture, but
quote what is nowhere to be found. Then the passages, "Worship at
his footstool" (Ps. 98:5) - "Worship in his holy mountain" (Ps. 98:9) -
"The rulers of the people will worship before thy face," (Ps. 44:13)
seem to them very solid and apposite proofs. Were one, with the view
of turning the defenders of images into ridicule, to put words into
their mouths, could they be made to utter greater and grosser
absurdities? But to put an end to all doubt on the subject of images,
Theodosius Bishop of Mira confirms the propriety of worshipping
them by the dreams of his archdeacon, which he adduces with as
much gravity as if he were in possession of a response from heaven.
Let the patrons of images now go and urge us with the decree of this
Synod, as if the venerable Fathers did not bring themselves into utter
discredit by handling Scripture so childishly, or wresting it so
shamefully and profanely.
16. Blasphemous and shocking claims for images
I come now to monstrous impieties, which it is strange they ventured
to utter, and twice strange that all men did not protest against with
the utmost detestation. It is right to expose this frantic and flagitious
extravagance, and thereby deprive the worship of images of that
gloss of antiquity in which Papists seek to deck it. Theodosius Bishop
of Amora fires oft an anathema at all who object to the worship of
images. Another attributes all the calamities of Greece and the East
to the crime of not having worshipped them. Of what punishment
then are the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs worthy, in whose day
no images existed? They afterwards add, that if the statue of the
Emperor is met with odours and incense, much more are the images
of saints entitled to the honour. Constantius, Bishop of Constantia in
Cyprus, professes to embrace images with reverence, and declares
that he will pay them the respect which is due to the ever blessed
Trinity: every person refusing to do the same thing he anathematises
and classes with Marcionites and Manichees. Lest you should think
this the private opinion of an individual, they all assent. Nay, John
the Eastern legate, carried still farther by his zeal, declares it would
be better to allow a city to be filled with brothels than be denied the
worship of images. At last it is resolved with one consent that the
Samaritans are the worst of all heretics, and that the enemies of
images are worse than the Samaritans. But that the play may not
pass off without the accustomed Plaudite, the whole thus concludes,
"Rejoice and exult, ye who, having the image of Christ, offer sacrifice
to it." Where is now the distinction of latria and dulia with which
they would throw dust in all eyes, human and divine? The Council
unreservedly relies as much on images as on the living God.
There are three leading divisions in this chapter.
The first contains a refutation of those who ascribe a visible form to
God, (s. 1 and 2,) with an answer to the objection of those who,
because it is said that God manifested his presence by certain
symbols, use it as a defence of their error, (s. 3 and 4.) Various
arguments are afterwards adduced, disposing of the trite objection
from Gregory's expression, that images are the books of the
unlearned, (s. 5-7.)
The second division of the chapter relates to the origin of idols or
images, and the adoration of them, as approved by the Papists, (s. 8-
10.) Their evasion refuted, (s. 11.)
The third division treats of the use and abuse of images, (s. 12.)
Whether it is expedient to have them in Christian Churches, (s. 13.)
The concluding part contains a refutation of the second Council of
Nicea, which very absurdly contends for images in opposition to
divine truth, and even to the disparagement of the Christian name.
Sections.
1. God is opposed to idols, that all may know he is the only fit
witness to himself. He expressly forbids any attempt to
represent him by a bodily shape.
2. Reasons for this prohibition from Moses, Isaiah, and Paul. The
complaint of a heathen. It should put the worshipers of idols to
shame.
3. Consideration of an objection taken from various passages in
Moses. The Cherubim and Seraphim show that images are not
fit to represent divine mysteries. The Cherubim belonged to the
tutelage of the Law.
4. The materials of which idols are made, abundantly refute the
fiction of idolaters. Confirmation from Isaiah and others. Absurd
precaution of the Greeks.
5. Objection, - That images are the books of the unlearned.
Objection answered,
1. Scripture declares images to be teachers of vanity and lies.
6. Answer continued,
2. Ancient Theologians condemn the formation and worship of idols.
7. Answer continued,
3. The use of images condemned by the luxury and meretricious
ornaments given to them in Popish Churches.
4. The Church must be trained in true piety by another method.
8. The second division of the chapter. Origin of idols or images. Its
rise shortly after the flood. Its continual progress.
9. Of the worship of images. Its nature. A pretext of idolaters
refuted. Pretexts of the heathen. Genius of idolaters
10. Evasion of the Papists. Their agreement with ancient idolaters.
11. Refutation of another evasion or sophism, viz., the distinction of
dulia and latria.
