A Defection From The True God.
Now, as the Scripture, in consideration of the ignorance and dulness of
the human understanding, generally speaks in the plainest manner,—where it
intends to discriminate between the true God and all false gods, it
principally contrasts him with idols; not that it may sanction the more
ingenious and plausible systems of the philosophers, but that it may
better detect the folly and even madness of the world in researches
concerning God, as long as every one adheres to his own speculations. That
exclusive definition, therefore, which every where occurs, reduces to
nothing whatever notions of the Deity men may form in their own
imaginations; since God alone is a sufficient witness concerning himself.
In the mean time, since the whole world has been seized with such brutal
stupidity, as to be desirous of visible representations of the Deity, and
thus to fabricate gods of wood, stone, gold, silver, and other inanimate
and corruptible materials, we ought to hold this as a certain principle,
that, whenever any image is made as a representation of God, the Divine
glory is corrupted by an impious falsehood. Therefore God, in the law,
after having asserted the glory of Deity to belong exclusively to himself,
when he intends to show what worship he approves or rejects, immediately
adds, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness.”
In these words he forbids us to attempt a representation of him in any
visible figure; and briefly enumerates all the forms by which superstition
had already begun to change his truth into a lie. For the Persians, we
know, worshipped the sun; and the foolish heathen made for themselves as
many gods as they saw stars in the heavens. There was scarcely an animal,
indeed, which the Egyptians did not consider as an image of God. The
Greeks appeared wiser than the rest, because they worshipped the Deity
under the human form.(160) But God compares not idols with each other, as
though one were better or worse than another; but rejects, without a
single exception, all statues, pictures, and other figures, in which
idolaters imagined that he would be near them.
II. This it is easy to infer from the reasons which he annexes to the
prohibition. First, in the writings of Moses: “Take ye therefore good heed
unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude, on the day that the
Lord spake unto you in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the
voice of the words, but saw no similitude; lest ye corrupt yourselves, and
make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure,” &c.(161) We see
how expressly God opposes his “voice” to every “manner of similitude,” to
show, that whoever desires visible representations of him, is guilty of
departing from him. It will be sufficient to refer to one of the Prophets,
Isaiah,(162) who insists more than all the others on this argument, that
the Divine Majesty is dishonoured by mean and absurd fiction, when he that
is incorporeal is likened to a corporeal form; he that is invisible, to a
visible image; he that is a spirit, to inanimate matter; and he that fills
immensity, to a log of wood, a small stone, or a lump of gold. Paul also
reasons in the same manner: “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.”(163) Whence it follows, that
whatever statues are erected, or images painted, to represent God, they
are only displeasing to him, as being so many insults to the Divine
Majesty. And why should we wonder at the Holy Spirit thundering forth such
oracles from heaven, since he compels the blind and wretched idolaters to
make a similar confession on earth? Well known is the complaint of Seneca,
which is cited by Augustine: “They dedicate (says he) the vilest and
meanest materials to represent the sacred, immortal, and inviolable gods;
and give them some a human form, and some a brutal one, and some a double
sex, and different bodies; and they confer the name of gods upon images
which, if animated, would be accounted monsters.” Hence it further appears
that the pretence set up by the advocates for idols, that they were
forbidden to the Jews because they were prone to superstition, is only a
frivolous cavil, to evade the force of the argument. As if truly that were
peculiarly applicable to one nation, which God deduces from his eternal
existence, and the invariable order of nature! Besides, Paul was not
addressing the Jews, but the Athenians, when he refuted the error of
making any similitude of God.
III. Sometimes indeed God hath discovered his presence by certain signs,
so that he was said to be seen “face to face;”(164) but all the signs
which he ever adopted, were well calculated for the instruction of men,
and afforded clear intimations of his incomprehensible essence. For “the
cloud, and the smoke, and the flame,”(165) though they were symbols of
celestial glory, nevertheless operated as a restraint on the minds of all,
to prevent their attempting to penetrate any further. Wherefore even Moses
(to whom he manifested himself more familiarly than to any other) obtained
not by his prayers a sight of the face of God, but received this answer:
“Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see my face and
live.”(166) The Holy Spirit once appeared in the form of a dove;(167) but,
as he presently disappeared again, who does not perceive that by this
momentary symbol the faithful are taught that they should believe the
Spirit to be invisible? that, being content with his power and grace, they
might make no external representation of him. The appearances of God in
the human form were preludes to his future manifestation in Christ.
