Point 9: Of Images
Our consent.
Conclusion 1. We acknowledge the civil use of images as freely and truly as the Church of Rome does. By civil use I understand that use which is made of them in the common societies of men, outside the appointed places of the solemn worship of God. That this is lawful appears because the arts of painting and engraving are the ordinance of God, and to be skillful in them is the gift of God, as the example of Bezaleel and Aholiab declares in Exodus 35:30. This use of images may be in sundry things. First, in the adorning and setting forth of buildings — thus Solomon beautified his throne with the image of lions, and the Lord commanded his temple to be adorned with the images of palm trees, pomegranates, bulls, cherubs, and such like. Second, it serves for the distinction of coins, according to the practice of emperors and princes of all nations. When Christ was asked in Matthew 22 whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar or no, he called for a penny and said: Whose image or superscription is this? They said, Caesar's. He then said: Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's — not condemning but approving the stamp or image upon his coin. Third, images serve to keep in memory friends deceased whom we reverence. It is likely that hence came one occasion of the images now in use in the Roman Church — for in the days after the Apostles, men used privately to keep the pictures of their departed friends, and this practice afterward crept into the open congregation, and at last, superstition getting the upper hand, images began to be worshipped.
Conclusion 2. We hold the historical use of images to be good and lawful: that is, to represent to the eye the acts of histories, whether they be human or divine. Thus we think the histories of the Bible may be painted in private places.
Conclusion 3. In one case it is lawful to make an image to testify the presence or the effects of the majesty of God — namely when God himself gives a special commandment to do so. In this case Moses made and erected a bronze serpent, to be a type, sign, or image to represent Christ crucified (John 3:14). And the cherubs over the mercy seat served to represent the majesty of God, to whom the angels are subject. In the second commandment it is not simply said, You shall not make a carved image, but with limitation: You shall not make for yourself — that is, on your own authority and by your own will and pleasure.
Conclusion 4. The right images of the New Testament, which we hold and acknowledge, are the doctrine and preaching of the Gospel, and all things that by the word of God pertain thereto. Galatians 3:1: Who has bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth — to whom Jesus Christ was before described in your sight and among you crucified? Hence it follows that the preaching of the word is as a most excellent picture in which Christ with his benefits is lively represented to us. We do not dissent from Origen who says: We have no images framed by any base craftsmen, but such as are brought forth and framed by the word of God, namely patterns of virtue and representations resembling Christians. He means that Christians themselves are the images of Christians.
The difference.
Our dissent from them touching images stands in three points. First, the Church of Rome holds it lawful for them to make images to resemble God, though not in respect of his divine nature, yet in respect of some properties and actions. We on the contrary hold it unlawful for us to make any image in any way to represent the true God, or to make an image of anything in way of religion to worship God, much less the creature thereby. For the second commandment says plainly in Exodus 20:4: You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or the likeness of anything in heaven, and so on. The Papists say the commandment is meant of the images of false gods. But it must be understood of the images of the true God Jehovah — it forbids us to resemble God, either in his nature, properties, or works, or to use any resemblance of him for any sacred use, as to help the memory when we are about to worship God. Thus much the Holy Ghost, who is the best expositor of himself, teaches most plainly in Deuteronomy 4:15-16: You saw no image at all — either of false or true God — and therefore you shall not make any likeness of anything. Again, the prophet Isaiah in chapter 40:18 rebuking idolaters asks: To whom will you liken God, or what resemblance will you set upon him? And in verse 21: Know you nothing? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? — as if he should say: Have you forgotten the second commandment that God gave to your fathers? Thus he flatly reproves all who would resemble the true God in images. But they say further that by images in the second commandment are meant idols — that is, such things as men worship for gods. Answer: If it were so, we should confound the first and second commandments. For the first, You shall have no other gods before my face, forbids all false gods which man wickedly frames to himself. And the distinction they make — that an image is the representation of true things, and an idol of things supposed — is false. Tertullian says that every form or representation is to be termed an idol. Isidore says that the heathen used the names of image and idol indifferently in one and the same signification. Stephen in his defense in Acts 7:41 calls the golden calf an idol. Jerome says that idols are images of dead men. Ancient divines accord with all this. Lactantius says: Where images are for religion's sake, there is no religion. The Council of Elvira decreed that nothing should be painted on the walls of churches which is adored by the people. Origen: We suffer not any to worship Jesus at altars, images, and temples, because it is written: You shall have no other gods. Epiphanius says: It is against the authority of the Scriptures to see the image of Christ or of any saints hanging in the church. In the Seventh Council of Constantinople these words of Epiphanius are cited: Be mindful, beloved children, not to bring images into the church, nor set them in the places where the saints are buried, but always carry God in your hearts. Neither let them be suffered in any common house, for it is not fitting that a Christian should be occupied by the eyes but by the meditation of the mind.