12. Third division of the chapter, viz., the use and abuse of images.
13. Whether it is expedient to have images in Christian temples.
14. Absurd defense of the worship of images by the second so-called
Council of Nice. Sophisms or perversions of Scripture in defense
of images in churches.
15. Passages adduced in support of the worship of images.
16. The blasphemous expressions of some ancient idolaters
approved by not a few of the more modern, both in word and
deed.
(Scriptural argument for rejecting images in worship, 1-4)
1.We are forbidden every pictorial representation of God
As Scripture, in accommodation to the rude and gross intellect of
man, usually speaks in popular terms, so whenever its object is to
discriminate between the true God and false deities, it opposes him
in particular to idols; not that it approves of what is taught more
elegantly and subtilely by philosophers, but that it may the better
expose the folly, nay, madness of the world in its inquiries after God,
so long as every one clings to his own speculations. This exclusive
definition, which we uniformly meet with in Scripture, annihilates
every deity which men frame for themselves of their own accord -
God himself being the only fit witness to himself.
Meanwhile, seeing that this brutish stupidity has overspread the
globe, men longing after visible forms of God, and so forming deities
of wood and stone, silver and gold, or of any other dead and
corruptible matter, we must hold it as a first principle, that as often
as any form is assigned to God, his glory is corrupted by an impious
lie. In the Law, accordingly, after God had claimed the glory of
divinity for himself alone, when he comes to show what kind of
worship he approves and rejects, he immediately adds, "Thou shalt
not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing
that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under
the earth," (Exod. 20: 4.) By these words he curbs any licentious
attempt we might make to represent him by a visible shape, and
briefly enumerates all the forms by which superstition had begun,
even long before, to turn his truth into a lie. For we know that the
Sun was worshipped by the Persian. As many stars as the foolish
nations saw in the sky, so many gods they imagined them to be. Then
to the Egyptians, every animal was a figure of God. The Greeks,
again, plumed themselves on their superior wisdom in worshipping
God under the human form, (Maximum Tyrius Platonic. Serm. 38.)
But God makes no comparison between images, as if one were more,
and another less befitting; he rejects, without exception, all shapes
and pictures, and other symbols by which the superstitious imagine
they can bring him near to them.
2. Every figurative representation of God contradicts his being
This may easily be inferred from the reasons which he annexes to his
prohibition. First, it is said in the books of Moses, (Deut. 4: 15,)
"Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner
of similitude in the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb, out of
the midst of the fire, lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a
graven image, the similitude of any figure," &c. We see how plainly
God declares against all figures, to make us aware that all longing
after such visible shapes is rebellion against him. Of the prophets, it
will be sufficient to mention Isaiah, who is the most copious on this
subjects (Isaiah 40: 18; 41:7,29; 45:9; 46:5,) in order to show how
the majesty of God is defiled by an absurd and indecorous fiction,
when he who is incorporeal is assimilated to corporeal matter; he
who is invisible to a visible image; he who is a spirit to an inanimate
object; and he who fills all space to a bit of paltry wood, or stone, or
gold. Paul, too, reasons in the same way, "Forasmuch, then, as we are
the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like
unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device," (Acts
17: 29.) Hence it is manifest, that whatever statues are set up or
pictures painted to represent God, are utterly displeasing to him, as a
kind of insults to his majesty. And is it strange that the Holy Spirit
thunders such responses from heaven, when he compels even blind
and miserable idolaters to make a similar confession on the earth?
Seneca's complaint, as given by Augustine De Civit. Dei, c. 10, is well
known. He says "The sacred immortal, and invisible gods they
exhibit in the meanest and most ignoble materials, and dress them in
the clothing of men and beasts; some confound the sexes, and form a
compound out of different bodies, giving the name of deities to
objects, which, if they were met alive, would be deemed monsters."
Hence, again, it is obvious, that the defenders of images resort to a
paltry quibbling evasion, when they pretend that the Jews were
forbidden to use them on account of their proneness to superstition;
as if a prohibition which the Lord founds on his own eternal essences
and the uniform course of nature, could be restricted to a single
nation. Besides, when Paul refuted the error of giving a bodily shape
to God, he was addressing not Jews, but Athenians.
3.Even direct signs of the divine Presence give no justification for images
It is true that the Lord occasionally manifested his presence by
certain signs, so that he was said to be seen face to face; but all the
signs he ever employed were in apt accordance with the scheme of
doctrine, and, at the same time, gave plain intimation of his
incomprehensible essence. For the cloud, and smoke, and flame,
though they were symbols of heavenly glory, (Deut. 4: 11,) curbed
men's minds as with a bridle, that they might not attempt to
penetrate farther. Therefore, even Moses (to whom, of all men, God
manifested himself most familiarly) was not permitted though he
prayed for it, to behold that face, but received for answer, that the
refulgence was too great for man, (Exod. 33: 20.) The Holy Spirit
appeared under the form of a dove, but as it instantly vanished, who
does not see that in this symbol of a moment, the faithful were
admonished to regard the Spirit as invisible, to be contented with his
power and grace, and not call for any external figure? God sometimes
appeared in the form of a man, but this was in anticipation of the
future revelation in Christ, and, therefore, did not give the Jews the
least pretext for setting up a symbol of Deity under the human form.