Therefore the Jews were not permitted to make this a pretext for erecting
a symbol of Deity in the figure of a man. “The mercy seat”(168) also, from
which, under the law, God displayed the presence of his power, was so
constructed, as to suggest that the best contemplation of the Divine Being
is when the mind is transported beyond itself with admiration. For “the
cherubim” covered it with their extended wings; the veil was spread before
it; and the place itself was sufficiently concealed by its secluded
situation. It is manifestly unreasonable therefore to endeavour to defend
images of God and of the saints, by the example of those cherubim. For,
pray, what was signified by those little images but that images are not
calculated to represent the Divine mysteries? since they were formed in
such a manner as, by veiling the mercy seat with their wings, to prevent
not only the eyes, but all the human senses, from prying into God, and so
to restrain all temerity. Moreover, the Prophet describes the seraphim
whom he saw in a vision, as having “their faces covered;”(169) to signify,
that the splendour of the Divine glory is so great, that even the angels
themselves cannot steadfastly behold it; and the faint sparks of it, which
shine in the angels, are concealed from our view. The cherubim, however,
of which we are now speaking, are acknowledged by all persons of sound
judgment to have been peculiar to the old state of tutelage under the
legal dispensation. To adduce them, therefore, as examples for the
imitation of the present age, is quite absurd. For that puerile period, as
I may call it, for which such rudiments were appointed, is now past. And,
indeed, it is a shameful consideration, that heathen writers are more
expert interpreters of the Divine law than the papists. Juvenal reproaches
and ridicules the Jews for worshipping the white clouds and Deity of
heaven. This language, indeed, is perverse and impious; but in denying
that there was any image of God among them, he speaks with more truth than
the papists, who idly pretend that there was some visible figure of him.
But as that nation frequently broke out into idolatry, with great and
sudden impetuosity, resembling the violent ebullition of water from a
large spring, hence let us learn the strong propensity of the human mind
to idolatry, lest, imputing to the Jews a crime common to all, we should
be fascinated by the allurements of sin, and sleep the sleep of death.
IV. To the same purpose is that passage, “The idols of the heathen are
silver and gold, the work of men’s hands;”(170) for the Prophet concludes,
from the very materials, that they are no gods, whose images are made of
gold or of silver; and takes it for granted, that every conception we form
of the Deity, merely from our own understandings, is a foolish
imagination. He mentions gold and silver rather than clay or stone, that
the splendour or the value of the materials may procure no reverence for
the idols. But he concludes in general, that nothing is more improbable,
than that gods should be manufactured from any inanimate matter. At the
same time he insists equally on another point—that it is presumption and
madness in mortal men, who are every moment in danger of losing the
fleeting breath which they draw, to dare to confer upon idols the honour
due to God. Man is constrained to confess that he is a creature of a day,
and yet he will have a piece of metal to be worshipped as a god, of the
deity of which he is the author; for whence did idols originate, but in
the will of men? There is much propriety in that sarcasm of a heathen
poet, who represents one of their idols as saying, “Formerly, I was the
trunk of a wild fig‐tree, a useless log; when the artificer, after
hesitating whether he would make me a stool or a deity, at length
determined that I should be a god.”(171)
A poor mortal, forsooth, who is, as it were, expiring almost every moment,
will, by his workmanship, transfer to a dead stock the name and honour of
God. But as that Epicurean, in his satirical effusions, has paid no
respect to any religion,—leaving this sarcasm, and others of the same
kind, we should be stung and penetrated by the rebuke which the
Prophet(172) has given to the extreme stupidity of those, who, with the
same wood, make a fire to warm themselves, heat an oven for baking bread,
roast or boil their meat, and fabricate a god, before which they prostrate
themselves, to address their humble supplications. In another place,
therefore, he not only pronounces them transgressors of the law, but
reproaches them for not having learned from the foundations of the
earth;(173) since, in reality, there is nothing more unreasonable than the
thought of contracting the infinite and incomprehensible God within the
compass of five feet. And yet this monstrous abomination, which is
manifestly repugnant to the order of nature, experience demonstrates to be
