“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by Him were all things created…”
Col. 1:15-16
“…he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, ‘Show us the Father?'”
Jn. 14:9
“And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, ‘All hail. And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him.”
Mt. 28:9
“Then saith He to Thomas, ‘Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.’ And Thomas answered and said unto Him, ‘My Lord and my God.'”
Jn. 20:27-28
.
.
Subsections
Images of God
Visions of God & Christ in Scripture
Image of Lion, Lamb
Grounds of Christ the Mediator Receiving Worship
Reformed vs. Aquinas
.
.
Order of Contents
Intro & Crux of Issue
Start
Articles
Audio
Books
Quotes 7+
Confessions 2
Latin 5
Teaching Purposes?
Lawful Images of Christ: Sacraments
Crucifix
Seeing Images of Jesus
Mental Images
For Images of Christ
History
Early & Medieval Church
Reformed History
Westminster
Quotes
.
.
Intro & the Crux of the Issue
Images of Christ are common in churches and society today. However the Early Church and the Reformed wing of the Reformation considered any image of Christ, anywhere, in any context, and for any purpose, to be idolatry and forbidden. Why?
Because they understood the profound ramifications of the orthodox doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, that Christ’s one person exists in two natures: human and divine. Christ’s human nature (body and soul) does not exist, and cannot exist, apart from his Person.
Thus, any image of Christ’s human body is necessarily an image of his Person existing in human nature, as Christ’s human nature joined to his Person is a revealing of, and necessarily an image representing, his Person (being inseparably joined to it and animated by it).
Christ’s human nature, due to the unique Hypostatic Union, is in a qualitatively different category than anything else in this universe, as no other portion of created dust is inseparably joined personally forever to the heart of the uncreated, Second Person of the Trinity.
While Christ’s finite human nature (body and soul) remains creaturely and finite, yet due to the special and mysterious Hypostatic Union, it is a means (divinely appointed) by which, and the only means by which, we may worship his Person through the creation. It is because Christ in the flesh is the living, full, perfect and sufficient Image of God (and that lawful, made mysteriously by God Himself), and is revealed perfectly and sufficiently to us through his Word and Spirit, that all other images of God are forbidden.
.
Are Images of Christ Images of his Person?
Sometimes persons claim that images of Christ are only images of his human nature and not of his divine person.
Yet, when one points to a picture of a friend, they say, ‘That is a picture of my friend,’ not: ‘that is a picture of my friend’s body’. The picture of the body, because of its union to the soul, represents all that the person is. Note the frequent Biblical language, especially in the Psalms, where ‘my soul’ refers whollistically and naturally to the person, body and soul united together.
With images of Jesus, we do not speak of them as images of a person-less body, but images of *Jesus* (the person), the picture of the body signifying and representing the person. While such images do not, and cannot, portray the divine nature (it being invisible, uncontainable and unportrayable) yet the image is intended to *represent* the person (who is divine), and cannot but do so.
If anything is said to be a representation of *Jesus*, it is necessarily claiming to represent and be an image of the Person of the Son of God, and thus is by definition forbidden.
.
The Crux of the Issue
In heaven, if you plan on worshipping Jesus in the flesh, then you cannot make an image of Him. If you can make an image of Jesus, then you cannot worship Him.
This is not a theoretical question: men in Christ’s earthly ministry in Scripture already lawfully worshipped Jesus in the flesh. Thus, we cannot make an image of Jesus.
The prohibition in the 2nd Commandment (Ex. 20:4-5) is not only not to worship images, but is explicitly not to make them at all (contra those who would seek to use images of Jesus for instructive purposes, see Hab. 2:18 and Heidelberg Catechism #96-98).
If a person makes an image of Jesus, they do not understand the Hypostatic Union: Christ’s one person existing in two natures, human and divine, inseparably, indivisibly, without mixture, forever.
.
“We worship one image, which is the image of the invisible omnipotent God.”
Jerome
(Dei. Hieronym, Book 4, in Eze. ch. 16,
as quoted in James Ussher, Answer to a Jesuit)
.
Conclusion
Thus the Early Church and the Reformed wing of the Reformation forbid images of Christ because they understood the orthodox doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, that “God was manifest in the flesh… seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world…” (1 Tim. 3:16).
The Westminster Larger Catechism summarizes the reformed teaching on images, saying that:
“The sins forbidden in the second commandment are… any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself… the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it…”
In the Early Church it was not till the late-300’s that images of Christ began to be made and propagated, and that by those who sought to teach against the divinity of Christ.
** Note that the historic Reformed teaching is that the obligatory destruction of such idols (which should not exist on God’s green earth before His sight, Acts 19:19-20, Ex. 34:14; Lev. 26:30; Eze. 30:13), should only be done as persons have lawful authority over them in their places and callings, and by the civil magistrate who is the servant of God and is to uphold the moral 2nd Commandment by the authority of God (Rom. 13:1-5).
.
.
“Jesus Christ, whom having not seen, ye love.”
1 Pet. 1:7-8
.
Where to Start?
Article
Murray, John – ‘Pictures of Christ’ (1961) 11 paragraphs
.
Short Book
Hyde, Daniel – In Living Color: Images of Christ & the Means of Grace 192 pp.
This excellent short book shows the Biblical principles that forbid images of the Son of God, and verifies this position through church history.
.
Articles
1500’s
Ridley, Nicholas – A Treatise of Dr. Nicholas Ridley… Concerning Images, that they are Not to be Set up, nor Worshipped in Churches 9 pp. in Tracts of the Anglican Fathers, no. 2, Doctrinal See especially the first section on Images of Christ.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ‘Whether it be lawful to express Christ, the angels and other creatures in Images’ in ch. 5. ‘The Second Precept, which concerns Images, their Beginning, Antiquity & Cause’ in The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 2, pp. 340-51
Musculus, Wolfgang – ‘Of the Image of Christ’ in Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), 2nd Commandment, 47.b
Musculus held Christ may in some ways be imaged, though He is not to be worshipped through such images. Not recommended.
Willet, Andrew
p. 349 of ‘Whether it be Lawful to Have the Images of the Trinity, of Christ, or of the Angels’ in Synopsis Papismi (London, 1592), Controversies Concerning the Church Triumphant, 9th Controversy: concerning Saints Departed, 2nd Part, 5th Question, Part 1, Second Article
5th Controversy, ‘Whether it be lawful privately to have the image of Christ?’ in Hexapla in Genesin & Exodum... (London: 1633), On Exodus, On the 10 Commandments, 2nd Commandment, pp. 288-89
.
1600’s
Prynne, William – ‘On & Against Popish Crucifixes & Images of Christ’ in A Pleasant Purge for a Roman Catholic to Evacuate his evil humors, consisting of a Century of Polemical Epigrams… (London: R.C., 1642), pp. 23-28
Cheynell, Francis – ‘The Grounds of Christ the Mediator Receiving Divine Worship’ (1650; RBO) 20 pp. with an Introduction and Outline
Cheynell was a Westminster divine.
We are to only worship God, and yet Jesus, a man, was worshipped in his earthly ministry. How is this so? The answer is that we worship Jesus, the God-man, not insofar as He is a creature, but insofar as his Person is God. Cheynell, a Westminster divine, argues this precious jewel of theology in a bit of detail in a way that will be clear to the simplest, and make the most knowledgeable cry out: ‘Oh! the depths and the riches! (Rom. 11:33)
Du Moulin, Peter – 3. ‘Of the Images of Jesus Christ and the Saints’ in ch. 15, ‘Of the Antiquity of the Roman Church, a Treatise wherein it is showed that the Ceremonies of the Roman Church are descended from the ancient Heretics, and that the Pagans and the Jews have contributed towards them’ in The Novelty of Popery... (London: White, 1662), pp. 38-39
Owen, John
The Chamber of Imagery in the Church of Rome Laid Open, or an Antidote Against Popery: a Sermon (1652; Oxford, 1870) 47 pp.
ch. 12, ‘Differences Between Beholding the Glory of Christ by Faith in this World and by Sight in Heaven–The First of Them Explained’ in Meditations & Discourses on the Glory of Christ in Works, vol. 1, pp. 374-89
Turretin, Francis – Q. 9, ‘Is it Lawful to Religiously Worship Images of God, the Holy Trinity, Christ, the Virgin & Other Deceased Saints? We Deny Against the Papists.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology (P&R), vol. 2, 11th Topic, ‘The Law of God’, pp. 51-62
.