The mercy-seat, also, (Exod. 25: 17,18,21,) where, under the Law,
God exhibited the presence of his power, was so framed, as to
intimate that God is best seen when the mind rises in admiration
above itself: the Cherubim with outstretched wings shaded, and the
veil covered it, while the remoteness of the place was in itself a
sufficient concealment. It is therefore mere infatuation to attempt to
defend images of God and the saints by the example of the
Cherubim. For what, pray, did these figures mean, if not that images
are unfit to represent the mysteries of God, since they were so
formed as to cover the mercy-seat with their wings, thereby
concealing the view of God, not only from the eye, but from every
human sense, and curbing presumption? To this we may add, that
the prophets depict the Seraphim, who are exhibited to us in vision,
as having their faces veiled; thus intimating, that the refulgence of
the divine glory is so great, that even the angels cannot gaze upon it
directly, while the minute beams which sparkle in the face of angels
are shrouded from our view. Moreover, all men of sound judgement
acknowledge that the Cherubim in question belonged to the old
tutelage of the law. It is absurd, therefore, to bring them forward as
an example for our age. For that period of puerility, if I may so
express it, to which such rudiments were adapted, has passed away.
And surely it is disgraceful, that heathen writers should be more
skilful interpreters of Scripture than the Papists. Juvenal (Sat. 14)
holds up the Jews to derision for worshipping the thin clouds and
firmament. This he does perversely and impiously; still, in denying
that any visible shape of Deity existed among them, he speaks more
accurately than the Papists, who prate about there having been some
visible image. In the fact that the people every now and then rushed
forth with boiling haste in pursuit of idols, just like water gushing
forth with violence from a copious spring, let us learn how prone our
nature is to idolatry, that we may not, by throwing the whole blame
of a common vice upon the Jews, be led away by vain and sinful
enticements to sleep the sleep of death.
4.Images and pictures are contrary to Scripture
To the same effect are the words of the Psalmist, (Psalms 115: 4, 135:
15,) "Their idols are silver and gold, the works of men's hands." From
the materials of which they are made, he infers that they are not
gods, taking it for granted that every human device concerning God
is a dull fiction. He mentions silver and gold rather than clay or
stone, that neither splendour nor cost may procure reverence to
idols. He then draws a general conclusion, that nothing is more
unlikely than that gods should be formed of any kind of inanimate
matter. Man is forced to confess that he is but the creature of a day,
(see Book 3: c. 9 s. 2,) and yet would have the metal which he has
deified to be regarded as God. Whence had idols their origin, but
from the will of man? There was ground, therefore, for the sarcasm
of the heathen poet, (Hor. Sat. I. 8,) "I was once the trunk of a fig tree,
a useless log, when the tradesman, uncertain whether he should
make me a stool, &c., chose rather that I should be a god." In other
words, an earth-born creature, who breathes out his life almost every
moment, is able by his own device to confer the name and honour of
deity on a lifeless trunk. But as that Epicurean poet, in indulging his
wit, had no regard for religion, without attending to his jeers or those
of his fellows, let the rebuke of the prophet sting, nay, cut us to the
heart, when he speaks of the extreme infatuation of those who take a
piece of wood to kindle a fire to warm themselves, bake bread, roast
or boil flesh, and out of the residue make a god, before which they
prostrate themselves as suppliants, (Isaiah 44: 16.) Hence, the same
prophet, in another place, not only charges idolaters as guilty in the
eye of the law, but upbraids them for not learning from the
foundations of the earth, nothing being more incongruous than to
reduce the immense and incomprehensible Deity to the stature of a
few feet. And yet experience shows that this monstrous proceeding,
though palpably repugnant to the order of nature, is natural to man.