natural to man. It must be further observed, that idols are frequently
stigmatized as being the works of men’s hands, unsanctioned by Divine
authority; in order to establish this principle, that all modes of worship
which are merely of human invention, are detestable. The Psalmist
aggravates this madness, forasmuch as men implore the aid of dead and
insensible things, who are imbued with understanding to know that all
things are directed solely by the power of God. But since the corruption
of nature carries all nations in general, and each individual in
particular, to such an excess of frenzy, the Spirit at length thunders out
this direful imprecation: “Let those that make them be like unto them and
every one that trusteth in them.”(174) Let it be observed, that all
similitudes are equally as much forbidden as graven images; which refutes
the foolish subterfuge of the Greeks; for they think themselves quite
safe, if they make no sculpture of Deity, while in pictures they indulge
greater liberty than any other nations. But the Lord prohibits every
representation of him, whether made by the statuary, or by any other
artificer, because all similitudes are criminal and insulting to the
Divine Majesty.
V. I know that it is a very common observation, that images are the books
of the illiterate. Gregory said so; but very different is the decision of
the Spirit of God, in whose school had Gregory been taught, he would never
have made such an assertion. For, since Jeremiah pronounces that “the
stock is a doctrine of vanities,”(175) since Habakkuk represents “a molten
image” as “a teacher of lies,”(176)—certainly the general doctrine to be
gathered from these passages is, that whatever men learn respecting God
from images is equally frivolous and false. If any one object, that the
Prophets only reprehended those who abuse images to the impious purposes
of superstition,—that indeed I grant; but affirm also, what is evident to
every one, that they utterly condemn what is assumed by the papists as an
indubitable axiom, that images are substitutes for books. For they
contrast images with the true God, as contraries, which can never agree.
This comparison, I say, is laid down in those passages which I have just
cited; that, since there is only one true God, whom the Jews worshipped,
there can be no visible figures made, to serve as representations of the
Divine Being, without falsehood and criminality; and all who seek the
knowledge of God from such figures are under a miserable delusion. Were it
not true, that all knowledge of God, sought from images, is corrupt and
fallacious, it would not be so uniformly condemned by the Prophets. This
at least must be granted to us, that, when we maintain the vanity and
fallaciousness of the attempts of men to make visible representations of
God, we do no other than recite the express declarations of the Prophets.
VI. Read likewise what has been written on this subject by Lactantius and
Eusebius, who hesitate not to assume as a certainty, that all those whose
images are to be seen, were mortal men. Augustine also confidently asserts
the unlawfulness, not only of worshipping images, but even of erecting any
with reference to God. Nor does he advance any thing different from what
had, many years before, been decreed by the Elibertine council, the
thirty‐sixth chapter of which is as follows: “It hath been decreed, that
no pictures be had in the churches, and that what is worshipped or adored
be not painted on the walls.” But most remarkable is what Augustine
elsewhere cites from Varro, and to the truth of which he subscribes—“That
they who first introduced images of the gods, removed fear and added
error.” If this had been a mere assertion of Varro alone, it might have
perhaps but little authority; yet it should justly fill us with shame,
that a heathen, groping as it were in the dark, attained so much light as
to perceive that corporeal representations were unworthy of the Divine
Majesty, being calculated to diminish the fear of God, and to increase
error among mankind. The fact itself demonstrates this to have been spoken
with equal truth and wisdom; but Augustine, having borrowed it from Varro,
advances it as his own opinion. And first he observes that the most
ancient errors concerning God, in which men were involved, did not
originate from images, but were increased by them, as by the superaddition
of new materials. He next explains that the fear of God is thereby
diminished, and even destroyed; since the foolish, ridiculous, and absurd
fabrication of idols would easily bring his Divinity into contempt. Of the
truth of this second remark, I sincerely wish that we had not such proofs
in our own experience. Whoever, therefore, desires to be rightly
instructed, he must learn from some other quarter than from images, what
is to be known concerning God.