1800’s
Spurgeon, Charles – ‘Portraits of Christ’ a sermon on Rom. 8:29
A fascinating sermon on Christians being the living images of Christ, not made with hands.
.
1900’s
Murray, John – ‘Pictures of Christ’ (1961) 11 paragraphs
Curtis, Edward – ‘The Theological Basis for the Prohibition of Images in the Old Testament’ (1985) 11 pp. in JETS 28/3 (Sept. 1985) 277-87
Coldwell, Christ – ‘Indifferent Imaginations? The Case Against Images at Meetings of N. Texas Presbytery’ (1996) 40 paragraphs
Can images of Christ be regarded as indifferent, and thus allowed in a public meeting place of a church, if they are offensive to some Christians? The Biblical answer is no. Here is one church’s attempt to petition a presbytery to take down such images. Some historic quotes on the topic follow the article.
Barnes, Peter – Seeing Jesus: the Case Against Pictures of our Lord Jesus Christ Buy (1998) 32 pp.
Kik, J. Marcellus – ‘Pictures of Christ’ 11 paragraphs
.
2000’s
VanDrunen, David – ‘Pictures of Jesus & the Sovereignty of Divine Revelation: Recent Literature & a Defense of the Confessional Reformed View’ Buy in Confessional Presbyterian #5 (2009), pp. 214-28
Perkins, Harrison – ‘Images of Christ & the Vitals of the Reformed System’ Confessional Presbyterian Journal, vol. 14 (2018), pp. 201-15
Perkins is a professor of systematic theology in the Free Church College.
Aniol, Scott – ‘Can We Use Images of Christ as Devotional or Teaching Aids?’ (2025) at G3 Ministries
Aniol helpful summary of iconoclastic controversy in the middle ages, with its arguments.
.
Audio Resources
Clark, R. Scott – Heidelberg 52: Images Of Christ Don’t Affirm His Humanity, They Deny It 29 min.
Moeck, Gregory – Westminster Larger Catechism 7a: Understanding Why We Say ‘God is a Spirit’ 65 min.
Moeck was an elder at 1st Orthodox Presbyterian Church of San Francisco.
Reformed Forum – The Second Commandment & Images in Worship 55 min.
.
Books
1700’s
Erskine, Ralph – Faith No Fancy: or a Treatise of Mental Images… showing that an Imaginary Idea of Christ as Man… Imports Nothing but Ignorance, Atheism, Idolatry, Great Falsehood & Gross Delusion (†1752) 490 pp. The first four chapters of this work have been put into modern formatting here.
Erskine was a justly renowned minister of the Secession Church in Scotland.
“Many of the ignorant followers of [George] Whitfield [at the Cambuslang, Scotland revival] talked of seeing “Christ.” Deceived by misunderstanding the word as used in the Fourth Gospel, where ‘seeing’ means, as often elsewhere, knowing or having an intellectual apprehension, they thought they must have an apparition of Jesus in either a human, transfigured, or glorified form. To expose this and similar delusions Erskine composed a volume entitled, “Faith no Fancy; or, A Treatise of Mental Images.”” – George W. Hervey, The Imagination in Revivals
For further historical background to this work, see the article by La Shell below under ‘Reformed History’.
.
Contemporary
Hyde, Daniel – In Living Color: Images of Christ & the Means of Grace 192 pp.
This excellent short book shows the Biblical principles that forbid images of the Son of God, and verifies this position through church history.
Dunbar, J. Virgil – Why Christ Can’t be Pictured: God is not like Art Buy (1994) 280 pp. The whole book is online, see the chapters on the right column.
La Shell, John K. – Images of the Lord: A Travesty of Deity Masters thesis (Talbot Seminary, 1976)
.
Quotes
Order of
Bullinger
Calvin
Veron
Holland
Dod & Cleaver
Elton
Buroughs
Durham
Vincent
Collinges
.
1500’s
Henry Bullinger
A Hundred Sermons upon the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ… (London: 1561), 5th Sermon, p. 33
“But this sacred and holy image [of the glorified Christ in Rev. 1] instructs in all these points all the faithful of Christ most fully. Howbeit this image of Christ is not to be set forth with colors, since that colors cannot attain to the majesty thereof: but with the ecclesiastical doctrine, which has the promises of the Spirit of Christ: And is therefore more evident, and only meet for the true expressing thereof. Let us also print the same image, not upon any dead table with colors that will perish and fade, but in our hearts through the lively Spirit of God, which may also keep it in our minds, never to be wiped out.”
.
2nd Helvetic Confession 1566 (Bullinger was the principal author)
ch. 4, ‘Of idols or images of God, Christ and the saints
“Images of God. Since God as Spirit is in essence invisible and immense, he cannot really be expressed by any art or image. For this reason we have no fear pronouncing with Scripture that images of God are mere lies. Therefore we reject not only the idols of the Gentiles, but also the images of Christians.
Images of Christ. Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for carvers and painters. He denied that he had come “to abolish the law and the prophets” (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the law and the prophets” (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever (John 16:7). Who, therefore, would believe that a shadow or likeness of his body would contribute any benefit to the pious? (2 Cor. 5:5). Since he abides in us by his Spirit, we are therefore the temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16). But “what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Cor. 6:16).
…
But in fact in order to instruct men in religion and to remind them of divine things and of their salvation, the Lord commanded the preaching of the Gospel (Mark 16:15) – not to paint and to teach the laity by means of pictures. Moreover, he instituted sacraments, but nowhere did he set up images.
The Scriptures of the laity. Furthermore, wherever we turn our eyes, we see the living and true creatures of God which, if they be observed, as is proper, make a much more vivid impression on the beholders than all images or vain, motionless, feeble and dead pictures made by men, of which the prophet truly said: “They have eyes, but do not see” (Ps. 115:5).
Lactantius. Therefore we approved the judgment of Lactantius, and ancient writer, who says: “Undoubtedly no religion exists where there is an image.”
Epiphanius and Jerome. We also assert that the blessed bishop Epiphanius did right when, finding on the doors of a church a veil on which was painted a picture supposedly of Christ or some saint, he ripped it down and took it away, because to see a picture of a man hanging in the Church of Christ was contrary to the authority of Scripture. Wherefore he charged that from henceforth no such veils, which were contrary to our religion, should be hung in the Church of Christ, and that rather such questionable things, unworthy of the Church of Christ and the faithful people, should be removed.
Moreover, we approve of this opinion of St. Augustine concerning true religion: “Let not the worship of the works of men be a religion for us. For the artists themselves who make such things are better; yet we ought not to worship them” (Of True Religion, ch. 55).”
.
Fifty Godly & Learned Sermons divided into Five Decades… (1549; London: 1577), 2nd Decade, 2nd Sermon, Of God’s Law, and of the Two First Commandments of the First Table, pp. 121-22
“The primitive Church also of Christ his apostles had no images, either of Christ himself or of other saints set up in their places of public prayer, nor in their Churches.
The deed of Epiphanius is very well known which he committed at Anablacha in Syria. It is written in Greek in an epistle to John Bishop of Jerusalem, and translated into Latin by St. Jerome: He rent the vail that hung in the temple [church building], bearing in it the image of Christ or some other saint, testifying therewithal that it is against Christian religion for the picture of a man, to hang in the Church of God.
Saint Augustine in Catalogo haerese [Greek] makes mention of one Marcella a follower of Carpocrates his sect, which worshipped the images of Jesu, Paul Homer and Pythagoras, with falling down prostrate before them and offering incense unto them….
Furthermore, for Christ our Lord and very God, though he have taken on him the nature of us men, yet that notwithstanding, there ought no image to be erected. For he did not become man to that intent. But he drew up his humanity into heaven, and therewithal gave us a charge, that so often as we pray, we shoulde lift up the eyes of our minds and bodies into heaven above. Moreover, being once ascended, he sent his Spirit instead of himself, unto the Church wherin he has a spiritual kingdom, and needs not any bodily or corruptible things. For he commanded that if we would bestow any thing on him or for his sake, we should bestow it on the poor, and not on his picture or image. And now, since without all controuersy, our Christ is the very true God, and that the very true God does forbid to hallow to him any likeness of man, that is, to represent God in the shape of a man, it follows consequently that to Christ no image is to be dedicated, because he is the true and very God and life everlasting.”