It is, moreover, to be observed, that by the mode of expression which
is employed, every form of superstition is denounced. Being works of
men, they have no authority from God, (Isa. 2: 8, 31: 7; Hos. 14: 3;
Mic. 5: 13;) and, therefore, it must be regarded as a fixed principle,
that all modes of worship devised by man are detestable. The
infatuation is placed in a still stronger light by the Psalmist, (Psalm
115: 8,) when he shows how aid is implored from dead and senseless
objects, by beings who have been endued with intelligence for the
very purpose of enabling them to know that the whole universe is
governed by Divine energy alone. But as the corruption of nature
hurries away all mankind collectively and individually into this
madness, the Spirit at length thunders forth a dreadful imprecation,
"They that make them are like unto them, so is every one that
trusteth in them." And it is to be observed, that the thing forbidden is
likeness, whether sculptured or otherwise. This disposes of the
frivolous precaution taken by the Greek Church. They think they do
admirably, because they have no sculptured shape of Deity, while
none go greater lengths in the licentious use of pictures. The Lord,
however, not only forbids any image of himself to be erected by a
statuary, but to be formed by any artist whatever, because every such
image is sinful and insulting to his majesty.
(Pope Gregory's error in this refuted from Scripture and the
fathers, 5-7)
5.Scripture judges otherwise
I am not ignorant, indeed, of the assertion, which is now more than
threadbare, "that images are the books of the unlearned." So said
Gregory: a but the Holy Spirit goes a very different decision; and had
Gregory got his lesson in this matter in the Spirit's school, he never
would have spoken as he did. For when Jeremiah declares that "the
stock is a doctrine of vanities," (Jer. 10: 8,) and Habakkuk, "that the
molten image" is "a teacher of lies," the general doctrine to be
inferred certainly is, that every thing respecting God which is learned
from images is futile and false. If it is objected that the censure of the
prophets is directed against those who perverted images to purposes
of impious superstition, I admit it to be so; but I add, (what must be
obvious to all,) that the prophets utterly condemn what the Papists
hold to be an undoubted axiom, viz., that images are substitutes for
books. For they contrast images with the true God, as if the two were
of an opposite nature, and never could be made to agree. In the
passages which I lately quoted, the conclusion drawn is, that seeing
there is one true God whom the Jews worshipped, visible shapes
made for the purpose of representing him are false and wicked
fictions; and all, therefore, who have recourse to them for knowledge
are miserably deceived. In short, were it not true that all such
knowledge is fallacious and spurious, the prophets would not
condemn it in such general terms. This at least I maintain, that when
we teach that all human attempts to give a visible shape to God are
vanity and lies, we do nothing more than state verbatim what the
prophets taught.
6. The doctors of the church, too, partly judged otherwise
Moreover, let Lactantius and Eusebius be read on this subject. These
writers assume it as an indisputable fact, that all the beings whose
images were erected were originally men. In like manner, Augustine
distinctly declares, that it is unlawful not only to worship images, but
to dedicate them. And in this he says no more than had been long
before decreed by the Libertine Council, the thirty-sixth Canon of
which is, "There must be no pictures used in churches: Let nothing
which is adored or worshipped be painted on walls." But the most
memorable passage of all is that which Augustine quotes in another
place from Varro, and in which he expressly concurs: - "Those who
first introduced images of the gods both took away fear and brought
in error." Were this merely the saying of Varro, it might perhaps be
of little weight, though it might well make us ashamed, that a
heathen, groping as it were in darkness, should have attained to such
a degree of light, as to see that corporeal images are unworthy of the
majesty of God, and that, because they diminish reverential fear and
encourage error. The sentiment itself bears witness that it was
uttered with no less truth than shrewdness. But Augustine, while he
borrows it from Varro, adduces it as conveying his own opinion. At
the outset, indeed, he declares that the first errors into which men
fell concerning God did not originate with images, but increased with
them, as if new fuel had been added. Afterwards, he explains how the
fear of God was thereby extinguished or impaired, his presence being
brought into contempt by foolish, and childish, and absurd
representations. The truth of this latter remark I wish we did not so
thoroughly experience. Whosoever, therefore, is desirous of being
instructed in the true knowledge of God must apply to some other
teacher than images.
7.The images of the papists are entirely inappropriate
Let Papists, then, if they have any sense of shame, henceforth desist
from the futile plea, that images are the books of the unlearned - a
plea so plainly refuted by innumerable passages of Scripture. And yet
were I to admit the plea, it would not be a valid defence of their
peculiar idols. It is well known what kind of monsters they obtrude
upon us as divine. For what are the pictures or statues to which they
append the names of saints, but exhibitions of the most shameless
luxury or obscenity? Were any one to dress himself after their model,
he would deserve the pillory. Indeed, brothels exhibit their inmates
more chastely and modestly dressed than churches do images
intended to represent virgins. The dress of the martyrs is in no
respect more becoming. Let Papists then have some little regard to
decency in decking their idols, if they would give the least plausibility
to the false allegation, that they are books of some kind of sanctity.