Arguments of the Papists.
Objection 1. In Solomon's temple were erected cherubim, which were images of angels, on the mercy seat where God was worshipped, and thereby was resembled the majesty of God. Therefore it is lawful to make images to resemble God. Answer: They were erected by special commandment from God, who prescribed the very form of them and the place where they must be set. Thereby Moses had a warrant to make them — otherwise he would have sinned. Let them show a like warrant for their images if they can. Secondly, the cherubim were placed in the Holy of Holies, in the most inward place of the temple, and consequently were removed from the sight of the people, who only heard of them. None but the high priest saw them, and that but once a year. And the cherubim outside the veil, though they were to be seen, yet were they not to be worshipped (Exodus 20:4). Therefore they serve nothing at all to justify the images of the Church of Rome.
Objection 2. God appeared in the form of a man to Abraham (Genesis 18) and to Daniel, who saw the Ancient of Days sitting on a throne (Daniel 7). Now as God appeared, so may he be resembled — therefore it is lawful to resemble God in the form of a man or any like image in which he showed himself to men. Answer: The proposition is false, for God may appear in whatever form it pleases his majesty, yet it does not follow that man should therefore resemble God in those forms, man having no liberty to resemble him in any form at all unless he is commanded to do so. Again, when God appeared in the form of a man, that form was a sign of God's presence only for the time when God appeared and no longer — as the bread and wine in the sacrament are signs of Christ's body and blood, not forever but for the time of administration. And when the Holy Spirit appeared in the likeness of a dove, that likeness was a sign of his presence no longer than the Holy Spirit so appeared. Therefore he who would in these forms represent the Trinity does greatly dishonor God and does that for which he has no warrant.
Objection 3. Man is the image of God, but it is lawful to paint a man, and therefore to make the image of God. Answer: A mere quibble — for first, a man cannot be painted as he is the image of God, which stands in the spiritual gifts of righteousness and true holiness. Again, the image of a man may be painted for civil or historical use, but to paint any man for the purpose of representing God, or in way of religion that we may the better remember and worship God — that is unlawful. Other reasons which they use are of small moment, and therefore I omit them.
Second difference. They teach and maintain that images of God and of saints may be worshipped with religious worship, especially the crucifix. For Thomas Aquinas says: Seeing the cross represents Christ, who died upon a cross and is to be worshipped with divine honor, it follows that the cross is to be worshipped so too. We on the contrary hold they may not. Our principal ground is the second commandment, which contains two parts: the first forbids the making of images to resemble the true God; the second forbids the worshipping of them, or God in them, in these words: You shall not bow down to them. Now, there can be no worship done to anything less than the bending of the knee. Again, the bronze serpent was a type or image of Christ crucified (John 3:14), appointed by God himself. Yet when the people burned incense to it, Hezekiah broke it in pieces and is therefore commended (2 Kings 18:4). And when the devil bade our Savior Christ but to bow down the knee to him and he would give him the whole world, Christ rejected his offer, saying: You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve (Matthew 4:10). Again, it is lawful for one man to worship another with civil worship, but to worship man with religious honor is unlawful. For all religious worship is prescribed in the first table, and the honor due to man is only prescribed in the second table and the first commandment thereof: Honor your father — which honor is therefore civil and not religious. Now the meanest man that can be is a more excellent image of God than all the images of God or of saints devised by men. Augustine, and long after him Gregory, in plain terms denies that images are to be adored.
The Papists defend their opinion by these reasons. Psalm 99:5: Cast yourselves down before his footstool. Answer: The words are thus to be read: Bow at his footstool, that is, at the ark and mercy seat, for there he has made a promise of his presence. The words therefore say not bow to the ark, but to God at the ark.