.
John Calvin
The Sermons of… Calvin upon the Fifth Book of Moses… (London: Middleton, 1583), Sermon 23, the 5th upon Dt. 4, p. 138
“And can a man devise to tear the majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ and to deface his glory more than by the things that the Papists do? Behold, they paint and portray Jesus Christ, who (as we know) is not only man, but also God manifested in the flesh: and what a representation is that? He is God’s eternal son, in whom dwells the fulness of the Godhead, yea even substantially.
Seeing it is said, substantially, should we have portraitures and images whereby the only flesh may be represented? Is it not a wiping away of that which is chiefest in our Lord Jesus Christ, that is to wit, of his divine majesty? Yes: and therefore whensoever a crucifix stands mopping and mowing in the Church, it is all one as if the Devil had defaced the Son of God.”
.
Institutes, bk. 1, ch. 11, sect. 12 (Battles)
“But because sculpture and painting are gifts of God, I seek a pure and legitimate use of each… We believe it wrong that God should be represented by a visible appearance, because He Himself has forbidden it [Ex. 20:4] and it cannot be done without some defacing of his glory… Therefore it remains that only those things are to be sculptured or painted which the eyes are capable of seeing…
Within this class some are histories and events, some are images and forms of bodies without any depicting of past events. The former have some use in teaching or admonition; as for the latter, I do not see what they can afford other than pleasure. And yet it is clear that almost all the images that until now have stood in churches were of this [latter] sort. From this, one may judge that these images had been called forth not out of judgment or selection but of foolish and thoughtless craving.”
.
John Veron
A Strong Battery against the Idolatrous Invocation of the Dead Saints, and Against the having or setting up of Images in the House of Prayer or in any other place where there is any peril of iIolatry… (London: Sutton, 1562), pp. 92-93
“…will I join a most godly ancient bishop, whose Greek epistle being sent to John, bishop of Jerusalem, Jerome did translate into Latin; his name is Epiphanius. The words of the epistle are these:
‘…Wherein we do learn all these godly lessons:
First, that no place ought to be given in the church of Christ to those things that are against the authority of the holy Scriptures.
Secondly, that to give place in the church of Christ unto images, it is against the authority of the holy Scriptures, that is, of that law, which says: Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image.
Thirdly that not only graven and molten images, and such as be set up on high, upon or over the altars, but also the painted images ought to be cast out of the churches.
Fourthly that the image of Christ Himself ought in no wise to stand in the church, because that of all other it is most perilous and breeds the greatest idolatry.
Fifthly that the images ought to be caste out of the church of Christ, not only by sedulity and diligence of doctrine, but also by very fact and deed.
Sixthly, that they ought not coldly, but with a fervent and earnest zeal of the true religion be put done, defaced, and broken all to pieces, as we do see this holy man of God Epiphanius to have rent and torn in pieces the vail that had the image of Christ painted, which he did being moved with the zeal of God.
Seventhly, that it is the part and duty of bishops, to see that images be not set up in the church of Christ.
Last of all, that it is a mere scrupulosity and superstition, unseemly for the church and the faithful people of God to have images.’
Here may we see that this godly ancient bishop did much differ in judgment from those fond persons that think it to be a profitable thing for the people of God to have images standing in the churches. Let them weigh these things that have always the fathers in their mouths, and so let them learn that it is more honesty for us to be called iconoclastae, that is, image breakers, than to be called iconoplastae, that is, image makers, and that we do approach nearer to the example of the old ancient church than they do, although they brag and boast themselves to be catholic and apostolic.”
.
1600’s
Henry Holland
The History of Adam, or the Fourfold State of Man, well formed in his Creation, Deformed in his Corruption, Reformed in Grace & Perfected in Glory (London: Thomas Man, 1606), On the 2nd Commandment, Question 79, pp. 42-43 Holland was a London minister.
“Thirdly, it is objected that the humanity of Christ and the picture of Christ crucified may be allowed, not for adoration but in sign of love and commemoration.
Answer:
First, I answer in the words of the apostle, Gal. 3:1, labour that Jesus Christ may be so pictured by the preaching of the Gospel in the mind that thou maist by the eye of faith behold Him as clearly and more effectually than if he were described in thy sight and crucified before thee: For by faith we behold Him which is invisible, Heb. 11:1, 27.
Secondly, I say we be bound to discern between the precious body of the Son of God, and the sinfull carcases of mortal men: for that this is a mystery most admirable that God should be manifested in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3:6, that God and man should be so united together that both natures make but one person: so as albeit death parted the natural soul from the natural body, yet that precious body was still the body of that person which was the Son of God, no way subiect to any change or corruption, Acts 2:27. An image will teach us to disjoin in our minds those holy natures which God has so conjoined as man ought not in the thoughts of his heart to separate them, but ever by spiritual wisdom and faith to distinguish them.
Thirdly, I say if no man on the earth can at this day give us the true picture of Christ: then is it intolerable audaciousness for any earthly man to counterfeit falsely his holy parts and members. But no man can give us his just stature, or truly discribe his physiognomy: therefore this ought not to be practiced. And if a man cannot bear to be abused and falsely or untruly resembled and conterfeited by picture: shall we think it none offense to the Son of God?
Fourthly, we may reason from the writings of the holy Evangelists, who were appointed and sent from God, purposely to describe the Son of God Jesus Christ: for if they with one consent, deny us any help at all, or any one live concerning the external lineaments, and form of his body: then ought not man to presume to picture Christ after his own invention: but we see clearly how the four Evangelists purposely pass over this matter, the holy Ghost foreseeing the superstition of Antichrist, and how the Popish painted Christs should be worshipped to the great dishonour of our everlasting Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Fifthly, we may reason against this Popish God on this manner: if that picture of Christ, which was allowed and commanded of God Himself, Num. 21:8; Jn. 3:14, being superstitiously abused, must be burnt to ashes, 2. Kings 18:4, then much more these false pictures of Christ never allowed, but disallowed of God, and most impiously adored of vain men, ought to be rejected with a far greater detestation. If any doubt of the Popish idolatry, to their cross their own book and daily practice in their false Church testify against them.
The fourth objection: They say the picture of Christ serves well to confute the old heretics, the Marcionites and Valentinians which denied that Christ had a true, natural, human body.
Answer: First, if these and the like heretics believe not the words, nor respect the works of Christ: if they will not believe Moses and the prophets testifying of Christ, with his apostles and evangelists, they will not belieue anyone that shall return from the dead, and much less a dead and painted Christ.
The godly emperors Valens and Theodosius made a law that none should make any image of our Sauior Christ: and if any were found, it should be utterly defaced and rejected. Again, Epiphanius rent in pieces the picture of Christ on a cloth, anno 565, because, said he, it was contrary to holy Scripture (Epiphanius, Epistle ad Iohan.; epistle Hie∣rosolymit).
Eusebius says that some convents of the gentiles carried about in tables the pictures of Peter and Paul and Christ also, because this was a custom (says he) to remember their patrons and benefactors (Eusebius, lib. confes. ch. 36). Their very words are these:
‘As our care is, in and by all means to maintain the religion of the most high God: so permit we none to portrait, engrave, or picture, in colors, stone or any other matter whatsoever, the image of our Savior: moreover we command that wheresoever such an image can be found, it be taken away, and all those to be chastised with most grievous punishment that attempt anything against our command.’ (Petr. Crinitus, bk. 9, de honest. discipl)”
.
John Dod & Robert Cleaver
The Bright Star which Leads Wise Men to our Lord Jesus Christ, or a Familiar & Learned Exposition on the Ten Commandments… (1603), Second Commandment, p. 32
“…but yet here arises an objection that some make: Indeed, for God the Father and the Holy Ghost, they be spirits and cannot be represented to us by anything; but what say you of God the Son? He took upon Him the nature of man; may not one make an image of Him?
But to this we may answer that it is unlawful to make an image of Christ, because we cannot choose but in painting or making any image of Him, we must needs leave out the chief part of Him, which is his divinity, for it is the Godhead that makes Him to be Christ; and what is this but to seperate those things which God has unseperably joined together, which is accursed; and in so doing, what difference do we make betwixt Christ and the thief that did hang upon the cross with Him; that therefore is a wretched resemblance.
