Chapter 11: That It Is Unlawful to Attribute to God a Visible Form, and That Generally They Forsake God, So Many as Do Erect to Themselves Any Images

But as the Scripture, providing for the rude and gross wit of man, uses to speak after the common manner: so when it means to make severally known the true God from the false gods, it chiefly compares him with idols: not that it does allow these inventions that are more subtly and finely taught by the Philosophers, but the more plainly to disclose the foolishness of the world, indeed rather their madness in seeking God so long as they cling every one to their own imaginations. Therefore that exclusive definition which we commonly hear brings to nothing all that manner of Godhead that men frame to themselves by their own opinion, because God himself is the only fitting witness of himself. In the meantime, since this brutish grossness has possessed the whole world, to covet visible shapes of God, and so to forge themselves Gods of timber, stone, gold, silver, and other dead and corruptible matter, we ought to hold this principle, that with wicked falsehood the glory of God is corrupted as often as any shape is feigned to represent him. Therefore God in the law, after he had once challenged the glory of his deity to himself alone, meaning to teach us what manner of worshipping him he allows or refuses, adds immediately: You shall make yourself no graven image, nor any similitude, in which words he restrains our liberty, that we attempt not to represent him with any visible image. And there he shortly reckons up all the forms with which for a long time before, superstition had begun to turn his truth into lying. For we know that the Persians worshipped the sun, indeed and so many stars as the foolish nations saw in the sky, so many gods they feigned them. And scarce was there any living creature which was not among the Egyptians a figure of God. But the Greeks were thought to be wiser than the rest, because they worshipped God in the shape of a man. But God compares not images one with another, as though one were more and another less fit to be used, but without any exception he rejects all images, pictures and other signs, whereby the superstitious thought to have God near to them.

This is easy to be gathered by the reasons which he joins to the prohibition. First with Moses. Remember that the Lord has spoken to you in the valley of Horeb. You heard a voice, but you saw no body. Therefore take heed to yourself, lest perhaps you be deceived and make to yourself any likeness, etc. We see how openly God sets his voice against all counterfeit shapes, that we may know that they forsake God whoever does covet to have visible forms of him. Of the Prophets only Isaiah shall be enough who speaks often and much hereof, to teach that the majesty of God is defiled with unbecoming and foolish counterfeiting, when he being without body is likened to bodily matter: being invisible, to a visible image: being a spirit, to a thing without life: being incomprehensible, to a small lump of timber, stone or gold. In like manner reasons Paul: For as much as we are the generation of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like to gold, or silver or stone graven by art and the invention of man. Whereby it certainly appears, whatever images are erected or pictures painted to express the shape of God, they simply displease him as certain dishonors of his majesty. And what marvel is it if the Holy Spirit does thunder out these oracles from heaven, since he compels the very wretched and blind idolaters themselves to confess this on earth? It is known how Seneca complained as it is to read in Augustine. They dedicate (says he) the holy immortal and inviolable gods in most vile and base stuff, and put upon them the shapes of men and beasts, and some of them with kind of man and woman mingled together, and with sundry-shaped bodies, and such they call gods which if they should receive breath and meet them would be reckoned monsters. Whereby again plainly appears, that it is a fond caviling wherewith the defenders of images seek to escape, which say that the Jews were forbidden images, because they were inclined to superstition. As though that thing pertained to one nation only which God brings forth of his eternal being and the continual order of nature. And Paul spoke not to the Jews but to the Athenians when he confuted their error in counterfeiting a shape of God.

God indeed, I grant, sometime in certain signs has given a presence of his godhead, so that he was said to be beheld face to face, but all these signs that ever he showed did aptly serve as means to teach, and withal did plainly admonish men of an incomprehensible essence. For the cloud and smoke and flame, although they were tokens of the heavenly glory, yet did they as it were bridle and restrain the minds of men that they should not attempt to pass any further. Therefore not Moses himself, to whom God disclosed himself most familiarly in comparison of others, obtained by prayer to see that face, but received this answer that man is not able to sustain so great brightness. The Holy Ghost appeared under the likeness of a dove, but since he immediately vanished away, who does not see that by that token of so short a continuance of a moment the faithful are put in mind that they ought to believe him to be an invisible Spirit, that holding them contented with his virtue and grace, they should make him no outward shape. This, that God appeared sometimes in the form of a man, was a foreshowing of the revealing that was to be made of him in Christ. And therefore it was not lawful for the Jews to abuse this pretense to erect to themselves a representation of the godhead in the shape of man. Also the mercy seat where God showed forth the presence of his power in the time of the law, was so made as it might teach that the best beholding of the godhead is this, when men's minds are carried beyond themselves with administration of it. For the Cherubim with their wings stretched abroad did cover it, the veil did hide it, and the place itself being set far inward did of itself sufficiently keep it secret. Therefore it is very plain that they are very mad who go about to defend the images of God and of Saints with the example of these Cherubim. For, I pray you, what meant these little images, but to show that images are not fit to represent the mysteries of God? Forasmuch as they were made for this purpose, that hiding the mercy seat with their wings they should not only keep back the eyes of man, but also all his senses from the beholding of God, and so to correct his rash hardiness. For this purpose makes it that the Prophets described the Seraphim showed them in vision, with their face uncovered: whereby they signify, that so great is the brightness of the glory of God that the Angels themselves are kept from direct beholding it, and the small sparks thereof that shine in the Angels are withdrawn from our eyes. Although yet so many as rightly judge, do acknowledge that the Cherubim of whom we now speak, pertained only to the old manner of introduction as it were of children used in the law. So to draw them now for an example to our age is an absurdity. For that childish age, as I may so term it, is passed, for which such rudiments were appointed. And it is much shame, that the pagan writers are better expounders of the law of God than the Papists are. Juvenal reproaches the Jews as it were in scorn that they honor the white clouds and the deity of the heaven. I grant he speaks perversely and wickedly: and yet he speaks more truly in saying that they have among them no image of God, than the Papists do who prattle that they had a visible image of God. And whereas that people with a certain hot hastiness, broke out oftentimes to seek them idols, even as waters out of a great fresh spring boil out with violent force: hereby rather let us learn how great is the inclination of our nature to idolatry, lest throwing upon the Jews the blame of that fault which is common to all, we sleep a deadly sleep under vain allurements to sin.

To the same purpose serves this saying: The idols of the gentiles are gold and silver, even the works of men's hands. Because the Prophet does gather of the stuff itself, that they are no gods that have a golden or silver image: and he takes it for confessed truth, that it is a foolish feigned invention whatever we conceive of our own sense concerning God. He names rather gold and silver than clay or stone, that the beauty or the price should not serve to bring a reverence to idols. But he concludes generally that nothing is less allowable, than gods to be made of dead stuff. And in the meantime he stands as much upon this point, that men are carried away with too mad a rashness, which themselves bearing about with them but a borrowed breath, ready to vanish away at every moment, yet dare give the honor of God to idols. Man must needs confess that himself is but a creature of a day's continuance, and yet he will have a piece of metal to be counted God to which himself gave the beginning to be a God. For from where came the beginning of idols but from the will of men? Very justly does the heathen poet give them this taunt: I was sometime a fig tree log, a block that served for nothing: The workman doubted what of me were fittest to be wrought: A form to sit upon, or else a Priapus God to be. At length he thought the better was a God to make of me.