Objection 2. Exodus 3:5: God said to Moses, Stand far off and put off your shoes, for the place is holy. Now if holy places must be reverenced, then much more holy images, as the cross of Christ and such like. Answer: God commanded the ceremony of putting off shoes that he might thereby strike Moses with a religious reverence, not of the place but of his own majesty, whose presence made the place holy. Let them show a like warrant for images.
Objection 3. It is lawful to kneel down to a chair of estate in the absence of the king or queen — therefore much more to the images of God and of saints in heaven glorified, being absent from us. Answer: To kneel to the chair of estate is no more than a civil testimony or sign of civil reverence, by which all good subjects when occasion is offered show their loyalty and subjection to their lawful princes. This kneeling, being in this manner and to no other end, has sufficient warrant in the word of God. But kneeling to the image of any saint departed is religious worship, and consequently more than civil worship, as the Papists themselves confess. The argument therefore proves nothing, unless they will keep themselves to one and the same kind of worship.
Third difference. The Papists also teach that God may be lawfully worshipped in images in which he has appeared to men — as the Father in the image of an old man, the Son in the image of a man crucified, and the Holy Spirit in the likeness of a dove. But we hold it unlawful to worship God in, by, or at any image, for this is what the second commandment forbids. And the fact of the Israelites in Exodus 32, in worshipping the golden calf, is condemned as flat idolatry — albeit they worshipped not the calf but God in the calf. For in verse 5, Aaron says: Tomorrow shall be the feast of the Lord, whereby he gives us to understand that the calf was but a sign of the Lord whom they worshipped. They say it seems the Israelites worshipped the calf, for Aaron says in verse 4: These are your gods, O Israel, that brought you out of Egypt. Answer: Aaron's meaning is nothing else but that the golden calf was a sign of the presence of the true God. The name of the thing signified is given to the sign, as upon a stage he is called a king who represents the king. Augustine says that images are used to be called by the names of the things of which they are images, as the counterfeit of Samuel is called Samuel. And we must not esteem them all as madmen to think that a calf made of their earrings, being but one or two days old, should be the God that brought them out of Egypt with a mighty hand many days before.
These are the points of difference touching images, wherein we must stand at variance forever with the Church of Rome. For they err in the foundation of religion, making indeed an idol of the true God and worshipping a different Christ than we do, under new terms, maintaining the idolatry of the heathen. Therefore we have departed from them, and so must we still do because they are idolaters, as I have proved.
Our consent.
Conclusion 1. We acknowledge the civil use of images as freely and fully as the Church of Rome does. By civil use I mean the use made of images in the common life of society, outside the appointed places of solemn worship. That this is lawful is clear because the arts of painting and engraving are ordained by God, and skill in them is a gift of God — as the example of Bezaleel and Aholiab in Exodus 35:30 demonstrates. This use of images may serve several purposes. First, the decoration and beautification of buildings. Solomon adorned his throne with images of lions, and the Lord commanded His temple to be decorated with images of palm trees, pomegranates, bulls, cherubim, and the like. Second, the marking of coins — a practice of emperors and rulers throughout all nations. When Christ was asked in Matthew 22 whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, He asked for a coin and said: 'Whose image and inscription is this?' They replied, 'Caesar's.' He then said, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's' — approving, not condemning, the image stamped on the coin. Third, images serve to keep in memory departed friends whom we hold in high regard. It is likely that this is one of the sources from which images entered the Roman Church — in the years following the apostles, people privately kept pictures of friends who had died. This practice later made its way into the open congregation, and eventually superstition gained the upper hand and images began to be worshipped.
Conclusion 2. We hold the historical use of images to be good and lawful — that is, to represent to the eye the events of history, whether human or biblical. We therefore believe that scenes from the Bible may be painted in private settings.
Conclusion 3. In one particular case it is lawful to make an image to testify the presence or effects of God's majesty — namely, when God Himself gives a specific command to do so. In this case, Moses made and erected a bronze serpent as a type, sign, and image representing Christ crucified (John 3:14). And the cherubim over the mercy seat served to represent the majesty of God, to whom the angels are subject. The second commandment does not say simply 'You shall not make a carved image,' but with a qualification: 'You shall not make for yourself' — that is, on your own authority and according to your own will.
Conclusion 4. The true images of the New Testament, which we hold and acknowledge, are the doctrine and preaching of the Gospel and all things belonging to it by the word of God. Galatians 3:1 says: 'Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?' It follows from this that the preaching of the word is like a most excellent picture, in which Christ and His benefits are vividly presented to us. We stand with Origen, who says: 'We have no images made by any ordinary craftsman, but only those that are produced and formed by the word of God — patterns of virtue and representations resembling Christians.' He means that Christians themselves are the true images of Christ.