But if we would see an image of Christ, look upon poor Christians that walk up and down amongst us, for they be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, and there is some resemblance of Him; for they have a body and a reasonable soul, as He had.
But for the idol, he that will say he can be better put in mind of Christ by gazing upon a picture painted on the wall or an image hanged up in some place, than by looking on poor Christians for whom Christ shed his blood and in whom He dwells continually by his Spirit, he shows himself to be a blind and ignorant man.
Since then Christ is both God and man, and the main thing that makes Him Christ is his Godhead, let us know that it is a wicked impiety to make an image of Christ since we can no way resemble that, that makes him Christ. But if we would see God and see Christ, let us look on Him according as He has revealed Himself in his Word, for so Christ is called the engraven form of his Father, that as he which would know what is graven on the seal need but look upon the wax and there he shall see it: So he that would see God, let him look on Christ as He is set out to us in the Word and there he shall see his power his wisdom, his mercy, his truth and all his properties.”
.
Edward Elton
God’s Holy Mind Touching Matters Moral which Himself Uttered in Ten Words, or Ten Commandments. Also Christ’s Holy Mind touching Prayer… (d. 1624; London: Robert Mylbourne, 1625), God’s Holy Mind touching matters Moral, which Himself uttered in Ten Words, or Ten Commandments…, p. 30
“Obiection 2: Secondly, Christ took on Him man’s nature; He became man like to us: therefore, say some, He may be resembled, and an image of Him may be made.
Question: How is this to be answered?
Answer: Thus, Christ being both God and Man, the chief thing that makes him Christ is his Godhead, and that cannot be expressed by an image; and therefore an image made to resemble whole-Christ must needs be a living image, leaving out the chief part of Christ, which is his Godhead: so that an image made of Christ, either separates his Godhead from his manhood, or else it makes his Godhead to be such as may be circumscribed: both which are gross errors; therefore there may no image of Christ be made.
Objection 3: May not Christ as well be painted with colors as set before us with words in a sermon?
Question: How is this to be answered?
Answer: No: the one God allows in his Word, namely the describing of Christ in speech, in the preaching of the Word and administration of the sacraments, but not the other.”
.
Jeremiah Burroughs
An Exposition with Practical Observations continued upon the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth & Seventh Chapters of the Prophesy of Hosea… (London: Cole, 1650), on Hos. 5:6, pp. 408-9
“The worst men and the most superstitious will yet pretend the honoring of God. So it is again in regard of those days that men have set apart for God, and it is that which has settled men in the superstitious observation of them, that it is for the honor of Christ.
‘What’ (say they) ‘shall we not honor the birth of our blessed Savior?’ What a profaness, what a disrespect is this unto Jesus Christ? ‘Well let others do what they will, for our parts we will do it, for hereby we shall do honor unto our blessed Savior.’ So the Papists for the adoration of images, say they, ‘What not regard, not to reverence the image the picture of our blessed Savior and of the holy saints?’
And the truth is if it be duly weighed, there is the same reason of images of Christ and the saints, and of days set apart for the honor of Christ by man’s invention; and there is as fair a pretence of honoring Christ by setting up his image before me to put me in mind of Him as of honoring of Him by keeping a day of mine own appointment. There is (I say) the same reason of both, and whatsoever argument any man shall bring me against the one, I dare undertake to make it good to be against the other. As now, is not natural reason as strong to set up the picture of the King to honor him (and you do it for that end) is not this as much as to keep a day once a year to remember him? So the reason may be as strong to honor Christ by way of picture as to honor Him by observing any day set apart for that end by the inventions of men.”
.
James Durham
The Law Unsealed: or, A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments… (Edinburgh: D. Schaw, 1802), p. 68
“And if it be said man’s soul cannot be painted, but his body may, and yet that picture represents a man; I answer, it does so, because he has but one nature, and what represents that represents the person; but it is not so with Christ: his Godhead is not a distinct part of the human nature, as the soul of man is (which is necessarily supposed in every living man), but a distinct nature, only united with the manhood in that one person, Christ, who has no fellow; therefore what represents Him must not represent a man only, but must represent Christ, Immanuel, God-man, otherwise it is not his image.
Beside, there is no warrant for representing Him in his manhood; nor any colorable possibility of it, but as men fancy; and shall that be called Christ’s portraiture? would that be called any other man’s portraiture which were drawn at men’s pleasure, without regard to the pattern?
Again, there is no use of it; for either that image behoved to have but common estimation with other images, and that would wrong Christ, or a peculiar respect and reverence, and so it sins against this commandment that forbids all religious reverence to images, but He being God and so the object of worship, we must either divide his natures, or say, that image or picture represents not Christ.”
.
William Lyford
Principle[s] of Faith & Good Conscience Digested into a Catechetical Form… (Oxford: Hall, 1665), ch. 30, pp. 132-33
“Q. Is it unlawful to make an image of the Trinity, or of any Person in the Godhead?
It is utterly unlawful, and a great dishonor to figure the incorruptible God by the shape of a base and corruptible man or bird, or other creature. Dt. 4:15-18; Rom. 1:23; Acts 17:24, 29; Isa. 40:15, 18-19; Hab. 2:8.
It abuses our understandings: the party thinks there is some good in an image, else he would not make it; and that’s a lie: He lies that shows me a toad and says it is the picture of an angel; so, etc. All the pictures of Christ in the flesh, as that on Christ on the cross and resurrection are lies, false in their representations and false in the conceit of any good by them.”
.
Thomas Vincent
An Explanation of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, n.d.) p. 162
“It is not lawful to have pictures of Jesus Christ, because his divine nature cannot be pictured at all, and because his body, as it is now glorified, cannot be pictured as it is; and because, if it do not stir up devotion, it is in vain; if it do stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the Second Commandment.”
.
John Collinges
Defensative Armour against Four of Satan’s most fiery Darts, viz. Temptations to atheistical and blasphemous impressions and thoughts, self-murder, despair and presumption… (London: Alsop, 1680), Blasphemous Thoughts, ch. 5, pp. 41-44
“Here I shall only give you this caution, Take heed of taking your notions of God from sense, or merely from reason:
1. Not from sense: Spiritual beings fall under no cognisance of the external senses. None ever saw God’s shape; none ever saw his similitude; and here let me caution you, against any pictures of God, or any Person in the Godhead.
We are ready in our minds to form ideas in our minds of any beings according to the representations which pictures and images make of them. It is impossible but all pictures, images or external representations of the Divine Being must be teachers of lies. It is impossible that a limner [painter] should draw the true representation of a man whom he never saw. How is it possible he should draw any representation of an invisible God, a Being which he neither ever saw nor can see?
The fairest pretence is for the picture of our Saviour, who assumed our nature and was a man in all things. But all those pictures must be teachers of lies too: For Christ was God-Man, and the representation of a man is no representation of the Person of the Mediator. Does any say that upon the same argument there should be no pictures drawn, for a picture does but represent our fleshly part, the soul cannot be expressed. I answer there yet are these differences:
1. The picture of our friend is the representation of a being that we know is or was informed with a reasonable soul, so as the other essential part of the man is on course understood; but it is not so as to Christ. Though the picture of an human shape has this advantage, that we may understand under it a reasonable soul, of which every man is possessed, yet we cannot under any such shape understand the Divine Nature personally united to the human nature.
2. Again even the picture of a man, if it has no similitude of the man, is but a teacher of a lie and does but help our thoughts with false notions and conceptions. And what limner ever saw the Lord in his human shape, to draw a representation of Him? What need any pictures of Christ when every man we see is as true a representation of Him as any limner can make who never saw Him in the flesh, nor a true copy to draw Him by. I am apt to believe that this was one reason of God’s so severe prohibition of images and the likeness of anything to represent God, because He knew that those things would be of this pernicious use, to give us false notions and ideas of God: for you shall observe when you have seen the pretended picture or resemblance of a man, you will fancy him according to that representation, whether the picture be anything like the person for whom it is made, yea or no.
3. To which I might add that admitting a picture of a man or a friend be not like the person and give our fancies a false notion of him, yet in this there is no sin, no defilement, no guilt upon the soul by it; but to conceive amiss of God is a thing quite of another nature and of further danger to the soul. This has made me sometimes wonder that Luther, though he abhorred images, and showed as great a detestation of them as any other, as they are used in Popery, as they are means or objects of adoration; yet allowed the use and standing of them in Churches. Certainly it is a thing of very dangerous consequence, whether in Churches or our own private houses; for we shall find a great proneness in us to form out notions of God according to such representations; and if those representations be lies and false, such will our notions be: and if this be not a fair way to fill the soul with atheistical and blasphemous thoughts concerning God and Christ, I do not know what is.”