VII. If the papists have any shame, let them no longer use this
subterfuge, that images are the books of the illiterate; which is so
clearly refuted by numerous testimonies from Scripture. Yet, though I
should concede this point to them, it would avail them but little in
defence of their idols. What monsters they obtrude in the place of Deity
is well known. But what they call the pictures or statues of their
saints—what are they but examples of the most abandoned luxury and
obscenity? which if any one were desirous of imitating, he would deserve
corporal punishment. Even prostitutes in brothels are to be seen in more
chaste and modest attire, than those images in their temples, which they
wish to be accounted images of virgins. Nor do they clothe the martyrs in
habits at all more becoming. Let them adorn their idols, then, with some
small degree of modesty, that the pretence of their being books of some
holiness, if not less false, may be less impudent. But even then, we will
reply, that this is not the method to be adopted in sacred places for the
instruction of the faithful, whom God will have taught a very different
doctrine from any that can be learned from such insignificant trifles. He
hath commanded one common doctrine to be there proposed to all, in the
preaching of his word, and in his sacred mysteries; to which they betray
great inattention of mind, who are carried about by their eyes to the
contemplation of idols. Whom, then, do the papists call illiterate, whose
ignorance will suffer them to be taught only by images? Those, truly, whom
the Lord acknowledges as his disciples; whom he honours with the
revelation of his heavenly philosophy; whom he will have instructed in the
healthful mysteries of his kingdom. I confess, indeed, as things are now
circumstanced, that there are at present not a few who cannot bear to be
deprived of such books. But whence arises this stupidity, but from being
defrauded of that teaching which alone is adapted to their instruction? In
fact, those who presided over the churches, resigned to idols the office
of teaching, for no other reason but because they were themselves dumb.
Paul testifies, that in the true preaching of this gospel, Christ is
“evidently set forth,” and, as it were, “crucified before our eyes.”(177)
To what purpose, then, was the erection of so many crosses of wood and
stone, silver and gold, every where in the temples, if it had been fully
and faithfully inculcated, that Christ died that he might bear our curse
on the cross, expiate our sins by the sacrifice of his body, cleanse us by
his blood, and, in a word, reconcile us to God the Father? From this
simple declaration they might learn more than from a thousand crosses of
wood or stone; for perhaps the avaricious fix their minds and their eyes
more tenaciously on the gold and silver crosses, than on any part of the
Divine word.
VIII. Respecting the origin of idols, the generally received opinion
agrees with what is asserted in the book of Wisdom;(178) namely, that the
first authors of them were persons who paid this honour to the dead, from
a superstitious reverence for their memory. I grant that this perverse
custom was very ancient, and deny not that it greatly contributed to
increase the rage of mankind after idolatry; nevertheless, I cannot
concede that it was the first cause of that evil. For it appears from
Moses, that idols were in use long before the introduction of that
ostentatious consecration of the images of the dead, which is frequently
mentioned by profane writers. When he relates that Rachel stole her
father’s idols,(179) he speaks as of a common corruption. Whence we may
infer, that the mind of man is, if I may be allowed the expression, a
perpetual manufactory of idols. After the deluge, there was, as it were, a
regeneration of the world; but not many years elapsed before men
fabricated gods according to their own fancy. And it is probable, that
while the holy patriarch was yet alive, his posterity were addicted to
idolatry, so that, with the bitterest grief, he might, with his own eyes,
behold the earth which God had lately purged from its corruptions by such
a dreadful judgment, again polluted with idols. For Terah and Nachor,
before the birth of Abraham, were worshippers of false gods, as is
asserted by Joshua.(180) Since the posterity of Shem so speedily
degenerated, what opinion must we entertain of the descendants of Ham, who
had already been cursed in their father? The true state of the case is,
that the mind of man, being full of pride and temerity, dares to conceive
of God according to its own standard; and, being sunk in stupidity, and
immersed in profound ignorance; imagines a vain and ridiculous phantom
instead of God. These evils are followed by another; men attempt to
express in the work of their hands such a deity as they have imagined in
their minds. The mind then begets the idol, and the hand brings it forth.