Forsooth an earthly silly man that breathes out his own life in manner every moment, by his workmanship shall convey the name and honor of God to a dead stock. But forasmuch as Epicurus in scoffingly jesting has cared for no religion, let us leave the taunts of him and such as he is, and let the rebuking of the Prophet prick us — or rather thrust us through — where he says, that they are too much beastly witted that with one self piece of wood do make a fire and warm themselves, do heat the oven to bake bread, do roast or seethe flesh, and do make them a God before which they fall down humbly to pray. Therefore in another place he does not only accuse them by the law, but also does reproach them that they have not learned of the foundations of the earth: for that there is nothing less convenient than to bring God to the measure of five feet, which is above all measure and incomprehensible. And yet this same monstrous thing which manifestly repugns against the order of nature, custom shows to be natural to men. We must moreover hold in mind, that superstitions are in Scripture commonly rebuked in this phrase of speech, that they are the works of men's hands which want the authority of God: that this may be certain, that all these manners of worshipping that men do devise of themselves are detestable. The Prophet in the Psalms does amplify the madness of them that therefore are endued with understanding, that they should know that all things are moved with the only power of God, and yet they pray for help to things dead and senseless. But because the corruption of nature carries as well all nations, as each man privately to so great madness, at last the Holy Spirit thunders with terrible curse against them saying: let them that make them become like to them and so many as trust in them. And it is to be noted that a similitude is no less forbidden than a graven image, whereby the fond subtlety of the Greeks is confuted. For they think they are well discharged if they grave not a God, while in paintings they do more licentiously outrage than any other nations. But the Lord forbids an image not only to be made by the graver, but also to be counterfeited by any other workman, because such counterfeiting is evil and to the dishonor of his majesty.

I know that it is a saying more than common among the people, that images are laymen's books. Gregory so said, but the Spirit of God pronounces far otherwise, in whose school if Gregory had been taught, he would never have so spoken. For whereas Jeremiah plainly says that the stock is a doctrine of vanity: and whereas Habakkuk teaches that the molten image is a teacher of lies: surely hereof is a general doctrine to be gathered, that it is vain and lying whatever men learn by images concerning God. If any man takes exception, and says that the Prophets reproach them only which abused images to wicked superstition: I grant that to be true. But I add further that which is easy for all men to see, that they condemn that thing wholly which the Papists take for an assured principle, that images are in stead of books. For they do in comparison set images against God as things directly contrary and such as never can agree together. This comparison I say is made in those places which I have alleged. Since there is but one true God whom the Jews did worship, it is [reconstructed: absurd] and falsely done to forge visible shapes to represent God, and men are miserably deceived, that thereby seek for knowledge of God. Finally if it were not true that it is a deceitful and corrupt knowledge of God that is learned by images, the Prophets would not so generally condemn it. At least thus much I win of them when we show that it is vanity and lying that men do attempt to represent God with images, we do nothing but rehearse word for word that which the Prophets have taught.

Let be read what Lactantius and Eusebius have written of this matter, which stick not to take it for certain that they were all mortal of whom images are to be seen. Likewise Augustine: which without doubting pronounces that it is unlawful not only to worship images, but also to set up images to God. And yet he says nothing other than the same which many years before was decreed by the Elvira council, of which this is the 36th chapter: It is ordained that no pictures be had in the church, that the thing which is honored and worshipped be not painted on the walls. But most notable is that which in another place Augustine alleges out of Varro, and confirms it with his own assent, that they which first brought in the images of gods, both took away the fear of God, and brought in error. If Varro alone should say this, perhaps it should be but of small authority. Yet ought it of right to make us ashamed that a heathen man groping in darkness came to this light, to see that bodily images are therefore unfit for the majesty of God, because they diminish the fear of God and increase error in men. The proof itself witnesses that this was no less truly than wisely spoken. But Augustine having borrowed it of Varro, brings it forth as of his own mind. And first he admonishes, that the first errors wherewith men were entangled concerning God, began not of images, but as with new matter added increased by them. Secondly he expounds that the fear of God is therefore diminished — or rather taken away thereby — because his majesty may easily in the foolishness and in the fond and absurd forging of images grow to contempt. Which second thing I would to God we did not by proof find to be so true. Whoever therefore will covet to be rightly taught, let him elsewhere learn than of images, what is fitting to be known concerning God.

Therefore if the Papists have any shame, let them no more use this shift to say that images are laymen's books, which by many testimonies of Scripture are so openly confuted. And although I grant them so much, yet should they not much get thereby for defense of their idols. What monsters they trust in, in the place of God is well known. The pictures and images that they dedicate to Saints, what are they but examples of extreme riot and uncleanness, wherein if any would fashion himself, he were worthy to be beaten with staves? Surely the brothel houses can show harlots more chastely and soberly attired, than their temples show images of these whom they would have called virgins. Even as unbecoming attire give they to the martyrs. Let them therefore fashion their idols at least to some honest show of shamefastness, that they may somewhat more colorably lie in saying, that they are the books of some holiness. But if it were so, yet then would we answer, that this is not the right way to teach the faithful people in holy places, whom God would have there instructed with far other doctrine than with these trifles. God commanded in the churches a common doctrine to be set forth to all men in preaching of his word and in his holy mysteries: to which they show themselves to have a mind not very heedful, that cast their eyes about to behold images. But whom do the Papists call lay and unlearned men whose unskilfulness may bear to be taught only by images — indeed even those whom the Lord acknowledges for his disciples, to whom he vouchsafes to reveal the heavenly wisdom, whom he wills to be instructed with the wholesome mysteries of his kingdom. I grant indeed as the matter stands that there are at this day many which cannot be without such books. But from where, I pray you, grows that dullness but that they are defrauded of the doctrine which only was fitting to instruct them with? For it is for no other cause that they which had the care of churches gave over their office of teaching to idols, but because themselves were dumb. Paul testifies that Christ is in the true preaching of the gospel, painted out and in a manner crucified before our eyes (Galatians 3:1). To what purpose then were it to have commonly set up in churches so many crosses of wood, stone, silver and gold, if this were well and faithfully beaten into the people's heads, that Christ died to bear our curse upon the cross, to cleanse our sins with the sacrifice of his body, and to wash them away with his blood, and finally to reconcile us to God the Father? Of which one thing they might learn more than of a thousand crosses of wood or stone. For perhaps the covetous do set their minds and eyes faster upon the golden and silver crosses than upon any words of God.