.
Reformed Confessions
1500’s
2nd Helvetic Confession (1564) – ch. 4, ‘Of Idols, or Images of God, of Christ & of Saints’
Sandomirez Confession (1570) – 4. ‘On Idols, or on Images of God, Christ & the Saints’ in ed. James Dennison, Jr., Reformed Confessions… (RHB, 2012), vol. 3, pp. 184-85
.
.
Latin Articles
1500’s
Bullinger, Henry
4. ‘Of Idols, or Images of God, Christ or gods’ in A Simple Confession & Exposition of the Orthodox Faith & Catholic Doctrines of the Sincere Christian Religion (1566; Bern, 1676), pp. 8-10
‘Whether an image of Christ is to be made?’ in A Catechism Written for Adults, about the First Principles of the Christian Religion (1559; Zurich, 1563), fol. 13-14
.
1600’s
Scharpius, Johann – Controversy 2, Question 3, ‘On the Worship of Images of Christ & of the Saints’ in A Course of Theology… (Geneva: Chovet, 1618), vol. 2, cols. 1531-40
Heidegger, Johann H. – Session 25, Question 4, ‘Whether Images of God, Christ, the Virgin Mary alongside God, & other Saints are to be had in Church Buildings, & Honor & Veneration to be Imparted to Them?’ in The Mound of the Council of Trent… where is a Historical-Theological Anatomy of the Council of Trent... (Zurich: Gessner, 1690), vol. 2, pp. 864-928
.
.
Latin Books
1600’s
Daille, Jean – Of Images (Leiden: Elzevir, 1642) 552 pp. Extended ToC Errata bound to Defense for the Reformed Churches
Table of Contents
Dedicatory Epistle
To the Reader
Bk. 1 1 9 Reasons Against Images
Bk. 2 124 Historical Testimonies
Bk. 3 245 Objections through the 500’s Answered
Bk. 4 355-552 Objections from the 700’s to the Romanists Answered
Spanheim, Jr., Frederic – The History of Images Restored, being especially against the New French Writers Ludwig Maimburg & Nat. Alexander (Leiden: Verbessel, 1686) 635 pp. ToC
Spanheim, Jr (1632-1701)
Table of Contents
Dedicatory Epistle
To the Reader
Section 1 1
Section 2 43
Section 3 131
Section 4 207
Section 5 305
Section 6 350
Section 7 443
Section 8 529
Section 9 604-35
.
.
Images of Christ for Teaching Purposes?
Samuel Rutherford
A Dispute Touching Scandal & Christian Liberty, pp. 89-90 in The Divine Right of Church Government (1646)
“4. By this Lutherans have their desire for actual intention: that images be lawful remembrancers of Christ, without intention of adoration, shall make images as lawful teaching ceremonies as [Richard] Hooker will have the sign of the cross.”
“2. We then might well suffer the images of Jupiter, Dagon and Ashtarosh to stand before the people publicly, so [long as] they do no harm, and Papists and Lutherans say the images of Christ and the saints do no harm when the pastors carefully teach the people that there is no deity nor Godhead dwelling in them.”
.
On Lawful Images of Christ: the Sacraments
Council of Hieria A.D. 754
The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, trans. H. R. Percival, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, ed. P. Schaff & H. Wace, (rep. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), vol. 14, p. 544 at ‘Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Council Held in Constantinople, A.D. 754’ at Medieval Sourcebook at Internet History Sourcebooks Project at Fordham University
“The only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, however, is bread and wine in the holy Supper. This and no other form, this and no other type, has He chosen to represent his incarnation.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
The Divine Right of Church Government... (1646), p. 85
“…the elements of bread and wine, which are lawful images of Christ…”
.
On the Crucifix
Quote
1500’s
Theodore Beza
Lutheranism vs. Calvinism: The Classic Debate at the Colloquy of Montbeliard 1586 (Concordia Publishing House, 2017), ch. 4, ‘On the Reformation of Temples, Images & Organs’, p. 489
“For our hope is placed in the true cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, not in an image. For this reason I confess that I whole-heartedly detest the image of the crucifix. It is the image of the cruelty of the Jews against Christ, and so I cannot bear it.
Hezekiah is praised for destroying the bronze serpent to which divine worship was being offered (2 Kings 10 [18:4]), and so I think they should be praised also who do away with the image of the crucifix as well, for the purpose of guarding against the same idolatry, and eliminate them from all temples and sacred places.”
.
On the Ethics of Seeing Images of Jesus
Quotes
Henry Bullinger
A Hundred Sermons upon the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ… (London: 1561), 7th Sermon, p. 47
“Your charity has seen a certain image of the Lord Christ, sitting on the right hand of the Father in glory [in Rev. 1]…”
.
John K. La Shell
‘Imagination & Idol: A Puritan Tension’ in Westminster Theological Journal, vol. 49:2 (Fall 1987)
“[Ralph] Erskine’s comparison of mental idolatry with mental adultery suggests some important clues. A man cannot always avoid seeing a beautiful woman or being attracted to her. Mental adultery does not consist in physical sight, but in cultivating the mental image of that woman for the purpose of sexual stimulation.
In the same way, it is possible to walk past a portrait of Christ in a museum without yielding to any temptation to meditate on God through its instrumentality. Even if the picture is sinful, the viewer need not sin.”
.
On Mental Images of Christ
Article
1700’s
Robe, James –
Grover Gunner: “…a little historical background to Ralph Erskine’s development of the eighteenth Christological argument would be helpful. In Massachusetts, Jonathan Edwards wrote an account of the awakening that occurred in his church from 1734 to 1735. An unabridged version entitled A Faithful Narrative was published in London in 1737, and reprints appeared in Edinburgh in 1737 and 1738. In 1741, Edwards preached a sermon on the distinguishing marks of a true spiritual awakening. This was published under the title The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God. Editions were published in London, Edinburgh and Glasgow in 1742.
Also in 1742, Edwards’s earlier work A Faithful Narrative helped inspire awakenings in two congregations of the Church of Scotland, William McColloch’s church at Cambuslang and James Robe’s church at Kilsyth. George Whitefield then preached in these churches in June 1742. Ralph Erskine and James Fisher were members of the Associate Presbytery, a group that had seceded from the Church of Scotland in 1733.
According to James Robe, Fisher sent circular letters “Misrepresenting this blessed Work as a Delusion, and Work, of the Devil, very soon after its first Appearance at Cambuslang.” On July 15, 1742, the Associate Presbytery called for their churches to fast on August 4 in response to Whitefield’s ministry in Scotland and the alleged works of delusion. James Robe quickly wrote a book defending the Scottish awakenings, and Fisher quickly responded with a critical review. This was followed by a series of published letters between Robe and Fisher. After Robe’s fourth letter, Ralph Erskine wrote Faith No Fancy in 1745 as his definitive response to Robe.” – “The Christological Argument against Images of Jesus” (2022)
.
Book
1700’s
Erskine, Ralph – Faith No Fancy: or a Treatise of Mental Images… showing that an Imaginary Idea of Christ as Man… Imports Nothing but Ignorance, Atheism, Idolatry, Great Falsehood & Gross Delusion (†1752) 490 pp. The first four chapters of this work have been put into modern formatting here.
Erskine was a justly renowned minister of the Secession Church in Scotland.
“Many of the ignorant followers of [George] Whitfield [at the Cambuslang, Scotland revival] talked of seeing “Christ.” Deceived by misunderstanding the word as used in the Fourth Gospel, where ‘seeing’ means, as often elsewhere, knowing or having an intellectual apprehension, they thought they must have an apparition of Jesus in either a human, transfigured, or glorified form. To expose this and similar delusions Erskine composed a volume entitled, “Faith no Fancy; or, A Treatise of Mental Images.”” – George W. Hervey, The Imagination in Revivals
For further historical background to this work, see the article by La Shell below.
.