The example of the Israelites proves this to have been the origin of
idolatry, namely, that men believe not God to be among them, unless he
exhibit some external signs of his presence. “As for this Moses,” they
said, “we wot not what is become of him; make us gods which shall go
before us.”(181) They knew, indeed, that there was a God, whose power they
had experienced in so many miracles; but they had no confidence in his
being present with them, unless they could see some corporeal symbol of
his countenance, as a testimony of their Divine Guide. They wished,
therefore, to understand, from the image going before them, that God was
the leader of their march. Daily experience teaches, that the flesh is
never satisfied, till it has obtained some image, resembling itself, in
which it may be foolishly gratified, as an image of God. In almost all
ages, from the creation of the world, in obedience to this stupid
propensity, men have erected visible representations, in which they
believed God to be presented to their carnal eyes.
IX. Such an invention is immediately attended with adoration; for when men
supposed that they saw God in images, they also worshipped him in them. At
length, both their eyes and their minds being wholly confined to them,
they began to grow more stupid, and to admire them, as though they
possessed some inherent divinity. Now, it is plain that men did not rush
into the worship of images, till they had imbibed some very gross opinion
respecting them; not, indeed, that they believed them to be gods, but they
imagined that something of Divinity resided in them. When you prostrate
yourself, therefore, in adoration of an image, whether you suppose it to
represent God or a creature, you are already fascinated with superstition.
For this reason the Lord hath prohibited, not only the erection of statues
made as representations of him, but also the consecration of any
inscriptions or monuments to stand as objects of worship. For the same
reason, also, another point is annexed to the precept in the law
concerning adoration. For as soon as men have made a visible figure of
God, they attach Divine power to it. Such is the stupidity of men, that
they confine God to any image which they make to represent him, and
therefore cannot but worship it. Nor is it of any importance, whether they
worship simply the idol, or God in the idol; it is always idolatry, when
Divine honours are paid to an idol, under any pretence whatsoever. And as
God will not be worshipped in a superstitious or idolatrous manner,
whatever is conferred on idols is taken from him. Let this be considered
by those who seek such miserable pretexts for the defence of that
execrable idolatry, with which, for many ages, true religion has been
overwhelmed and subverted. The images, they say, are not considered as
gods. Neither were the Jews so thoughtless as not to remember, that it was
God by whose hand they had been conducted out of Egypt, before they made
the calf. But when Aaron said that those were the gods by whom they had
been liberated from Egypt, they boldly assented;(182) signifying,
doubtless, that they would keep in remembrance, that God himself was their
deliverer, while they could see him going before them in the calf. Nor can
we believe the heathen to have been so stupid, as to conceive that God was
no other than wood and stone. For they changed the images at pleasure, but
always retained in their minds the same gods; and there were many images
for one god; nor did they imagine to themselves gods in proportion to the
multitude of images: besides, they daily consecrated new images, but
without supposing that they made new gods. Read the excuses, which,
Augustine says,(183) were alleged by the idolaters of the age in which he
lived. When they were charged with idolatry, the vulgar replied, that they
worshipped, not the visible figure, but the Divinity that invisibly dwelt
in it. But they, whose religion was, as he expresses himself, more
refined, said, that they worshipped neither the image, nor the spirit
represented by it; but that in the corporeal figure they beheld a sign of
that which they ought to worship. What is to be inferred from this, but
that all idolaters, whether Jewish or Gentile, have been guided by the
notion which I have mentioned? Not content with a spiritual knowledge of
God, they thought that they should receive more clear and familiar
impressions of him by means of images. After they had once pleased
themselves with such a preposterous representation of God, they ceased not
from being deluded with new fallacies, till they imagined that God
displayed his power in images. Nevertheless, the Jews were persuaded that,
under such images, they worshipped the eternal God, the one true Lord of
heaven and earth; and the heathen, that they worshipped their false gods,
whom they pretended to be inhabitants of heaven.