As concerning the beginning of idols, that is by common consent thought to be true which is written in the book of Wisdom, that they were the first authors of them, which gave this honor to the dead, superstitiously to worship their memory. And truly I grant that this evil custom was very ancient, and I deny not that it was the firebrand with which the rage of men being kindled to idolatry did more and more burn in it. Yet do I not grant that this was the first origin of this mischief. For it appears by Moses that images were used before that this curiosity in dedicating the images of dead men, whereof the profane writers make often mention, were come into practice. When he tells that Rachel had stolen her father's idols, he speaks it as of a common fault. By which we may gather that the wit of man is, as I may so call it, a continual worship of idols. After the general flood, there was as it were a new regeneration of the world, and yet there passed not many years but that men according to their own lust feigned them gods. And it is likely that, the holy patriarch yet living, his children's children were given to idolatry, so that to his bitter grief he saw the earth defiled with idols, whose corruptions the Lord had but lately purged with so horrible a judgment. For Terah and Nahor even before the birth of Abraham were worshippers of false gods, as Joshua testifies. Seeing the generation of Shem so soon swerved, what shall we judge of the posterity of Ham, who were already cursed in their father? The mind of men, as it is full of pride and rash boldness, presumes to imagine God according to its own conceit: and as it is possessed with dullness, indeed overwhelmed with gross ignorance, so it conceives vanity and a fond fantasy instead of God. And to these evils is added a new mischief, that man attempts to express in workmanship such a God as he inwardly conceives. Thus the mind begets the idol, and the hand brings it forth. The example of the Israelites proves that this was the beginning of idolatry, that men do not believe that God is among them, unless he shows himself carnally present. 'We know not,' said they, 'what has become of this Moses: make us gods that may go before us.' They knew that there was a God whose power they had had experience of in so many miracles: but they did not believe that he was near to them, unless they did see with their eyes a corporeal representation of his face, to be a witness to them of the God that governed them. Their mind was therefore to know by the image going before them, that God was the guide of their journey. This thing daily experience teaches, that the flesh is always unquiet till it has gotten some counterfeit device like itself, in which it may vainly delight as in an image of God. In a manner, in all ages since the creation of the world, men to obey this blind desire have erected signs in which they imagined God to be present before their carnal eyes.

After such invention is forged, worship soon follows. For when men thought that they beheld God in images, they did also worship him in them. At length being both with minds and eyes altogether fastened thereon, they began to grow more and more brutish, and to wonder at them and have them in admiration, as if there were some nature of godhead in them. So it appears that men broke not out into the worshipping of images, till they were persuaded in some gross opinion: not to think the images to be gods, but to imagine that there did a certain force of godhead abide in them. Therefore whether you represent to yourself either God or a creature in the image, when you fall down to worship, you are already bewitched with some superstition. For this reason the Lord has forbidden not only images to be erected that are made to express a likeness of him, but also any titles or stones to be dedicated, that should stand to be worshipped. And for the same reason also in the commandment of the law, this other point is added concerning worshipping. For as soon as they have forged a visible form for God, they also tie the power of God to it. So beastly foolish are men, that there they fasten God where they counterfeit him, and therefore must they needs worship it. Neither is there any difference whether they simply worship the idol, or God in the idol. This is always idolatry when honors due to God are given to an idol, under whatever color it may be. And because God will not be worshipped superstitiously, therefore whatever is given to idols is taken from him. Let them take heed of this who seek pretenses to defend the abominable idolatry, with which, these many ages past, true religion has been drowned and overthrown. But (say they) the images are not taken for gods. Neither were the Jews themselves so unadvised as to forget that it was God by whose hand they had been brought out of Egypt before they made their calf. Indeed when Aaron said that those were the gods by whom they were delivered out of the land of Egypt, they boldly assented, showing a plain token of their meaning, that they would still keep that God that was their deliverer, so that they might see him go before them in the calf. Neither is it to be believed that the heathen were so gross as to believe that God was no other thing but stocks and stones. For they changed their images at their pleasure, but still they kept the same gods in their mind: and there were many images of one God, and yet they did not according to the multitude of images feign them many gods. Besides that they did daily consecrate new images, yet did they not think that they made new gods. Let the excuses be read which Augustine says were pretended by the idolaters of his age. When they were rebuked, the common sort answered that they did not worship that visible thing, but the deity that did in it invisibly dwell. And they that were of somewhat better religion, as he calls it, did say that they did neither worship the image nor the spirit in it, but by the corporeal image they did behold the sign of that thing which they ought to worship. Now then? All idolaters, whether they were of the Jews, or of the gentiles, were none otherwise minded than as I have said: being not contented with a spiritual understanding of God, they thought by the images he should be more sure and nearer imprinted in them. After once that such disordered counterfeiting of God well liked them, they never ended, till daily more and more deluded with new deceits they imagined that God did show forth his power in images. And nevertheless, both the Jews were persuaded that under such images they did worship the one true Lord of heaven and earth: and likewise the gentiles, their false gods, whom yet they feigned to dwell in heaven.

Whoever denies that it has thus been done in time past, indeed within our own remembrance, they impudently lie. For, why fall they down before them? And when they pray, why do they turn toward them as to the ears of God? For it is true that Augustine says, that no man prays or worships when he so beholds an image but he is so affected in mind that he thinks himself to be heard of it, or that it will do for him what he desires. Why is there such difference between the images of one God, that passing by one image with little reverence or none done to it they honor another solemnly? Why do they weary themselves with vowed pilgrimages to visit those images whereof they have the like at home? Why do they at this day in defense of them, as it were for their religion and country, fight to slaughter and destruction, in such sort as they would better suffer to have the one only God than their idols to be taken from them? And yet I do not reckon up the gross errors of the common people, which are almost infinite, and do in manner possess the hearts of all men. I do only show what they themselves confess when they mean most of all to excuse themselves of idolatry. We do not call them (say they) our gods. No more did the Jews nor the gentiles call them theirs in time past: and yet the prophets everywhere cease not to cast in their teeth their fornication with stocks and stones, for doing no more but such things as are daily done by them that would be counted Christians, that is to say, that they carnally worshipped God in stocks and stones.

Although I am not ignorant, nor think it good to pass it over as if I knew it not, how they seek to escape with a more subtle distinction, of which I shall again make mention more at large hereafter. For they pretend that the worship which they give to images is Idolodulia, which is service of images, and not Idololatria, which is worship of images. For so they term it when they teach that they may lawfully without any wrong done to God give to images and pictures that worship which they call Doulia, or service. And so they think themselves without blame if they be but the servants and not also the worshippers of idols: as though it were not a little lighter matter to worship than to serve. And yet while they seek a hole to hide themselves in the Greek word, they childishly disagree with themselves. For seeing Latreuein in Greek signifies nothing but to worship, their saying comes but to this effect, as if they would say that they worship in deed their images, but without any worshipping. And there is no cause why they should say that I seek to catch them in words: but they themselves, while they seek to cast a mist before the eyes of the simple, do betray their own ignorance. And yet though they be never so eloquent, they shall not attain by their eloquence to prove to us that one selfsame thing is two separate things. Let them (say I) show me a difference in that thing itself whereby they may be thought to differ from the old idolaters. For as an adulterer or a murderer cannot escape guilt of his fault by giving his sin a newly devised name: so is it a very absurdity to think that these men be quit by new device of a name, if in the matter itself they nothing differ from those idolaters whom they themselves are compelled to condemn. But so far are they from proving that their case differs from the case of those idolaters, that rather the fountain of all this whole mischief is a disorderly counterfeiting, wherein they have strived with them while both with their own wit they devise, and with their own hands they frame them signifying forms to express a fashion of God.