Quote
1700’s
Jonathan Edwards
The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God (WJE Online, 1741), pp. 235-36
“4. ‘Tis no argument that an operation that appears on the minds of a people, is not the work of the Spirit of God, that many that are the subject of it, have great impressions on their imaginations. That persons have many impressions on their imaginations, don’t prove that they have nothing else. It is easy to be accounted for, that there should be much of this nature amongst a people, where a great multitude, of all kinds of constitutions, have their minds engaged with intense thought and strong affection about those things that are invisible; yea, it would be strange if there should not.
Such is our nature that we can’t think of things invisible, without a degree of imagination. I dare appeal to any man, of the greatest powers of mind, whether or no he is able to fix his thoughts on God or Christ, or the things of another world, without imaginary ideas attending his meditations? And the more engaged the mind is, and the more intense the contemplation and affection, still the more lively and strong will the imaginary idea ordinarily be; especially when the contemplation and affection of the mind is attended with anything of surprise; as when the view a person has is very new, and takes strong hold of the passions, either fear or joy; and when the change of the state and views of the mind is sudden, from a contrary extreme, as from that which was extremely dreadful, to that which is extremely ravishing and delightful: and it is no wonder that many persons don’t well distinguish between that which is imaginary, and that which is intellectual and spiritual; and that they are apt to lay too much weight on the imaginary part, and are most ready to speak of that in the account they give of their experiences, especially persons of less understanding and capacity of distinction.
As God has given us such a faculty as the imagination, and has so made us that we can’t think of things spiritual and invisible without some exercise of this faculty, so it appears to me that such is our state and nature that this faculty is really subservient and helpful to the other faculties of the mind when a proper use is made of it; though oftentimes when the imagination is too strong, and the other faculties weak, it overbears ’em, and much disturbs them in their exercise.
It appears to me manifest in many instances I have been acquainted with, that God has really made use of this faculty to truly divine purposes; especially in some that are more ignorant: God seems to condescend to their circumstances, and deal with them as babes; as of old he instructed his church while in a state of ignorance and minority by types and outward representations. I can see nothing unreasonable in such a supposition. Let others that have much occasion to deal with souls in spiritual concerns, judge whether experience don’t confirm it.”
.
History
On Westminster
Article
2000’s
Fentiman, Travis –
.
On the 1700’s
Article
La Shell, John K. – ‘Imagination & Idol: A Puritan Tension’ (1987) 101 paragraphs in Westminster Theological Journal, vol. 49:2 (Fall 1987)
Table of Contents
Intro
I. Puritans & the Imagination
. 1. Scholastic Background
. 2. Continuity of Definition
. 3. Danger of the Imagination
II. Images & Idols
. 1. Images of Christ
. 2. Types & Symbols
. 3. Mental Images
III. Historical Perspectives
IV. Theological Arguments
. 1, James Robe
. 2. Ralph Erskine
V. Epistemological Arguments
. 1. Separation of the Faculties
. 2. The Hindrance of the Senses
. 3. Occassionalism
VI. Evaluation
. 1. Erskine & Robe
. 2. Easing the Tension
“Images of God were strictly forbidden. But Puritan psychology also kept its strong Scholastic roots…
Tension between Reformed iconoclasm and Scholastic psychology was not immediately apparent, but during the Evangelical Awakening of the 1740s it became acute. The problem may be stated concisely: If mental images are natural products of the imagination, how can a mental image of Christ be condemned as idolatrous? Does not this impugn the character of God who gave the mind its capacity for forming images? The following study… concludes with the controversy which erupted in Scotland when Jonathan Edwards defended the psychological neutrality of ‘Imaginary ideas of Christ.'”
“How should involuntary mental portraits of Christ be treated by those who experience them?… Erskine’s comparison of mental idolatry with mental adultery suggests some important clues. A man cannot always avoid seeing a beautiful woman or being attracted to her. Mental adultery does not consist in physical sight, but in cultivating the mental image of that woman for the purpose of sexual stimulation…
When a mental image comes into the mind without a deliberate volition, its content must be evaluated. If it is symbolic of God’s attributes or if it represents an event in the life of the Lord Jesus, it may be entertained with caution. If it consists of a virtual portrait of the Savior, it ought to be rejected rather than fondled.”
.
Book
La Shell, John K. – Imaginary Ideas of Christ: A Scottish-American Debate PhD diss. (Westminster Theological Seminary, 1985) 470 pp. available from University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan
.
For Images of Christ or More Tolerant of Them including in avoiding condemning them
Quotes
Order of
Cranmer
Simler
Wolleb
Andrewes
Taylor
Baxter
.
1500’s
Thomas Cranmer
A Short Instruction into Christian Religion, (London: 1548), A Short Instruction Concerning the Ten Commandments, First Sermon, no page numbers
“We have also the holy scriptures which declare unto us the wonderful works of God, by which things we may be lead to the knowledge of God without painted or carved images. Now peradventure some will say that Christ has a body, and likewise have saints, and therefore of them we may have images although of God there can be made no image. And further they wil say that the cause why images were forbid was peril of idolatry, and worshipping of them. So that where there is no such peril, we may have images.
Yet as I will not utterly deny but they may be had, so I think it more convenient for Christ’s religion that they should be taken out of Christian men’s churches than that they should be placed in the temple [church building] of God. And of this my opinion I will show you certain good grounds, to the intent that whan you be demanded why we English men have no images in our churches, you may be able to make thereunto a reasonable answer, and that also in time to come you may declare to your children what abuses have crept into the church by the occasion of images…”
.
1600’s
On Rudolf Simler
Andrew Willet, Hexapla in Genesin & Exodum... (London: 1633), On Exodus, On the 10 Commandments, 2nd Commandment, 5th Controversy, ‘Whether it be lawful privately to have the image of Christ?’, pp. 288-89 Simler (1568-1611) was a Swiss reformed professor.
“Some think that privatly to have the image of Christ it is not unlawful, so that we take heed of offence: ne homines existe••ent nos illos adorationis causa habere: lest men should think we have them to worship. Simler.”
.
Johannes Wolleb
Abridgment of Christian Divinity (1626), bk. 2, ‘The Service of God’, 2nd Commandment in ed. John Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius & F. Turretin (Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), pp. 208-10
“1. The form of worship forbidden in the word of God is idolatry and the adoration of saints.
2. Idolatry is the making, maintaining and religious worshipping of an idol.
…
3. An idol is an image of likeness [simulacrum] made for the purposes of religious worship.
Propositions
I. An idol differs from an image and likeness as species from genus… So not every likeness [simulacrum] is an idol; in fact, Tertullian calls man the simulacrum of God.
…
III. To make an idol is to make an image or likeness for purposes of religious worship.
IV. Therefore, not all making of images and likenesses is idolatry; they may be made for memorials, for enjoyment and other secular [politicus] purposes.
V. The cherubim, the bronze serpent, and other objects made by God’s order were not made for purposes of religious worship, but as types of Christ.
Therefore, the papists wrongly seek to defend their idols on this pretext. For (1) God ordered the making of these objects, but forbids idols; (2) no religious worship was given them, so that when the bronze serpent began to be worshipped, it was destroyed (2 Kings 18:4); to idols the religious worship is given; (3) since all types are done away since the coming of Christ, such objects have no place in the New Testament. Saints are true idols [images of God].
VI. The images that the papists make of Christ, the angels, Mary and the saints [are forbidden].
The reason is tht they are made for purposes of religious worship.
The papists deny that they are idols because… (4) the saints lived in genuine human form, and (5) the images are books for the laity.
Response: …(4) As to the fourth, it follows from this only that images of the saints can be made, that is, if it is not done for purposes of religious worship. (5) As for the fifth argument, its premise is false; what kind of books the idols [note Wolleb does not say “images”] are is evident from Jeremiah 10:14-15 and Habakkuk 2:18-19, where they are called teachers of lies and vanity.”
.
Lancelot Andrewes
The Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine at Large, or a learned and pious Exposition of the Ten Commandments… (London: Norton, 1650), Second Commandment, ch. 6, pp. 213-14 Andrewes (1555–1626) was an English bishop and scholar, who held high positions in the Church of England during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I.