X. Those who deny that this has been done in time past, and even within
our own remembrance, assert an impudent falsehood. For why do they
prostrate themselves before images? And when about to pray, why do they
turn themselves towards them, as towards the ears of God? For it is true,
as Augustine says,(184) “That no man prays or worships thus, looking on an
image, who is not impressed with an opinion that he shall be heard by it,
and a hope that it will do for him as he desires.” Why is there so great a
difference between images of the same god, that one is passed by with
little or no respect, and another is honoured in the most solemn manner?
Why do they fatigue themselves with votive pilgrimages, in going to see
images resembling those which they have at home? Why do they at this day
fight, even to slaughter and destruction, in defence of them, as of their
country and religion, so that they could part with the only true God more
easily than with their idols? Yet I am not here enumerating the gross
errors of the vulgar, which are almost infinite, and occupy nearly the
hearts of all; I only relate what they themselves allege, when they are
most anxious to exculpate themselves from idolatry. “We never,” say they,
“call them our gods.” Nor did the Jews or heathen in ancient times call
them their gods; and yet the Prophets, in all their writings, were
constantly accusing them of fornication with wood and stone, only on
account of such things as are daily practised by those who wish to be
thought Christians; that is, for worshipping God, by corporeal adoration
before figures of wood or stone.
XI. I am neither ignorant, nor desirous of concealing, that they evade the
charge by a more subtle distinction, which will soon be noticed more at
large. They pretend that the reverence which they pay to images is
ειδωλοδουλεια, (service of images,) but deny that it is ειδωλολατρεια
(worship of images.) For in this manner they express themselves, when they
maintain, that the reverence which they call _dulia_, may be given to
statues or pictures, without injury to God. They consider themselves,
therefore, liable to no blame, while they are only the servants of their
idols, and not worshippers of them; as though worship were not rather
inferior to service. And yet, while they seek to shelter themselves under
a Greek term, they contradict themselves in the most childish manner. For
since the Greek word λατρευειν signifies nothing else but to worship, what
they say is equivalent to a confession that they adore their images, but
without adoration. Nor can they justly object, that I am trying to insnare
them with words: they betray their own ignorance in their endeavours to
raise a mist before the eyes of the simple. But, however eloquent they may
be, they will never be able, by their rhetoric, to prove one and the same
thing to be two different things. Let them point out, I say, a difference
in fact, that they may be accounted different from ancient idolaters. For
as an adulterer, or homicide, will not escape the imputation of guilt, by
giving his crime a new and arbitrary name, so it is absurd that these
persons should be exculpated by the subtle invention of a name, if they
really differ in no respect from those idolaters whom they themselves are
constrained to condemn. But their case is so far from being different from
that of former idolaters, that the source of all the evil is a
preposterous emulation, with which they have rivalled them by exercising
their minds in contriving, and their hands in forming, visible symbols of
the Deity.