And yet am I not so superstitious that I think no images may be permitted at all. But forasmuch as carving and painting are the gifts of God, I require that they both be purely and lawfully used. Lest these things which God has given us for his glory and for our own benefit, be not only defiled by disordered abuse but also turned to our own destruction. We think it unlawful to have God fashioned out in visible form, because himself has forbidden it, and because it cannot be done without some defacement of his glory. And lest they think that it is only we that are in this opinion, they that have been occupied in their works shall find that all sound writers did always reprove the same thing. If then it be not lawful to make any bodily image of God, much less shall it be lawful to worship it for God, or God in it. It remains therefore lawful that only those things be painted and graven of which our eyes are capable: but that the majesty of God, which is far above the sense of our eyes, be not abused with unseemly devised shapes. Of this sort are partly histories and things done, partly images and fashions of bodies, without expressing of any things done by them. The first of these have some use in teaching or admonishing a man: but what profit the second can bring save only delight, I see not. And yet it is evident, that even such were almost all the images that heretofore have stood up in churches. Whereby we may judge that they were there set up not by discreet judgment or choice, but by foolish and ill-advised desire. I speak not how much amiss and uncomely they were for the most part fashioned, nor how licentiously painters and carvers have in this point showed their wantonness, which thing I have already touched. Only I speak to this end, that though there were no fault in them, yet do they nothing avail to teach.

But leaving also that difference, let us by the way consider, whether it be expedient in Christian temples to have any images at all, that do express either things done or the bodies of men. First, if the authority of the ancient church does anything move us, let us remember that for about 500 years together, while religion yet better flourished, and sincere doctrine was in force, the Christian churches were universally without images. So they were then first brought in for the garnishment of churches, when the sincerity of ministration was not a little altered. I will not now dispute what reason they had with them that were the first authors thereof. But if a man compare age with age, he shall see that they much swerved from that uprightness of them that were without images. What? Do we think that those holy fathers would have suffered the church to be so long without the thing which they judged profitable and good for them? But rather because they saw either little or no profit in it, and much danger to lurk underneath it, they did rather of purpose and advisedly reject it, than by ignorance or negligence omit it. Which thing Augustine does also in express words testify. When they be set in such places (says he) honorably on high, to be seen of them that pray and do sacrifice, although they want both sense and life, yet with the very likeness that they have of lively members and senses, they so move the weak minds, that they seem to live and breathe, etc. And in another place: For that shape of members does work and in manner enforce thus much, that the mind living within a body does think that body to have sense, which he sees like to his own. And a little after: Images do more avail to bow down an unhappy soul, but this that they have mouth, eyes, ears, and feet, than to amend it by this that they neither speak nor see nor hear nor go. This truly seems to be the cause why John willed us to beware not only of worshipping of images, but also of images themselves. And we have found it too much in experience, that through the horrible madness which has heretofore possessed the world, to the destruction in manner of all godliness, so soon as images be set up in churches, there is as it were a sign set up of idolatry, because the folly of men cannot refrain itself, but it must forthwith run on to superstitious worshippings. But if there were not so much danger hanging thereby: yet when I consider for what use temples are ordained, I think it is very ill befitting the holiness thereof to receive any other images than these lively and natural images, which the Lord by his word has consecrated, I mean Baptism and the Lord's supper, and other ceremonies wherewith our eyes ought both more earnestly to be occupied and more lively to be moved, than that they should need any other images framed by the wit of men. Lo, this is the incomparable commodity of images, which can by no value be recompensed, if we believe the papists.

I think I had spoken enough of this thing already, but that the Nicene Synod does as it were lay hand on me to enforce me to speak more. I mean not that most famous Synod which Constantine the Great assembled, but that which was held eight hundred years ago, by the commandment and authority of Irene the Empress. For that Synod decreed, that images should not only be had in churches, but also worshipped. For whatever I should say, the authority of the Synod would make a great prejudice on the other side. Although to say truth, that does not so much move me, as make it appear to the readers how far their rage extended, that were more desirous of images than became Christians. But first let us dispatch this. They that at this day maintain the use of images, allege the decree of the Nicene Synod for their defense. But there is extant a book of confutation bearing the name of Charles the Great, which by the phrase we may gather to have been written at the same time. Therein are recited the sentences of the Bishops that were present at that council, and the arguments wherewith they contended. John the Legate of the east parts said: God created man after his own image: and thereupon gathered that we ought to have images. The same man thought that images were commended to us in this sentence: show me your face, because it is beautiful. Another, to prove that images ought to be set upon altars, cited this testimony: no man lights a candle and puts it under a bushel. Another, to show that the beholding of them is profitable for us, brought forth a verse out of the Psalm: the light of your countenance is sealed upon us. Another took this similitude: As the Patriarchs used the sacrifices of the gentiles, so must Christian men have the images of saints in stead of the images of the gentiles. To the same purpose have they wrested this saying: Lord, I have loved the beauty of your house. But especially witty is the exposition of this place: As we have heard so have we seen, that God is not known by only hearing of his word, but also by looking upon images. Like is the sharp device of Bishop Theodore. Marvelous (says he) is God in his saints. And in another place: In the saints that are in the earth: therefore this ought to be referred to images. Finally so filthy are their unsavory follies that it grieves me to rehearse them.

When they talk of the worshipping: then are brought forth the worshipping of Pharaoh, and of the rod of Joseph, and of the pillar that Jacob set up. Albeit in this last example, they do not only deprave the meaning of the Scripture, but also bring in that which is nowhere to be read. Then these places seem to them marvelous strong and meet proofs. Worship his footstool. Again, worship on his holy hill. Again: All the rich men of the people shall worship your countenance. If a man would in scorn put the personage of a riding fool upon the patrons of images, could he gather together greater and grosser follies? But to put all out of doubt, Theodosius Bishop of Mira, does so earnestly confirm by the dreams of his Archdeacon, that images ought to be worshipped, as if he had an oracle from heaven to show for it. Now let the favorers of images go and press us with the decree of that Synod. As though those reverend fathers do not altogether discredit themselves, in either so childishly handling, or so ungodly and foully tearing the Scriptures.

Now come I to those monstrous impieties, which it is a marvel that they ever dared to vomit, and twice marvelous that they were not cried out against with high detestation of all men. And it is good that this outrageously wicked madness be exposed, that at least the false color of antiquity may be taken away, which the Papists pretend for the worshipping of images. Theodosius the Bishop of Amorum pronounces a curse against all them that will not have images worshipped. Another imputes all the calamities of Greece and the east part to this, that images were not worshipped. What punishment then were the Prophets, the Apostles and the Martyrs worthy to suffer, in whose time there were no images? They add further: If the Emperor's image be met with perfume and censing, much more is this honor due to the images of Saints. Constantius Bishop of Constance in Cyprus professes that he reverently embraces images, and affirms that he will give to them the same honorable manner of worship that is due to the Trinity that gives life. And whoever refuses so to do, he curses him and sends him away with the Manichees and Marcionites. And, that you should not think that this was the private sentence of one man, they did all assent to it. Indeed, John the Legate of the east parts being further carried with heat, said it were better to bring all brothels into the city than to deny the worshipping of images. At length by consent of them all it was decreed, that worse than all Heretics are the Samaritans, and worse than the Samaritans are the enemies of images. And because the play should not be without his solemn farewell, this clause was added: let them be glad and rejoice that having the image of Christ do offer sacrifice to it. Where is now the distinction of Latria and Dulia, with which they are wont to seek to blind the eyes both of God and men? For the council without any exception does give even as much to images as to the living God himself.