(There would be no "uneducated" at all if the church had done its duty)
But even then we shall answer, that this is not the method in which
the Christian people should be taught in sacred places. Very different
from these follies is the doctrine in which God would have them to be
there instructed. His injunction is, that the doctrine common to all
should there be set forth by the preaching of the Word, and the
administration of the sacraments, - a doctrine to which little heed
can be given by those whose eyes are carried too and fro gazing at idols.
And who are the unlearned, whose rudeness admits of being taught
by images only? Just those whom the Lord acknowledges for his
disciples; those whom he honours with a revelation of his celestial
philosophy, and desires to be trained in the saving mysteries of his
kingdom. I confess, indeed, as matters now are, there are not a few in
the present day who cannot want such books. But, I ask, whence this
stupidity, but just because they are defrauded of the only doctrine
which was fit to instruct them? The simple reason why those who
had the charge of churches resigned the office of teaching to idols
was, because they themselves were dumb. Paul declares, that by the
true preaching of the gospel Christ is portrayed and in a manner
crucified before our eyes, (Gal. 3: 1.) Of what use, then, were the
erection in churches of so many crosses of wood and stone, silver and
gold, if this doctrine were faithfully and honestly preached, viz.,
Christ died that he might bear our curse upon the tree, that he might
expiate our sins by the sacrifice of his body, wash them in his blood,
and, in short, reconcile us to God the Father? From this one doctrine
the people would learn more than from a thousand crosses of wood
and stone. As for crosses of gold and silver, it may be true that the
avaricious give their eyes and minds to them more eagerly than to
any heavenly instructor.
(Origin of the use of images, and consequent corruption of worship,
although sculpture and paintings are gifts of God, 8-16)
8. The origin of images: man's desire for a tangible deity
In regard to the origin of idols, the statement contained in the Book
of Wisdom has been received with almost universal consent, viz.,
that they originated with those who bestowed this honour on the
dead, from a superstitious regard to their memory. I admit that this
perverse practice is of very high antiquity, and I deny not that it was
a kind of torch by which the infatuated proneness of mankind to
idolatry was kindled into a greater blaze. I do not, however, admit
that it was the first origin of the practice. That idols were in use
before the prevalence of that ambitious consecration of the images of
the dead, frequently adverted to by profane writers, is evident from
the words of Moses, (Gen. 31: 19.) When he relates that Rachel stole
her father's images, he speaks of the use of idols as a common vice.
Hence we may infer, that the human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual
forge of idols. There was a kind of renewal of the world at the deluge,
but before many years elapse, men are forging gods at will. There is
reason to believe, that in the holy Patriarch's lifetime his
grandchildren were given to idolatry: so that he must with his own
eyes, not without the deepest grief, have seen the earth polluted with
idols - that earth whose iniquities God had lately purged with so
fearful a judgement. For Joshua testifies, (Josh. 24: 2,) that Torah
and Nachor, even before the birth of Abraham, were the worshipers
of false gods. The progeny of Shem having so speedily revolted, what
are we to think of the posterity of Ham, who had been cursed long
before in their father? Thus, indeed, it is. The human mind, stuffed
as it is with presumptuous rashness, dares to imagine a god suited to
its own capacity; as it labours under dullness, nay, is sunk in the
grossest ignorance, it substitutes vanity and an empty phantom in
the place of God.
To these evils another is added. The god whom man has thus
conceived inwardly he attempts to embody outwardly. The mind, in
this way, conceives the idol, and the hand gives it birth. That idolatry
has its origin in the idea which men have, that God is not present
with them unless his presence is carnally exhibited, appears from the
example of the Israelites: "Up," said they, "make us gods, which shall
go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of
the land of Egypt, we wet not what is become of him," (Exod. 22: 1.)
They knew, indeed, that there was a God whose mighty power they
had experienced in so many miracles, but they had no confidence of
his being near to them, if they did not with their eyes behold a
corporeal symbol of his presence, as an attestation to his actual
government. They desired, therefore, to be assured by the image
which went before them, that they were journeying under Divine
guidance. And daily experience shows, that the flesh is always
restless until it has obtained some figment like itself, with which it
may vainly solace itself as a representation of God. In consequence of
this blind passion men have, almost in all ages since the world began,
set up signs on which they imagined that God was visibly depicted to
their eyes.
9. Any use of images leads to idolatry
After such a figment is formed, adoration forthwith ensues: for when
once men imagined that they beheld God in images, they also
worshipped him as being there. At length their eyes and minds
becoming wholly engrossed by them, they began to grow more and
more brutish, gazing and wondering as if some divinity were actually
before them. It hence appears that men do not fall away to the
worship of images until they have imbibed some idea of a grosser
description: not that they actually believe them to be gods, but that
the power of divinity somehow or other resides in them. Therefore,
whether it be God or a creature that is imaged, the moment you fall
prostrate before it in veneration, you are so far fascinated by
superstition. For this reason, the Lord not only forbade the erection
of statues to himself, but also the consecration of titles and stones
which might be set up for adoration. For the same reason, also, the
second commandment has an additional part concerning adoration.