XII. Nevertheless, I am not so scrupulous as to think that no images ought
ever to be permitted. But since sculpture and painting are gifts of God, I
wish for a pure and legitimate use of both; lest those things, which the
Lord hath conferred on us for his glory and our benefit, be not only
corrupted by preposterous abuse, but even perverted to our ruin. We think
it unlawful to make any visible figure as a representation of God, because
he hath himself forbidden it, and it cannot be done without detracting, in
some measure, from his glory. Let it not be supposed that we are singular
in this opinion; for that all sound writers have uniformly reprobated the
practice, must be evident to persons conversant with their works. If,
then, it be not lawful to make any corporeal representation of God, much
less will it be lawful to worship it for God, or to worship God in it. We
conclude, therefore, that nothing should be painted and engraved but
objects visible to our eyes: the Divine Majesty, which is far above the
reach of human sight, ought not to be corrupted by unseemly figures. The
subjects of those arts consist partly of histories and transactions,
partly of images and corporeal forms, without reference to any
transactions. The former are of some use in information or recollection;
the latter, as far as I see, can furnish nothing but amusement. And yet it
is evident, that almost all the images, which have hitherto been set up in
the churches, have been of this latter description. Hence it may be seen,
that they were placed there, not with judgment and discrimination, but
from a foolish and inconsiderate passion for them. I say nothing here of
the impropriety and indecency conspicuous in most of them, and the wanton
licentiousness displayed in them by the painters and statuaries, at which
I have before hinted: I only assert, that even if they were intrinsically
faultless, still they would be altogether unavailing for the purposes of
instruction.
XIII. But, passing over that difference also, let us consider, as we
proceed, whether it be expedient to have any images at all in Christian
temples, either descriptive of historical events, or representative of
human forms. In the first place, if the authority of the ancient Church
have any influence with us, let us remember, that for about five hundred
years, while religion continued in a more prosperous state, and purer
doctrine prevailed, the Christian churches were generally without images.
They were then first introduced, therefore, to ornament the churches, when
the purity of the ministry had begun to degenerate. I will not dispute
what was the reason which influenced the first authors of them; but if you
compare one age with another, you will see that they were much declined
from the integrity of those who had no images. Who can suppose, that those
holy fathers would have permitted the Church to remain so long destitute
of what they judged useful and salutary for it? The fact was, that,
instead of omitting them through ignorance or negligence, they perceived
them to be of little or no use, but, on the contrary, pregnant with much
danger; and, therefore, intentionally and wisely rejected them. This is
asserted in express terms by Augustine: “When they are fixed,” says he,
“in those places in an honourable elevation, to attract the attention of
those who are praying and sacrificing, though they are destitute of sense
and life, yet, by the very similitude of living members and senses, they
affect weak minds, so that they appear to them to live and breathe,”
&c.(185) And in another place: “For that representation of members leads,
and, as it were, constrains, the mind, which animates a body, to suppose
that body to be endued with perception, which it sees to be very similar
to its own,” &c. And a little after: “Idols have more influence to bow
down an unhappy soul, because they have a mouth, eyes, ears, and feet,
than to correct it, because they neither speak, nor see, nor hear, nor
walk.” This indeed appears to be the reason of John’s exhortation to “keep
ourselves,” not only from the worship of idols, but “from idols”
themselves. And we have found it too true, that, through the horrible
frenzy, which, almost to the total destruction of piety, hath heretofore
possessed the world, as soon as images are set up in churches, there is,
as it were, a standard of idolatry erected; for the folly of mankind
cannot refrain from immediately falling into idolatrous worship. But, even
if the danger were less, yet, when I consider the use for which temples
were designed, it appears to me extremely unworthy of their sanctity, to
receive any other images, than those natural and expressive ones, which
the Lord hath consecrated in his word; I mean Baptism, and the Supper of
the Lord, and the other ceremonies, with which our eyes ought to be more
attentively engaged, and more sensibly affected, than to require any
others formed by human ingenuity. Behold the incomparable advantages of
images! the loss of which, if you believe the papists, nothing can
compensate.