But as Scripture, accommodating itself to the limited understanding of people, is accustomed to speak in the common manner — so when it intends to distinguish the true God from false gods, it chiefly compares Him with idols. This is not because it approves of the more refined and subtle inventions the philosophers teach, but in order to expose more plainly the foolishness of the world — indeed their very madness — in seeking God while clinging to their own imaginations. Therefore that excluding statement we so often hear sweeps away every kind of deity that people frame for themselves by their own opinion, because God Himself is the only fitting witness of Himself. In the meantime, since this crude blindness has taken hold of the whole world — this craving for visible forms of God, and the consequent fashioning of gods from wood, stone, gold, silver, and other dead and perishable materials — we must hold this as a firm principle: the glory of God is corrupted with wicked falsehood every time any shape is invented to represent Him. Therefore, in the law, after God had claimed the glory of His divinity for Himself alone — intending to teach us what forms of worship He approves or rejects — He immediately adds: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness.' In these words He restricts our freedom, so that we do not attempt to represent Him in any visible form. There He briefly lists all the forms through which superstition had long before begun to replace His truth with falsehood. We know that the Persians worshipped the sun — indeed, as many stars as foolish nations saw in the sky, so many gods they invented. Scarcely any living creature was not, among the Egyptians, a figure of God. The Greeks were thought to be wiser than the rest, because they worshipped God in human form. But God does not compare images with one another, as though some were more and others less suitable for use. Without any exception He rejects all images, pictures, and other signs by which the superstitious thought to bring God near to them.

This is easy to gather from the reasons He attaches to the prohibition. First, consider Moses: 'Remember that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form — there was only a voice. Therefore watch yourselves carefully, so that you do not act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves in the form of any figure...' We see how openly God sets His voice against all counterfeit forms, so that we may know that whoever desires to have a visible shape of God has forsaken God. Of the prophets, Isaiah alone will suffice — he speaks often and at length on this subject — to teach that the majesty of God is defiled by unworthy and foolish imitation when He, who has no body, is likened to bodily material; He who is invisible, to a visible image; He who is Spirit, to a lifeless thing; He who is incomprehensible, to a small lump of wood, stone, or gold. Paul reasons similarly: 'Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.' From this it is clear that whatever images are erected or pictures painted to express the form of God simply displease Him as insults to His majesty. And what wonder is it if the Holy Spirit thunders out these declarations from heaven, when He even compels the wretched and blind idolaters themselves to confess this on earth? It is well known how Seneca complained, as Augustine records it. 'They dedicate to the holy, immortal, and inviolable gods,' he says, 'the most base and vile material, and clothe them in the shapes of men and beasts — some of them a mixture of man and woman, and some with bodies of various combined forms — and these they call gods, which if they were to come to life and be met on the road would be counted as monsters.' From this it is also plain how foolish an evasion it is when defenders of images claim that the Jews were forbidden images because they were prone to superstition — as if something that God grounds in His eternal being and the permanent order of nature applied to only one nation. And Paul spoke not to Jews but to Athenians when he refuted their error of fashioning a bodily form for God.

God did at times grant tokens of His presence — showing Himself so that He was said to be seen face to face — yet every such sign He ever gave was carefully suited to teach, and at the same time plainly warned people of an essence beyond all comprehension. For the cloud, smoke, and flame — though they were tokens of the heavenly glory — served as it were as a bridle to restrain people's minds from attempting to press any further. For this reason, not even Moses himself, to whom God disclosed Himself most intimately compared to others, obtained what he asked to see — that face — but received this answer: no man is able to endure so great a brightness. The Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, but since He immediately vanished, who does not see that by that token of so brief a moment the faithful are reminded that they ought to believe Him to be an invisible Spirit — that being satisfied with His power and grace, they should fashion no outward image of Him? That God sometimes appeared in human form was a foreshadowing of the revelation that was to be made of Him in Christ. It was therefore not lawful for the Jews to abuse this precedent to set up for themselves a visible representation of the Godhead in human form. The mercy seat, through which God displayed the presence of His power during the age of the law, was also constructed in such a way as to teach that the best contemplation of the Godhead is one in which the human mind is carried beyond itself in wonder at it. For the cherubim covered it with their outstretched wings, the veil concealed it, and the place itself, set far within, kept it sufficiently hidden. It is therefore very clear that those who seek to defend images of God and the saints by citing these cherubim are very confused. For what, I ask, did these figures mean but to show that images are not fit to represent the mysteries of God? They were made precisely in order to hide the mercy seat with their wings — not only to keep people's eyes but all their senses from beholding God, and so to restrain their reckless boldness. This is also the meaning of what the prophets described when the Seraphim were shown to them in vision with covered faces — signifying that so great is the brightness of God's glory that even the angels are kept from looking directly at it, and the small sparks of that glory reflected in the angels are withdrawn from our eyes. And yet those who judge rightly acknowledge that the cherubim we have just spoken of belonged only to the elementary and childish manner of instruction used in the old covenant. To draw them as a precedent for our own age is an absurdity. That childish stage — if I may call it so — is past, for which such elementary forms were appointed. It is greatly shameful that pagan writers are better interpreters of the law of God than the Papists are. Juvenal taunts the Jews, as if in mockery, for honoring white clouds and the deity of the sky. I grant he speaks perversely and wickedly — yet he says something more true in saying that they have no image of God among them than the Papists do who babble that they had a visible image of God. And when that people with a certain headlong eagerness repeatedly broke out in pursuit of idols — bursting out like waters from a great rushing spring with violent force — let us learn from this rather how great is our nature's inclination toward idolatry. Let us not cast upon the Jews the blame for a fault common to all, while we ourselves sleep a deadly sleep under sin's vain allurements.

To the same point serves this passage: 'The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of human hands.' For the prophet draws from the very material itself the conclusion that those with a golden or silver image are no gods — taking it as an acknowledged truth that whatever we conceive of God from our own minds is a foolish fiction. He names gold and silver rather than clay or stone, so that beauty or price should not lend any reverence to idols. But his conclusion is general: nothing is more impermissible than making gods out of dead material. And all the while he dwells on this point: that people are swept away by a mad recklessness — they who carry in themselves only a borrowed breath ready to vanish at any moment, and yet dare to give the honor due to God to idols. A person must acknowledge that he is himself a creature of a day's duration, and yet he wants a piece of metal to be counted God — a piece of metal to which he himself gave the beginning of being a god. For where did idols originate but in the will of men? The pagan poet aptly taunts them with this: 'I was once a fig tree log, a block that served no purpose. The workman hesitated as to what to make of me — a stool to sit on, or a god Priapus. At last he decided it was better to make a god of me.'