The difference.
Our disagreement with the Roman Church on images has three points. First, the Church of Rome holds it lawful to make images representing God — not with respect to His divine nature, but with respect to certain attributes and actions. We hold the opposite: it is unlawful for us to make any image in any way representing the true God, or to use any image as part of religious worship, whether of God or of any creature. The second commandment states plainly in Exodus 20:4: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of what is in heaven above.' The papists say the commandment refers to images of false gods. But it must be understood as referring to images of the true God, Jehovah. It forbids us to represent God — whether in His nature, His attributes, or His works — or to use any representation of Him for any sacred purpose, even as a memory aid in worship. The Holy Spirit, as the best interpreter of His own word, makes this plain in Deuteronomy 4:15-16: 'You did not see any form at all on the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb' — neither of a false god nor of the true God — 'so watch yourselves carefully, that you do not act corruptly and make a carved image for yourselves in the form of any figure.' Isaiah, in chapter 40:18, rebukes idolaters by asking: 'To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare with Him?' And in verse 21: 'Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning?' — as if to say: Have you forgotten the second commandment that God gave your fathers? He plainly condemns all attempts to represent the true God in images. They also say that the 'carved images' forbidden in the second commandment refers to idols — that is, things people worship as gods. But if that were the case, we would be confusing the first and second commandments. The first commandment — 'You shall have no other gods before Me' — already forbids all false gods that people wickedly invent for themselves. Their distinction — that an image represents something real while an idol represents something imaginary — is false. Tertullian says every form and representation is to be called an idol. Isidore says the pagans used the words 'image' and 'idol' interchangeably with the same meaning. Stephen, in his defense in Acts 7:41, calls the golden calf an idol. Jerome says that idols are images of dead people. The ancient teachers all agree on this. Lactantius says: 'Where images are kept for the sake of religion, there is no religion.' The Council of Elvira decreed that nothing should be painted on the walls of churches that the people would adore. Origen says: 'We do not permit anyone to worship Jesus at altars, images, or temples — for it is written, You shall have no other gods.' Epiphanius says: 'It is contrary to Scripture to see the image of Christ or of any saint hanging in the church.' At the Seventh Council of Constantinople, these words of Epiphanius were cited: 'Remember, beloved children, not to bring images into the church, nor place them at the sites where the saints are buried. Always carry God in your hearts. Do not allow them even in a private home, for a Christian should be occupied not with the eyes but with the meditation of the mind.'
Arguments of the Papists.
Objection 1. Cherubim — images of angels — were erected on the mercy seat in Solomon's temple, the very place where God was worshipped, and by them the majesty of God was represented. Therefore it is lawful to make images representing God. Answer: The cherubim were erected by a specific command from God, who prescribed their very form and the place where they were to be set. Moses had God's warrant for making them — without it, he would have sinned. Let the papists show a similar warrant for their images if they can. Second: the cherubim were placed in the Holy of Holies, the innermost part of the temple, entirely removed from the sight of the people, who only knew of them by report. Only the high priest saw them, and that only once a year. And as for the cherubim in the outer areas of the temple, which could be seen — these were not to be worshipped (Exodus 20:4). Therefore the cherubim do nothing at all to justify the use of images in the Roman Church.
Objection 2. God appeared in the form of a man to Abraham (Genesis 18) and to Daniel, who saw the Ancient of Days seated on a throne (Daniel 7). Since God appeared in such forms, He may be represented in them — therefore it is lawful to depict God in the form of a man or in any similar form in which He revealed Himself. Answer: The premise is false. God may appear in whatever form it pleases His majesty, but it does not follow that human beings therefore have the right to represent God in those forms. We have no liberty to represent Him in any form at all unless He specifically commands it. Furthermore: when God appeared in the form of a man, that form was a sign of His presence only for the duration of that appearance — just as the bread and wine in the sacrament are signs of Christ's body and blood not permanently but only during the administration. And when the Holy Spirit appeared in the likeness of a dove, that likeness was a sign of His presence only for as long as He appeared in that form. Therefore, whoever would use such forms to represent the Trinity greatly dishonors God and does something for which he has no warrant.