“Now if we ask the Papists, that if the people must be put in mind [by images], of what it must be?…
…
2. Not of Christ, as he is God, for his attributes are 〈◊〉, but as he is man only and in so doing, in representing him by picture as man and not God, seeing that person in the deity cannot be delineated, they imitate Nestorius, who did divide the natures of Christ, and so consequently may seem to run into the anathema of the council of Ephesus: because in some sort they divide in their picture the manhood from the Godhead, which they cannot express therewith. (1st Council of Ephesus, canon 3)
2. Not of Christ, as man, and now glorified, for against this, the saying of Eusebius may serve well, that the glory of Christ in heaven is now far greater, than it was when he was 〈◊〉 in the mount, where the disciples could not look upon him, and therefore cannot be portrayed by any pencil.
3. Nor of Christ, as he was in the flesh, for that were (as the prophet speaks) to teach us lies: and rather to forget than to remember what he suffered for us; for in his picture (as in that upon the cross for example) we can be put in mind and we see no more than the piercing of his hands and feet, a wound in his side by a spear, and the thorns on his head: this we may remember by these things: but the especial pains and torments which inwardly he suffered; his being sorrowful unto death, his anguish of heart for the Jews obstinacy and rejection, the bitternesse of the cup, which his not only most perfect body was most sensible of, and his holy soul apprehended and suffered, these are forgotten these cannot be depicted; so the greatest part of his passion is inexpressible.
…
These reasons show that there are other means better and more effectual than pictures to instruct men in the knowledge of Christ, viz. The scripture and the preaching of the gospel, but they are not meant to prove it unlawful to paint or make any portraiture of Christ in his human nature, as at his passion, etc., provided no religious worship be given to it: that which is of 〈◊〉 use, is not therefore unlawful or of no use at all. So the author in his answer to Perron, c. 18, p. 17. To have a story painted for memory’s sake we hold not unlawful, but that it might be well enough done, if the church found it not inconvenient for her children.”
.
Jean D’Espagne
New Observations upon the Decalogue… (London, 1652), 2nd Commandment. D’Espagne (1591-1659) was a French, reformed minister who lived for a significant amount of time in London.
pp. 51-52
“Of the nature of painting that represents the Historie of the Bible
There are many things are more clearly set forth in a picture then in a discourse. The fabrick of the Ta∣bernacle, the architecture of the Tem∣ple; the dimensions, stories, and di∣vers rooms of Noahs Ark, are more perceptible by us in a painting to the eye, then is the verbal description the Scripture gives us of it. A man ve∣rily may behold the situation and length of the Land of Canaan better in a Chorographick Map, then in the History of Josuah:
But that which is the more evident and easie, is not neverthelesse the more excellent. These paintings are not divine, as are the words of the Scripture. A visible representation of Solomon’s Temple is meerly a hu∣mane figure; but the verball repre∣sentation of the same Temple exhi∣bited in Scripture terms is a divine work. The picture of a man crucifi∣ed, is it as divine as the words of the Scripture describing the passion of Christ? or rather, is it comparable to a Sermon, in which Jesus Christ is drawn out before our eyes, and cru∣cified among us? Gal. 3.1. Where is it authorized by God to plant Faith in our hearts? In many narrations a picture verily may serve for an help to the understanding of the Historie: but it can never be either instrument or object of our Faith.”
.
pp. 55-58
“If we had the true portrait and very resemblance of our Saviour Christ, taken from his own body, what account ought we to make of it?
Had I such a picture, I would keep it as most precious, not only above all other painting, but as one of the most worthy objects of man’s sight: But I would ever make more account of the least Christian than of such a picture: For a Christian represents Christ a great deal better then any paint. A true human body animated not only with a reasonable soul, but also with the spirit of Christ, does it not more resemble Christ than a dead crucifix, or a shape that expresses nothing but some superficial lineaments? I say more: That if one would abuse this picture and idolatrize it, I would do by it as Hezekiah did by the brazen serpent, 2 Kings 18:14.
.
A notable difference betwixt one of the figures which represented Christ and those that represented the angels, and a consideration upon the matter.
In the Old Testament Christ was figured by the image of a serpent set upon a pole, without the Tabernacle, in an open place: But the angels were figured by the faces of men, having wings, placed over the ark itself, in the most holy of Holies. If we consider these figures and their placing, that of Christ’s was greatly inferior unto that of the angels: and if the true image of Christ did consist in outward lineaments, a human shape had been fitter there than that of a serpent.
.
Whence is it that in the Apocalypse, Jesus Christ (being man) is deciphered only in parabolical figures rather than in the natural form of his own body?
We see him appear with seven stars in his right hand, and a two-edged sword going forth of his mouth: We see him clad with a robe dipped in blood, and mounted upon a white horse: We see him in the shape of a lamb slain, having seven eyes and seven horns. But we never see him there, or in any other place of the holy history, in the figure of his own natural visage: To teach us that we ought rather to seek Him in the description of his graces than in the idea of the feature of his visage.”
.
Jeremy Taylor
Ductor dubitantium, or, The Rule of Conscience in all her General Measures serving as a great instrument for the determination of cases of conscience… (London, 1660), vol. 1, Of the Rule of Conscience, ch. 2, Rule 6, ‘Every thing in the Decalogue is not obligatory to Christians, is not a portion of the Moral or Natural law’ Taylor (1613–1667) was a cleric in the Church of England who achieved fame as an author during the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell. He was Arminian in outlook.
p. 334
“Concerning the humanity of our blessed Savior, that being a creature he might be depicted, I mean it was naturally capable of it: it was the great instrument of many actions, it conversed with mankind above thirty years together, it was the subject of great changes, and the matter of a long story, and the conduit of many excellent instructions, and therefore might without all question be described as well as Caesar’s or Meletius, Marc Anthony or the kings of the gentiles. It might be done: and the question being here only of the making or having of it, abstractedly from all other appendages or collateral considerations, I need say no more of it under this title; but that it is neither impious nor unreasonable of itself to have or to make the picture or image of Christ’s humanity, or rather of his human body. For against this there is neither reason nor religion; and if it be made accidentally unlawful, that is not of present consideration.”
.
p. 336
“And after all this, if it should please God [that] any person of the blessed and most holy Trinity should appear in any visible shape, that shape might be depicted; of that shape an image might be made; I mean, it might naturally; it might if it were done for lawful ends, and unless a commandment were to the contrary; and therefore so long as God keeps himself within the secret recesses of his sanctuary, and the majesty of his invisibility, so long it is plain he intends the very first sense and words of his [Second] Commandement: but if he should cancel the great reason [Dt. 4, end] of his Commandement, and make that by an act of his own to become possible which in the nature of things is impossible, that is, that an image can be made of God; I should believe that God did intend to dispense in that part of the Commandement, and declare that he intended it only for a temporary band:
For if the reason of the commandement were taken away; either the commandement also ceases to oblige; or must be bound upon us by another reason, or a new sanction, or at lest a new declaration; or else it would follow that then his visible appearance would become a snare to mankind. But because yet he has not yet appeared visibly and has by no figure or idea represented the Godhead; and that it is a truth which must last as long as Christian religion lasts, that no man can see God, therefore it follows that it is at no hand lawful to make an image of God or relating to the divinity.
If a dove be made it must not be intended to represent the Holy Ghost, for besides that no dove did appear, nor shape of a dove, yet if it did, it related not to the person of the Holy Ghost, but to the impression made upon the person on whom the light descended: and if the figure of the crucifix be made, or of Jesus in the flesh, it is wholly relative to the creature, not to him as God; for that is impious, and unreasonable and impossible to be done in any natural proportion.”
.
p. 342
“Nay thou worshippest them, who makest them that they may be worshipped. But in all other senses the making a picture is not making an idol; and therefore that severe sense of the commandment, though as it is most probable it did oblige the Jews, and all persons in equal danger; yet because the reason may cease, and the danger be secured, when it is ceased, the obligation also is null; and therefore though that was in the commandment, yet it is no part of its morality; but that excepted, every other clause [of the Second Commandment] is moral and eternal.”
.
Richard Baxter
The Catechizing of Families, a Teacher of Householders how to Teach their Households (London: Parkhurst, 1683), ch. 35, ‘Of the Second Commandment’, pp. 256-57
“Q. 11. Is all use of images unlawful?
A. God did so much hate idolatry and the neighborhood of the idolaters made it so dangerous to the Israelites that He did not only forbid the worshipping of images, but all such making or using of them as might become a snare or temptation to any. So that though it be lawful to make images for civil uses, and when they are made, to fetch holy thoughts or meditation from them, as from all other creatures or things in the world, yet in any case when they become a snare or danger (being not necessary things, they become a sin to those that so use them as [a] snare to others or themselves. Ex. 34:13-15; Num. 33:52; Dt. 7:2; Kn. 11:18 & 23; 14:24.