So a frail earthly creature who breathes out his own life practically moment by moment shall by his workmanship convey the name and honor of God to a lifeless block. But since Epicurus, with mocking laughter, cared nothing for religion, let us leave aside the taunts of him and his kind, and let the rebuke of the prophet pierce us — or rather run us through — where he says that those who with the very same piece of wood both make a fire to warm themselves, heat the oven to bake bread, roast or boil their meat, and then fashion a god before which they fall down in humble prayer, have minds no better than brutes. So in another place the prophet does not only charge them under the law but also reproaches them for not having learned from the foundations of the earth — that nothing is more absurd than to reduce God, who is above all measure and comprehension, to the measure of five feet. And yet this very monstrosity, which plainly contradicts the order of nature, custom makes appear natural to men. We must also bear in mind that superstitions are commonly rebuked in Scripture with the expression that they are 'the works of human hands' — lacking the authority of God. This makes it certain that all forms of worship that people invent for themselves are detestable. The psalmist amplifies the madness of those who have been given understanding precisely so that they might know that all things are moved by God's power alone — and yet they pray for help to things dead and senseless. But because the corruption of nature drives both all nations and every individual to such great madness, the Holy Spirit in the end thunders a terrible curse against them, saying: 'Those who make them become like them, and so do all who trust in them.' It is also to be noted that a painted likeness is forbidden no less than a carved image — which refutes the empty cleverness of the Greeks, who think they are fully excused if they do not carve a god, while in paintings they behave more recklessly than any other nations. But the Lord forbids an image of Himself not only to be made by a sculptor but to be counterfeited by any craftsman, since such counterfeiting is wicked and dishonoring to His majesty.

I know that among ordinary people the saying is almost universally heard that images are the books of the unlearned. Gregory said so, but the Spirit of God declares otherwise — and had Gregory been taught in that school, he would never have said it. For since Jeremiah says plainly that an idol is a teaching of emptiness, and Habakkuk teaches that the molten image is a teacher of lies, a general conclusion must be drawn: whatever people learn about God from images is vain and false. If someone objects that the prophets only reprove those who misused images for wicked superstition — I grant that is true. But I add further what all can easily see: they condemn outright the very thing which the Papists take as an established principle — that images serve as books. For the prophets set images against God as things directly contrary and wholly incompatible. This comparison is made, I say, in the passages I have cited. Since there is but one true God whom the Jews worshipped, it is absurd and false to fashion visible shapes to represent God — and those who seek the knowledge of God through such means are miserably deceived. Finally, if it were not true that images produce a deceptive and corrupt knowledge of God, the prophets would not have condemned it so broadly. At least this much I gain: when I show that what men attempt by representing God in images is vanity and falsehood, I do nothing but repeat word for word what the prophets taught.

Let what Lactantius and Eusebius have written on this matter be read — men who do not hesitate to take it as certain that all those of whom images exist were mortal. Likewise Augustine, who without hesitation declares it unlawful not only to worship images but even to set them up for God. And yet he says nothing other than what was decreed many years earlier by the Council of Elvira, of which this is the thirty-sixth chapter: 'It is ordained that there be no pictures in the church, and that what is honored and worshipped be not painted on the walls.' But most notable is what Augustine elsewhere cites from Varro, and confirms with his own agreement: that those who first introduced images of the gods both removed the fear of God and introduced error. If Varro alone had said this, perhaps it would carry little weight. Yet we ought rightly to be ashamed that a pagan man groping in darkness came to this light — to see that bodily images are unfit for the majesty of God because they diminish the fear of God and increase error among people. The facts themselves bear witness that this was spoken no less truly than wisely. But Augustine, having borrowed it from Varro, brings it forward as his own conviction. First he warns that the original errors into which people fell concerning God did not begin with images — but were increased by them as by the addition of new fuel. Second, he explains that the fear of God is diminished — or rather entirely destroyed — by images, because His majesty can easily come to be despised through the foolishness and the absurd, ridiculous counterfeiting of images. This second point I wish to God we did not find so true by experience. Whoever therefore desires to be rightly taught should learn elsewhere than from images what is proper to know about God.

Therefore if the Papists have any shame left, let them no longer use the excuse that images are the books of the unlearned — an excuse so openly refuted by many testimonies of Scripture. And even if I granted them this much, it would do little to defend their idols. What monstrosities they trust as substitutes for God is well known. The pictures and images they dedicate to the saints — what are they but examples of the most extreme immodesty and lewdness, such that anyone who modeled himself after them would deserve to be beaten? Brothel houses can show their women more modestly and soberly dressed than the temples of the Papists show the images of those they want called virgins. They dress the martyrs just as indecently. Let them at least fashion their idols to some honest show of modesty, so that their lie about them being books of holiness might have at least some color to it. But even if that were the case, we would still answer that this is not the right way to instruct God's faithful people in holy places — people whom God wills to be taught there by very different doctrine than by such trifles. God commanded that a common doctrine be set forth in churches for all people through the preaching of His word and the administration of His holy sacraments. Those who cast their eyes about to look at images are showing that they have no very attentive mind for this. But whom do the Papists call unlearned laypeople too ignorant to be taught by anything but images? Even those whom the Lord acknowledges as His disciples, to whom He is pleased to reveal heavenly wisdom, and whom He wills to be instructed in the wholesome mysteries of His kingdom. I grant indeed, as things stand, that there are many today who cannot get along without such books. But from what does that dullness come, I ask, but from the fact that they have been robbed of the doctrine that alone was fitted to instruct them? For the only reason those who had care of the churches abandoned their duty of teaching to idols is that they themselves were mute. Paul testifies that Christ is, in the true preaching of the Gospel, painted out and virtually crucified before our eyes (Galatians 3:1). To what purpose then would it be to set up in churches so many crosses of wood, stone, silver, and gold, if this were faithfully and thoroughly impressed on the people's minds: that Christ died to bear our curse on the cross, to cleanse our sins by the sacrifice of His body and wash them away with His blood, and finally to reconcile us to God the Father? From this one truth they could learn more than from a thousand crosses of wood or stone. For it is likely the greedy have their eyes and minds far more fixed on golden and silver crosses than on any words of God.