For as soon as a visible form is given to God, his power also is
supposed to be annexed to it. So stupid are men, that wherever they
figure God, there they fix him, and by necessary consequence
proceed to adore him. It makes no difference whether they worship
the idol simply, or God in the idol; it is always idolatry when divine
honours are paid to an idol, be the colour what it may. And because
God wills not to be worshipped superstitiously whatever is bestowed
upon idols is so much robbed from him.
Let those attend to this who set about hunting for miserable pretexts
in defence of the execrable idolatry in which for many past ages true
religion has been buried and sunk. It is said that the images are not
accounted gods. Nor were the Jews so utterly thoughtless as not to
remember that there was a God whose hand led them out of Egypt
before they made the calf. Indeed, Aaron saying, that these were the
gods which had brought them out of Egypt, they intimated, in no
ambiguous terms, that they wished to retain God, their deliverer,
provided they saw him going before them in the calf. Nor are the
heathen to be deemed to have been so stupid as not to understand
that God was something else than wood and stone. For they changed
the images at pleasure, but always retained the same gods in their
minds; besides, they daily consecrated new images without thinking
they were making new gods. Read the excuses which Augustine tells
us were employed by the idolaters of his time, (August. in Ps. 113).
The vulgar, when accused, replied that they did not worship the
visible object, but the Deity which dwelt in it invisibly. Those, again,
who had what he calls a more refined religion, said, that they neither
worshipped the image, nor any inhabiting Deity, but by means of the
corporeal image beheld a symbol of that which it was their duty to
worship. What then? All idolaters whether Jewish or Gentile, were
actuated in the very way which has been described. Not contented
with spiritual understanding, they thought that images would give
them a surer and nearer impression. When once this preposterous
representation of God was adopted, there was no limit until, deluded
every now and then by new impostures, they came to think that God
exerted his power in images. Still the Jews were persuaded, that
under such images they worshipped the eternal God, the one true
Lord of heaven and earth; and the Gentiles, also, in worshipping
their own false gods, supposed them to dwell in heaven.
10. Image worship in the church
It is an impudent falsehood to deny that the thing which was thus
anciently done is also done in our day. For why do men prostrate
themselves before images? Why, when in the act of praying, do they
turn towards them as to the ears of God? It is indeed true, as
Augustine says, (in Ps. 113,) that no person thus prays or worships,
looking at an image, without being impressed with the idea that he is
heard by it, or without hoping that what he wishes will be performed
by it. Why are such distinctions made between different images of
the same God, that while one is passed by, or receives only common
honour, another is worshipped with the highest solemnities? Why do
they fatigue themselves with votive pilgrimages to images while they
have many similar ones at home? Why at the present time do they
fight for them to blood and slaughter, as for their altars and hearths,
showing more willingness to part with the one God than with their
idols? And yet I am not now detailing the gross errors of the vulgar -
errors almost infinite in number, and in possession of almost all
hearts. I am only referring to what those profess who are most
desirous to clear themselves of idolatry. They say, we do not call
them our gods. Nor did either the Jews or Gentiles of old so call
them; and yet the prophets never ceased to charge them with their
adulteries with wood and stone for the very acts which are daily done
by those who would be deemed Christians, namely, for worshipping
God carnally in wood and stone.
11. Foolish evasions of the papists
I am not ignorant, however, and I have no wish to disguise the fact,
that they endeavour to evade the charge by means of a more subtle
distinction, which shall afterwards be fully considered, (see infra, s.
16, and chap. 12 s. 2.) The worship which they pay to their images
they cloak with the name of "idolodulia", and deny to be "idolatria".
So they speaks holding that the worship which they call "dulia" may,
without insult to God, be paid to statues and pictures. Hence, they
think themselves blameless if they are only the servants, and not the
worshipers, of idols; as if it were not a lighter matter to worship than
to serve. And yet, while they take refuge in a Greek term, they very
childishly contradict themselves. For the Greek word "latreuein"
having no other meaning than to worship, what they say is just the
same as if they were to confess that they worship their images
without worshipping them. They cannot object that I am quibbling
upon words. The fact is, that they only betray their ignorance while
they attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the simple. But how
eloquent soever they may be, they will never prove by their
eloquence that one and the same thing makes two. Let them show
how the things differ if they would be thought different from ancient
idolaters. For as a murderer or an adulterer will not escape
conviction by giving some adventitious name to his crime, so it is
absurd for them to expect that the subtle device of a name will
exculpate them, if they, in fact, differ in nothing from idolaters whom
they themselves are forced to condemn. But so far are they from
proving that their case is different, that the source of the whole evil
consists in a preposterous rivalship with them, while they with their
minds devise, and with their hands execute, symbolical shapes of God.