Objection 3. A person is the image of God — but it is lawful to paint a person, therefore it is lawful to make an image of God. Answer: This is nothing more than wordplay. First, a person cannot be painted as the image of God, since that image consists in the spiritual gifts of righteousness and true holiness — not in physical appearance. Second, an image of a person may be painted for civil or historical purposes. But to paint any person for the purpose of representing God, or for use in worship to help us remember and honor God — that is unlawful. Their other arguments on this point are too weak to warrant a response and I will pass over them.
Second difference. The Church of Rome teaches and maintains that images of God and of the saints may be worshipped with religious honor — particularly the crucifix. Thomas Aquinas argued: since the cross represents Christ, who died on the cross and is to be worshipped with divine honor, it follows that the cross is also to be worshipped. We hold the contrary. Our main ground is the second commandment, which has two parts: the first forbids making images to represent the true God; the second forbids worshipping them or worshipping God through them, in the words 'You shall not bow down to them.' There can be no act of worship less than bowing the knee. Furthermore: the bronze serpent was a type and image of Christ crucified (John 3:14), appointed by God Himself. Yet when the people burned incense to it, Hezekiah destroyed it — and is commended for doing so (2 Kings 18:4). And when the devil offered Christ the entire world if He would simply bow down to him, Christ refused, saying: 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only' (Matthew 4:10). It is lawful to show civil reverence to another person, but to offer a person religious honor is unlawful. All religious worship is prescribed in the first table of the law, and the honor due to people is prescribed only in the second table, in its first commandment: 'Honor your father' — which is therefore civil honor, not religious. Even the humblest person is a more excellent image of God than all the images of God or the saints that people have ever devised. Augustine, and centuries later Gregory, both plainly deny that images are to be adored.
The papists defend their view with these arguments. Psalm 99:5: 'Exalt the Lord our God and worship at His footstool.' Answer: The text is to be understood as: bow before God at His footstool — that is, at the ark and mercy seat, where He had promised His presence. The words say not 'bow to the ark' but 'bow to God at the ark.'
Objection 2. Exodus 3:5: God said to Moses: 'Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.' If holy places must be treated with reverence, then surely holy images — such as the cross of Christ and the like — must be also. Answer: God commanded the removal of sandals to strike Moses with a sense of religious reverence — not for the place, but for His own majesty, whose presence made the place holy. Let them show a similar warrant for their images.
Objection 3. It is lawful to kneel before the throne of a king or queen in their absence — therefore it is surely even more appropriate to kneel before the images of God and of the glorified saints, who are absent from us. Answer: Kneeling before a royal throne is nothing more than a civil act — a sign of civil reverence by which loyal subjects, when occasion calls, demonstrate their duty and submission to their lawful rulers. This kneeling, done in this manner and for no other purpose, has sufficient warrant in God's word. But kneeling before the image of a departed saint is religious worship, and consequently something more than civil reverence — as the papists themselves acknowledge. The argument therefore proves nothing, unless they are prepared to keep the two kinds of reverence entirely separate.
Third difference. The papists also teach that it is lawful to worship God in the images in which He appeared to people — worshipping the Father in the image of an old man, the Son in the image of a crucified man, and the Holy Spirit in the likeness of a dove. We hold it unlawful to worship God in, by, or at any image — for this is precisely what the second commandment forbids. The Israelites' act of worshipping the golden calf in Exodus 32 is condemned as outright idolatry — even though they were not worshipping the calf itself but God through the calf. In verse 5, Aaron says: 'Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord,' making clear that the calf was merely a sign of the Lord they were worshipping. The papists may say it appears the Israelites were worshipping the calf, since Aaron says in verse 4: 'This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.' Answer: Aaron's meaning is simply that the golden calf was a sign of the presence of the true God. The name of the thing signified is given to the sign — just as on stage, the person playing the king is called the king. Augustine says that images are commonly called by the names of the things they represent, as the appearance of Samuel is called Samuel. And we must not take the Israelites for fools — they would not have supposed that a calf made from their earrings, only a day or two old, could be the God who had brought them out of Egypt with a mighty hand many days before.
These are the points of difference regarding images, on which we must remain permanently at odds with the Church of Rome. They err in the very foundation of religion, effectively making an idol of the true God, worshipping a different Christ than we do — under new names, sustaining the idolatry of the pagans. We have therefore separated from them, and must continue to do so, because they are idolaters, as I have demonstrated.