As for the origin of idols, there is a widespread belief — taken from the book of Wisdom — that those who gave divine honors to the dead and superstitiously worshipped their memory were the first to introduce them. I grant that this evil custom is very ancient, and I do not deny that it was the spark that kindled the rage of men toward idolatry, causing it to burn all the more fiercely. Yet I do not grant that this was the original source of the evil. For it is clear from Moses that images were used before this practice of dedicating images to the dead — a practice so often mentioned by pagan writers — had come into common use. When Moses recounts that Rachel stole her father's idols, he speaks of it as a familiar occurrence. From this we may gather that the human mind is, as I may call it, a perpetual factory of idols. After the great flood there was, as it were, a fresh beginning of the world — and yet few years had passed before people, following their own desires, invented gods for themselves. It is likely that while the holy patriarch was still alive, his children's children were already given to idolatry — so that to his bitter grief he saw the earth defiled with idols, whose corruption the Lord had only recently purged with so terrible a judgment. For Terah and Nahor were worshippers of false gods even before the birth of Abraham, as Joshua testifies. If the line of Shem so quickly went astray, what should we expect of the descendants of Ham, who were already cursed in their father? The human mind, being full of pride and rash boldness, presumes to imagine God according to its own ideas. And being taken over by dullness — indeed, overwhelmed by gross ignorance — it conceives vanity and an empty fantasy instead of God. To these evils is added a further mischief: a person then attempts to express in a physical form the kind of God he has inwardly conceived. Thus the mind generates the idol, and the hand brings it to birth. The example of the Israelites proves that this is the root of idolatry: the belief that God is not truly present unless He shows Himself in some physically visible way. 'We do not know what has happened to this Moses,' they said. 'Make us gods who will go before us.' They knew there was a God — they had experienced His power in so many miracles — but they did not believe He was near to them unless they could see with their own eyes some bodily representation of His face, serving as a visible witness to the God who governed them. Their idea was to know by the image going before them that God was the guide of their journey. Daily experience teaches the same lesson: the flesh is always restless until it has gotten hold of some invented device in its own likeness, in which it may vainly delight as in an image of God. In nearly every age since the creation of the world, people have obeyed this blind desire by setting up visible signs in which they imagined God to be bodily present before them.

After such an invention is fashioned, worship soon follows. For when people thought they beheld God in images, they also worshipped Him in them. At length, having fixed both their minds and their eyes entirely upon the images, they began to grow more and more senseless, and to wonder at them and hold them in awe as if some divine power resided in them. So it is clear that people did not break out into image worship until they were convinced by some crude notion — not that the images themselves were gods, but that some divine power or force dwelt in them. Therefore whether you set before yourself an image of God or of a creature, when you fall down to worship, you are already caught in some superstition. For this reason the Lord has forbidden not only the erecting of images made to represent a likeness of Him, but also the setting up of any stone pillars to be bowed before and worshipped. For the same reason also, in the commandment of the law, this additional point is added regarding worship. For as soon as people have fashioned a visible form for God, they also attach the power of God to it. So senseless are people that they fasten God to the place where they have portrayed Him, and thus feel compelled to worship it. Nor is there any difference between simply worshipping an idol or worshipping God through an idol. It is always idolatry when honors due to God are given to an idol, under whatever pretense. And because God will not be worshipped in a superstitious manner, whatever is given to idols is taken away from Him. Let those who seek pretexts to defend the abominable idolatry — by which true religion has for many ages been drowned and overthrown — take heed of this. But they say: the images are not taken to be gods. Neither were the Jews themselves so blind as to forget that it was God by whose hand they had been brought out of Egypt before they made the golden calf. Indeed when Aaron declared that these were the gods by whom they had been delivered out of Egypt, they readily agreed — showing their clear intention: to keep the God who had delivered them, provided they could see Him going before them in the calf. Nor is it to be believed that the pagan nations were so crude as to think God was nothing more than wood and stone. For they changed their images whenever they pleased, yet kept the same gods in their minds. Many images could exist for one god, and yet they did not multiply their gods to match the number of images. Moreover they daily consecrated new images without thinking they were thereby making new gods. Read the excuses that Augustine says were offered by the idolaters of his time. When rebuked, the common people answered that they did not worship the visible thing before them but the divine power that invisibly dwelt in it. And those of somewhat better learning, as he calls them, said that they worshipped neither the image nor the spirit residing in it, but that through the bodily image they beheld a sign of the thing they ought to worship. What then? All idolaters — whether Jewish or Gentile — were minded in just this way, as I have described. Not content with a spiritual understanding of God, they thought that in images God would be more firmly and more immediately impressed upon them. Once this disorderly counterfeiting of God pleased them, they never stopped — but being deceived more and more daily by new inventions, they came to imagine that God displayed His power through images. And yet the Jews were persuaded that in worshipping such images they were worshipping the one true Lord of heaven and earth — and the Gentiles in the same way were persuaded they were worshipping their false gods, whom they nevertheless imagined to dwell in heaven.

Whoever denies that this is what has been done in former times — indeed within living memory — lies shamelessly. For why do they fall down before images? And when they pray, why do they turn toward them as toward the ears of God? For it is as Augustine says: no one prays or worships while looking at an image without being so affected in mind that he thinks he is being heard by it, or that it will do for him what he desires. Why is there such a difference between images of the same God, that people will pass by one image with little or no reverence, yet solemnly honor another? Why do they weary themselves with vowed pilgrimages to visit images of which they have equal examples at home? Why do they today fight to the slaughter in defense of them, as if for religion and country — willing rather to suffer the loss of the one true God than the loss of their idols? And yet I am not even counting the crude errors of common people, which are nearly infinite and seem to fill all hearts. I am only pointing out what the defenders of images themselves admit when they are doing their best to excuse themselves from idolatry. 'We do not call them our gods,' they say. Neither did the Jews nor the Gentiles call theirs gods in former times — and yet the prophets everywhere cease not to charge them with spiritual fornication with wood and stone, simply for doing the very things done daily by those who would be counted Christians: that is, carnally worshipping God in wood and stone.

I am not unaware, nor do I think it right to pass over as if I were, how they attempt to escape by means of a more subtle distinction, which I will address more fully later. They pretend that the worship they give to images is idoloduly, which is service to images, and not idolatry, which is worship of images. For this is how they put it: they claim they may lawfully, without any wrong to God, give to images and pictures that worship they call duly, or service. They think themselves blameless if they are only servants and not worshippers of idols — as if service were somehow significantly less serious than worship. And yet in their attempt to hide behind a Greek word, they contradict themselves in a childish way. For since the Greek word latreuo means nothing but to worship, what they are saying amounts to this: that they do in fact worship their images, but without any worshipping. There is no reason why they should say I am playing with words — it is they who, while trying to throw dust in the eyes of the simple, expose their own ignorance. And however eloquent they may be, no eloquence will succeed in proving to us that one and the same thing is two different things. Let them show me — in the matter itself, not just in terms — where they differ from the ancient idolaters. For just as an adulterer or a murderer cannot escape the guilt of his crime by giving his sin a newly invented name, so it is completely absurd to think these people are acquitted by a verbal novelty if in the substance of the matter they do not differ from those idolaters they themselves are compelled to condemn. Indeed, so far are they from proving their case differs from those old idolaters that the very fountain of this entire evil is the disorderly counterfeiting in which they have rivaled the ancient idolaters — both devising with their own minds and shaping with their own hands visible forms to express a version of God.