12. The functions and limits of art
I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all visible
representations of every kind are unlawful. But as sculpture and
painting are gifts of God, what I insist for is, that both shall be used
purely and lawfully, - that gifts which the Lord has bestowed upon
us, for his glory and our good, shall not be preposterously abused,
nay, shall not be perverted to our destruction. We think it unlawful
to give a visible shape to God, because God himself has forbidden it,
and because it cannot be done without, in some degree, tarnishing
his glory. And lest any should think that we are singular in this
opinion, those acquainted with the productions of sound divines will
find that they have always disapproved of it. If it be unlawful to make
any corporeal representation of God, still more unlawful must it be to
worship such a representation instead of God, or to worship God in
it. The only things, therefore, which ought to be painted or
sculptured, are things which can be presented to the eye; the majesty
of God, which is far beyond the reach of any eye, must not be
dishonored by unbecoming representations. Visible representations
are of two classes, viz., historical, which give a representation of
events, and pictorial, which merely exhibit bodily shapes and figures.
The former are of some use for instruction or admonition. The latter,
so far as I can see, are only fitted for amusement. And yet it is
certain, that the latter are almost the only kind which have hitherto
been exhibited in churches. Hence we may infer, that the exhibition
was not the result of judicious selection, but of a foolish and
inconsiderate longing. I say nothing as to the improper and
unbecoming form in which they are presented, or the wanton license
in which sculptors and painters have here indulged, (a point to which
I alluded a little ago, supra, s. 7.) I only say, that though they were
otherwise faultless, they could not be of any utility in teaching.
13. As long as doctrine was pure and strong, the church rejected images
But, without reference to the above distinction, let us here consider,
whether it is expedient that churches should contain representations
of any kind, whether of events or human forms. First, then, if we
attach any weight to the authority of the ancient Church, let us
remember, that for five hundred years, during which religion was in
a more prosperous condition, and a purer doctrine flourished,
Christian churches were completely free from visible
representations, (see Preface, and Book 4, c. 9 s. 9.) Hence their first
admission as an ornament to churches took place after the purity of
the ministry had somewhat degenerated. I will not dispute as to the
rationality of the grounds on which the first introduction of them
proceeded, but if you compare the two periods, you will find that the
latter had greatly declined from the purity of the times when images
were unknown. What then? Are we to suppose that those holy
fathers, if they had judged the thing to be useful and salutary, would
have allowed the Church to be so long without it? Undoubtedly,
because they saw very little or no advantage, and the greatest danger
in it, they rather rejected it intentionally and on rational grounds,
than omitted it through ignorance or carelessness. This is clearly
attested by Augustine in these words, (Ep. 49. See also De Civit. Dei,
lib 4 c. 31) "When images are thus placed aloft in seats of honour, to
be beheld by those who are praying or sacrificing, though they have
neither sense nor life, yet from appearing as if they had both, they
affect weak minds just as if they lived and breathed," &c. And again,
in another passage, (in Ps. 112) he says, "The effect produced, and in
a manner extorted, by the bodily shape, is, that the mind, being itself
in a body, imagines that a body which is so like its oven must be
similarly affected," &c. A little farther on he says, "Images are more
capable of giving a wrong bent to an unhappy soul, from having
mouth, eyes, ears, and feet, than of correcting it, as they neither
speak, nor see, nor hear, nor walk."
This undoubtedly is the reason why John (1 John 5: 21) enjoins us to
beware, not only of the worship of idols, but also of idols themselves.
And from the fearful infatuation under which the world has hitherto
laboured, almost to the entire destruction of piety, we know too well
from experience that the moment images appear in churches,
idolatry has as it were raised its banner; because the folly of
manhood cannot moderate itself, but forthwith falls away to
superstitious worship. Even were the danger less imminent, still,
when I consider the proper end for which churches are erected, it
appears to me more unbecoming their sacredness than I well can tell,
to admit any other images than those living symbols which the Lord
has consecrated by his own word: I mean Baptism and the Lord's
Supper, with the other ceremonies. By these our eyes ought to be
more steadily fixed, and more vividly impressed, than to require the
aid of any images which the wit of man may devise. Such, then, is the
incomparable blessing of images - a blessing, the want of which, if we
believe the Papists, cannot possibly be compensated!