Q. 12. Is it lawful to make any picture of God?
A. No: for pictures are the signs of corporeal things, and it is blasphemy to think God like a bodily substance: But it is lawful to make such pictures (as of a glorious light) from which occasion may be taken of good thoughts concerning God. Ex. 25:18, 1•… 20; 1 Sam. 4:4; Ps. 18:1; Eze. 10:2.
Q. 13. Is it lawful to make the picture of Christ as man, or as crucified?
A. The doing it as such is not forbidden, nor the right use of it when done: But the abuse, i.e. the worshipping of it or of Christ by it, is forbidden and the making or using such when it tends to such abuse and has more of snare than profit.”
.
The History of Images of Christ
.
The Early & Medieval Church
Articles
1600’s
Ussher, James – ‘On Images’ (†1656) 14 pp. in Answer to a Jesuit, with other Tracts on Popery, pp. 430-44
Ussher, in the polemical context against Romanism, traces the Early Church’s large rejection of images in worship against the later development that rose into to the Romanist acceptance of them. Ussher’s discussion includes religious images in worship, images of God generally, and images of Christ.
.
1800’s
Schaff, Philip – ‘Images of Christ’ (1867) 8 pp. in History of the Christian Church, ‘Third Period: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity’, pp. 563-71
.
Book
1900’s
Schonborn, Christoph – God’s Human Face: the Christ Icon, tr. Lothar Krauth (Ignatius Press, 1994) 275 pp. ToC
.
Reformed History
Articles
La Shell, John K. – ‘Imagination & Idol: A Puritan Tension’ (1987) 101 paragraphs in Westminster Theological Journal, vol. 49:2 (Fall 1987)
Table of Contents
Intro
I. Puritans & the Imagination
. 1. Scholastic Background
. 2. Continuity of Definition
. 3. Danger of the Imagination
II. Images & Idols
. 1. Images of Christ
. 2. Types & Symbols
. 3. Mental Images
III. Historical Perspectives
IV. Theological Arguments
. 1, James Robe
. 2. Ralph Erskine
V. Epistemological Arguments
. 1. Separation of the Faculties
. 2. The Hindrance of the Senses
. 3. Occassionalism
VI. Evaluation
. 1. Erskine & Robe
. 2. Easing the Tension
.
Books
Eire, Carlos – War Against the Idols: the Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin (1989) 336 pp.
This excellent history book shows that purity of worship and the removal of religious images from the place of worship, including all images of Christ (whether in worship or not) was a hallmark of the reformed wing of the reformation. Much different than most reformed churches today.
La Shell, John K. – Imaginary Ideas of Christ: A Scottish-American Debate PhD diss. (Westminster Theological Seminary, 1985) 470 pp. available from University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Davis, David J. – Seeing Faith, Printing Pictures: Religious Identity during the English Reformation Pre (Brill, 2013) 243 pp. ToC See especially chs. 3-4.
.
Quote
Steven Wedgeworth
‘The Place of Images in the Venerable Protestant Tradition’ (2023) at Ad Fontes
“Consider the official [Anglican] ‘Homily Against Period of Idolatry,’ found in the Second Book of Homilies and commended by Article 35 of the 39 Articles as teaching ‘godly and wholesome doctrine.’ This homily is entirely iconoclastic.
It expressly condemns the use of images in worship and even the placing of them in churches: ‘the corruption of these latter dayes, hath brought into the Church infinite multitudes of images.’ Images of Christ’s humanity are forbidden, a fact no doubt shocking and puzzling to many later Anglicans.
And the distinction between dulia and latria is noted and rejected on the basis of biblical and patristic authority:
“herewithall is confuted their lewde distinction of Latria & Dulia, where it is euident, that the Saints of GOD can not abide, that as much as any outward worshipping bee done or exhibited to them.”
This homily is too strong for many Anglicans today, but it was regularly cited as evidence for the true meaning of the 39 Articles in the 17th and 18th centuries.”
.
On the Westminster Standards
Article
‘The Intent of the Westminster Larger Catechism #109 Regarding Pictures of Christ’s Humanity’ in Confessional Presbyterian Journal, #5 (2009), pp. 227-28, 323 9 paragraphs
Chris Coldwell demonstrates that the Larger Catechism forbids images of the Son of God, contrary to those who have taught otherwise.
WLC 109:
“The sins forbidden in the second commandment are… any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself… the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it…”
.
.
On Puritans
Article
McGraw, Ryan – Pt. 2, Ch. 5, ‘Faith Versus Sight: Owen on Images of Christ, the Second Commandment, & the Role of Faith in Reformed Theology’ in John Owen: Trajectories in Reformed Orthodox Theology Buy (Palgrave, 2017), pp. 113-34
.
Quotes
Collections of Quotes
Barth, Paul – ‘An Historic Witness Against Images of Christ’ Includes 10 Scriptures followed by 11 quotes from historic documents and theologians
Coldwell, Chris – ‘Historic Quotes against Images of Christ: a Violation of the Second Commandment’, pt. 1, 2 (1996 & 1998) 34 & 42 paragraphs, part one contains six quotes and part two contains sixteen quotes.
Here are excerpts on the topic from Irenaeus, Epiphanius, the Synod of Constantinople, Calvin, Bradford, the Second Helvetic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Westminster Confession, Flavel, Durham, Henry, Fisher’s Catechism, Ridgeley, Murray, Cummings, Boettner, Kik, Rushdooney and Williamson.
.
Individual Quotes
On who was responsible for the introduction of images:
Epiphanius, Panar. Haeres., XXVII, as quoted in James Ussher, Answer to a Jesuit
“Gnostic heretics for the principal, who had images, some painted in colors, others framed of gold and silver and other matter, which they said were the representations of Christ.”
.
John Calvin
Sermon on Deuteronomy, May 23, 1555
“Behold, they paint and portray Jesus Christ, who (as we know) is not only man, but also God manifested in the flesh: and what a representation is that? He is God’s eternal Son in whom dwells the fullness of the God head, yea even substantially.
Seeing it is said, substantially, should we have portraitures and images whereby only the flesh may be represented? Is it not a wiping away of that which is chiefest in our Lord Jesus Christ, that is to wit, of his divine Majesty? Yes: and therefore whensoever a crucifix stands mopping and mowing in the Church, it is all one as if the Devil had defaced the Son of God.”
.
English Parliament 1644, May 9th
‘An Ordinance for the Further Demolishing of Monuments of Idolatry & Superstition’
“Representations of God, Angels, and Saints.; Copes, Surplisses, Roods, etc.; Organs.
The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, the better to accomplish the blessed Reformation so happily begun, and to remove all offences and things illegal in the worship of God, do Ordain, That all Representations of any of the Persons of the Trinity, or of any Angel or Saint, in or about any Cathedral, Collegiate or Parish Church, or Chapel, or in any open place within this Kingdom, shall be taken away, defaced, and utterly demolished; And that no such shall hereafter be set up, And that the Chancel-ground of every such Church or Chapel, raised for any altar, or Communion Table to stand upon, shall be laid down and leveled; And that no copes, surplisses, superstitious vestments, roods, or roodlons, holy-water fonts, shall be, or be any more used in any Church or Chapel within this realm; And that no cross, crucifix, picture, or representation of any of the Persons of the Trinity, or of any angel or saint shall be, or continue upon any plate, or other thing used, or to be used in or about the worship of God; And that all organs, and the frames or cases wherein they stand in all Churches or Chapels aforesaid, shall be taken away, and utterly defaced, and none other hereafter set up in their places; and that all copes, surplisses, superstitious vestments, roods, and fonts aforesaid, be likewise utterly defaced; whereunto all persons within this Kingdom, whom it may concern, are hereby required at their peril to yield due obedience.”
.
.
.
.
“As soon then as He had said unto them, ‘I am He’, they went backward, and fell to the ground.”
Jn. 18:6
“Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped Him, saying, ‘Of a truth thou art the Son of God.'”
Jn. 14:33
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
1 Tim. 3:16
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not… And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father)…”
Jn. 1:1,10,14
“O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? [by the preaching]”
Gal. 3:1
.
.
.
Related Pages
The Regulative Principle of Worship