And yet I am not so rigid as to think no images may be permitted at all. For since sculpture and painting are gifts of God, I require that both be used purely and lawfully — so that these things God has given for His glory and our own benefit are not defiled by disordered misuse or turned to our destruction. We hold it unlawful to fashion God into visible form because He Himself has forbidden it, and because it cannot be done without some injury to His glory. And lest they think this is only our opinion, those who have studied the writings of the Fathers will find that all sound writers have always condemned the same thing. If then it is unlawful to make any bodily image of God, much less shall it be lawful to worship it as God, or to worship God through it. It therefore remains lawful to depict in painting or sculpture only those things that our eyes are capable of perceiving — but the majesty of God, which infinitely surpasses the reach of our eyes, must not be dishonored by invented and improper forms. Images of this lawful kind are of two sorts: those that depict histories and events, and those that are simply portraits and forms of bodies without depicting any action. The first have some use in teaching or reminding a person of something. But what profit the second can bring, other than mere delight, I do not see. And yet it is evident that almost all the images that have stood in churches until now have been of this second kind. From which we may judge that they were placed there not by sober judgment and deliberate choice, but by foolish and thoughtless desire. I say nothing here about how badly made and indecent most of them were, nor how freely painters and carvers have shown their indulgence in this — which I have already touched on. My point here is only this: even if there were no fault in them at all, they still do nothing to teach.

But setting aside that distinction, let us consider in passing whether it is appropriate for Christian churches to contain any images at all — whether of scenes or of human figures. First, if the authority of the ancient church means anything to us, let us recall that for roughly five hundred years, while religion still flourished more purely and sincere doctrine was in force, the Christian churches were universally without images. When images were first introduced for the ornamentation of churches, the sincerity of ministry had already been considerably diminished. I will not argue here about the motives of those who first introduced them. But if one compares the periods, the age that had images had clearly departed much from the uprightness of those who had none. Would those holy fathers have allowed the church to go so long without something they judged profitable and good for it? Rather, because they saw little or no benefit in images, and recognized the great danger lurking beneath them, they deliberately and purposefully refused them — not through ignorance or negligence. Augustine also expressly testifies this. 'When they are set,' he says, 'in an honored, elevated position to be seen by those who pray and make offerings, even though they have neither sense nor life, yet by the very likeness of living members and senses they so move weak minds that they seem to live and breathe.' And in another place: 'For the shape of the body is such that it leads the mind dwelling within a body to assume that a body like its own also possesses sense.' And a little after: 'Images do more to bow down an unhappy soul — by having mouth, eyes, ears, and feet — than to improve it by having no speech, sight, hearing, or movement.' This seems to be the very reason John warned us to beware not only of worshipping images but of images themselves. And we have found it all too true by experience, that through the horrible madness which has previously possessed the world — to the destruction of nearly all godliness — as soon as images are placed in churches, it is as if a signal for idolatry has been raised. For the foolishness of people cannot restrain itself from rushing headlong into superstitious worship. But even if there were no such danger attached to it, when I consider the purpose for which churches are established, I think it is very ill-suited to their holiness to receive any images other than these living and natural images which the Lord has consecrated by His word — I mean Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and the other ceremonies by which our eyes ought to be occupied more earnestly and moved more vividly than by any images fashioned by human ingenuity. Behold — this is the incomparable benefit of images, which according to the Papists can be compensated by no other value.

I think I had already said enough on this subject, but the Nicene Synod, as it were, lays its hand on me and forces me to say more. I mean not the famous council that Constantine the Great assembled, but the one held eight hundred years ago by the command and authority of Empress Irene. For that council decreed that images should not merely be kept in churches but also worshipped. Whatever I say, the authority of a synod would create a strong prejudice on the other side. Although, to speak truthfully, that does not trouble me so much as it shows readers how far the rage extended of those who were more eager for images than befitted Christians. But first let us deal with the matter directly. Those who today maintain the use of images cite the decree of the Nicene Synod in their defense. There is extant a book of refutation bearing the name of Charlemagne, which by its style we can gather was written at about the same time. In it are recorded the statements of the bishops present at that council and the arguments by which they contended. John, the legate from the eastern parts, said: God created man after His own image — and from this he concluded that we ought to have images. The same man thought that images were commended to us in the sentence: 'Show me your face, for it is beautiful.' Another, to prove that images should be placed on altars, cited: 'No one lights a candle and puts it under a basket.' Another, to show that looking at images is profitable, brought forward a verse from the Psalms: 'The light of Your countenance is stamped upon us.' Another used this comparison: just as the patriarchs used the sacrifices of the Gentiles, so Christian men must have images of the saints in place of images of the Gentiles. To the same purpose they twisted the saying: 'Lord, I have loved the beauty of Your house.' But especially clever is the interpretation of this passage: 'As we have heard, so we have seen' — meaning, they say, that God is known not only by hearing His word but also by looking at images. Similar is the sharp reasoning of Bishop Theodore: 'God is marvelous in His saints,' he says. And in another place: 'In the saints who are in the earth.' Therefore, he concludes, this ought to be applied to images. Their absurdities are so disgraceful that it pains me to rehearse them.

When they discuss worship, they bring in the worship of Pharaoh, of Joseph's rod, and of the pillar Jacob set up — though in this last example they not only distort the meaning of Scripture but introduce something nowhere in the text. Then these passages seem to them overwhelmingly strong proofs: 'Worship His footstool.' And again: 'Worship on His holy hill.' And again: 'All the wealthy of the people will bow before Your face.' If someone wanted to put on a mock performance of a court jester playing the role of an image defender, could he assemble greater or more foolish absurdities? But to remove all doubt, Bishop Theodosius of Myra confirms by means of his archdeacon's dreams that images should be worshipped — as confidently as if he had a direct oracle from heaven to present. Now let the defenders of images go and press us with the decree of that Synod. As if those venerable fathers did not entirely discredit themselves by handling the Scriptures so childishly, or by tearing them apart so ungodly and shamefully.

Now I come to those monstrous impieties which it is remarkable they ever dared to utter, and doubly remarkable that they were not met with loud denunciation from everyone. It is good that this outrageously wicked madness be exposed, so that the false color of antiquity which the Papists invoke for the worship of images may at least be stripped away. Theodosius, Bishop of Amorum, pronounces a curse on all who refuse to worship images. Another blames all the disasters that fell on Greece and the eastern regions on the failure to worship images. What punishment, then, would the prophets, the apostles, and the martyrs have deserved — in whose time there were no images at all? They add further: if the Emperor's image is met with incense and ceremony, much more is this honor due to the images of the saints. Constantius, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, professes that he reverently embraces images and declares that he will pay them the same honorable worship due to the life-giving Trinity. And whoever refuses to do so he curses, bundling them off with the Manichees and Marcionites. And do not think this was the private opinion of one man — they all assented to it. Indeed, John the Legate of the eastern parts, carried away by even greater heat, said it would be better to bring all the brothels of the world into the city than to refuse the worship of images. Finally by common agreement it was decreed that the Samaritans are worse than all heretics, and the enemies of images worse than the Samaritans. And so that the performance might not end without its solemn conclusion, this clause was added: let those who have the image of Christ rejoice and be glad, and offer sacrifice to it. Now where is the distinction between latria and dulia, with which they are accustomed to try to blind the eyes of both God and men? For the council, without any qualification, grants to images as much as it grants to the living God Himself.