14. Childish arguments for images at the Council of Nicea (787)
Enough, I believe, would have been said on this subject, were I not in
a manner arrested by the Council of Nice; not the celebrated Council
which Constantine the Great assembled, but one which was held
eight hundred years ago by the orders and under the auspices of the
Empress Irene. This Council decreed not only that images were to be
used in churches, but also that they were to be worshipped. Every
thing, therefore, that I have said, is in danger of suffering great
prejudice from the authority of this Synod. To confess the truth,
however, I am not so much moved by this consideration, as by a wish
to make my readers aware of the lengths to which the infatuation has
been carried by those who had a greater fondness for images than
became Christians. But let us first dispose of this matter. Those who
defend the use of images appeal to that Synod for support. But there
is a refutation extant which bears the name of Charlemagne, and
which is proved by its style to be a production of that period. It gives
the opinions delivered by the bishops who were present, and the
arguments by which they supported them. John, deputy of the
Eastern Churches, said, "God created man in his own image," and
thence inferred that images ought to be used. He also thought there
was a recommendation of images in the following passage, "Show me
thy face, for it is beautiful." Another, in order to prove that images
ought to be placed on altars, quoted the passage, "No man, when he
has lighted a candle, putteth it under a bushel." Another, to show the
utility of looking at images, quoted a verse of the Psalms "The light of
thy countenance, O Lord, has shone upon us." Another laid hold of
this similitude: As the Patriarchs used the sacrifices of the Gentiles,
so ought Christians to use the images of saints instead of the idols of
the Gentiles. They also twisted to the same effect the words, "Lord, I
have loved the beauty of thy house." But the most ingenious
interpretation was the following, "As we have heard, so also have we
seen;" therefore, God is known not merely by the hearing of the
word, but also by the seeing of images. Bishop Theodore was equally
acute: "God," says he, "is to be admired in his saints;" and it is
elsewhere said, "To the saints who are on earth;" therefore this must
refer to images. In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is
painful even to quote them.
15. Ridiculous misuse of Scripture texts
When they treat of adoration, great stress is laid on the worship of
Pharaoh (Gen. 47:10), the staff of Joseph (Gen. 47:31; Heb. 11:21) ,
and the inscription which Jacob set up (Gen.28:18).
In this last case they not only pervert the meaning of Scripture, but
quote what is nowhere to be found. Then the passages, "Worship at
his footstool" (Ps. 98:5) - "Worship in his holy mountain" (Ps. 98:9) -
"The rulers of the people will worship before thy face," (Ps. 44:13)
seem to them very solid and apposite proofs. Were one, with the view
of turning the defenders of images into ridicule, to put words into
their mouths, could they be made to utter greater and grosser
absurdities? But to put an end to all doubt on the subject of images,
Theodosius Bishop of Mira confirms the propriety of worshipping
them by the dreams of his archdeacon, which he adduces with as
much gravity as if he were in possession of a response from heaven.
Let the patrons of images now go and urge us with the decree of this
Synod, as if the venerable Fathers did not bring themselves into utter
discredit by handling Scripture so childishly, or wresting it so
shamefully and profanely.
16. Blasphemous and shocking claims for images
I come now to monstrous impieties, which it is strange they ventured
to utter, and twice strange that all men did not protest against with
the utmost detestation. It is right to expose this frantic and flagitious
extravagance, and thereby deprive the worship of images of that
gloss of antiquity in which Papists seek to deck it. Theodosius Bishop
of Amora fires oft an anathema at all who object to the worship of
images. Another attributes all the calamities of Greece and the East
to the crime of not having worshipped them. Of what punishment
then are the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs worthy, in whose day
no images existed? They afterwards add, that if the statue of the
Emperor is met with odours and incense, much more are the images
of saints entitled to the honour. Constantius, Bishop of Constantia in
Cyprus, professes to embrace images with reverence, and declares
that he will pay them the respect which is due to the ever blessed
Trinity: every person refusing to do the same thing he anathematises
and classes with Marcionites and Manichees. Lest you should think
this the private opinion of an individual, they all assent. Nay, John
the Eastern legate, carried still farther by his zeal, declares it would
be better to allow a city to be filled with brothels than be denied the
worship of images. At last it is resolved with one consent that the
Samaritans are the worst of all heretics, and that the enemies of
images are worse than the Samaritans. But that the play may not
pass off without the accustomed Plaudite, the whole thus concludes,
"Rejoice and exult, ye who, having the image of Christ, offer sacrifice
to it." Where is now the distinction of latria and dulia with which
they would throw dust in all eyes, human and divine? The Council
unreservedly relies as much on images as on the living God.