XIV. The remarks already made on this subject, I think, would be
sufficient, if it were not necessary to take some notice of the Council of
Nice; not that very celebrated one, which was convened by Constantine the
Great, but that which was held about eight hundred years ago, by the
command, and under the auspices, of the Empress Irene. For that Council
decreed, not only that images should be had in churches, but also that
they should be worshipped. And, notwithstanding what I have advanced, the
authority of the Council would raise a strong prejudice on the contrary
side. Though, to confess the truth, I am not much concerned at this, as I
am to show the reader their extreme madness, whose fondness for images
exceeded any thing that was becoming in Christians. But let us despatch
this point first: the present advocates for the use of images, allege the
authority of that Nicene Council in their defence. There is a book extant,
written in refutation of this practice, under the name of Charlemagne;
which, from the diction, we may conclude was composed at the same time. In
this work are recited the opinions of the bishops who attended the
Council, and the arguments they used in the controversy. John, the
delegate of the Eastern churches, said, “God created man in his own
image;” and hence he inferred that we ought to have images. The same
prelate thought that images were recommended to us by this sentence: “Show
me thy face, for it is glorious.” Another, to prove that they ought to be
placed on the altars, cited this testimony: “No man lighteth a candle, and
putteth it under a bushel.” Another, to show the contemplation of these to
be useful to us, adduced a verse from a Psalm: “The light of thy
countenance, O Lord, is sealed upon us.” Another pressed this comparison
into his service: “As the patriarchs used the sacrifices of the heathen,
so Christians ought to have the images of saints, instead of the idols of
the heathen.” In the same manner they tortured that expression, “Lord, I
have loved the beauty of thy house.” But the most ingenious of all was
their interpretation of this passage: “As we have heard, so have we seen;”
that therefore God is known, not only by the hearing of his word, but by
the contemplation of images. Similar is the subtlety of Bishop Theodore:
“God is glorious in his saints.” And in another place it is said, “In the
saints that are in the earth:” therefore this ought to be referred to
images. But their impertinencies and absurdities are so disgusting, that I
am quite ashamed to repeat them.
XV. When they dispute concerning adoration, they bring forward Jacob’s
worshipping of Pharaoh, and of the staff of Joseph, and of the inscription
erected by himself; although, in this last instance, they not only corrupt
the sense of the Scripture, but allege what is nowhere to be found. These
passages also, “Worship his footstool;” “Worship in his holy hill;” and,
“All the rich of the people shall supplicate thy face;” they consider as
apposite and conclusive proofs. If any one wished to represent the
advocates for images in a ridiculous point of view, could he possibly
ascribe to them greater and grosser instances of folly? But, that no doubt
of this might remain, Theodosius, bishop of Mira, defends the propriety of
worshipping images from the dreams of his archdeacon, as seriously as if
he had an immediate revelation from heaven. Now, let the advocates of
images go and urge upon us the decree of that Council; as though those
venerable fathers had not entirely destroyed all their credit by such
puerile treatment of the sacred Scriptures, or such impious and shameful
mutilation of them.
XVI. I come now to those prodigies of impiety, which it is wonderful that
they ever ventured to broach; and more wonderful still, that they have not
been opposed with universal detestation. It is right to expose this
flagitious madness, that the worship of images may at least be deprived of
the pretence of antiquity, which the papists falsely urge in its favour.
Theodosius, bishop of Amorum, denounces an anathema against all who are
averse to the worship of images. Another imputes all the calamities of
Greece and the East to the crime of not having worshipped them. What
punishments, then, did the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs deserve, in
whose time images were unknown? They add further, If the image of the
emperor be met by processions with perfumes and incense, much more is this
honour due to the images of the saints. Constantius, bishop of Constance,
in Cyprus, professes his reverence for images, and avows that he will pay
them the same worship and honour as is due to the Trinity, the source of
all life; and whoever refuses to do the same, he anathematizes and
dismisses with the Manichees and Marcionites. And, lest you should suppose
this to be the private opinion of an individual, they all declare their
assent to it. John, the delegate of the Eastern churches, carried by the
fervour of his zeal to still greater lengths, asserts it to be better to
admit all the brothels of the world into one city, than to reject the
worship of images. At length it was unanimously decreed, that the
Samaritans were worse than all heretics, and that the adversaries of
images were worse than the Samaritans. But, that the farce might not want
its usual plaudit, they add this clause: “Let them rejoice and exult, who
have the image of Christ, and offer sacrifice to it.” Where is now the
distinction of _latria_ and _dulia_, with which they attempt to deceive
both God and men? For the Council gives the same honour, without any
exception, to images and to the living God.