“Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God…”
Ex. 20:3-5
.
.
Subsection
.
.
Order of Contents
Biblical Argument
Articles 12+
Quotes 6+
Latin 10+
Images Simply: Lawful 3
Images in Churches Not Religiously Used: Lawful 1
Bowing Before Religious Images 3
Homage to Images is Wrong Despite Intentions Otherwise 6+
Crosses: Not for Places of Worship 14+
Crosses apart from Worship: Lawful 2
Cross around One’s Neck? 1
Historical Images from Bible apart from Worship: Lawful 4
History 4+
.
The Biblical Argument Against Religious Images in Worship
Article
Fentiman, Travis – ‘Visual Imagery, Drama & Dancing in Worship’ (2017) 140 paragraphs
The Reformed wing of the Reformation, in seeking to reform Christian worship by Scripture Alone, systematically removed all religious imagery that God has not prescribed from their places of worship. Here is the extensive Biblical argument for why they were right.
.
Articles
1500’s
Bucer, Martin
Ch. 11, ‘The Reason Why Images Should be Abolished’ (1524) 7 pp. in Ground & Reason Buy pp. 169-176
This was the first, major reformed treatise on worship, which gave the ground and reason for the first reformed worship services of the Reformation, as they held them in Strasbourg, Germany.
“…one of the most significant documents in the history of Reformed worship.” – Dr. Hughes Oliphant Old
“We have also preached against idols and images. The honorable Council has made a survey, and all images in the foremost churches which have been especially esteemed have been removed. The Christian congregation which I serve has removed all images and pictures out of its church… The leaders in the congregation of God in Zurich have given more than sufficient, clear, Scriptural proof that it is Christian and justified…” – Bucer, p. 169
Calvin, John – Institutes, bk. 1, ch. 11, section 13 (d. 1564) 2 pp.
Ursinus, Zacharias – ‘Concerning Images & Pictures in Christian Churches’ 11 pp. in Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, pp. 525-536 d. 1583
.
1600’s
Turretin, Francis – 11th Topic, Q. 10, ‘Whether Not Only the Worship but also the Formation & Use of Religious Images in Sacred Places is Prohibited by the Second Commandment. We Affirm Against the Lutherans.’ in Institutes (P&R), vol. 2, pp. 62-66
.
1700’s
Barlow, Thomas – The Case concerning Setting up Images or Painting of them in Churches, writ by the Learned Dr. Thomas Barlow, late bishop of Lincoln, upon his suffering such images to be defaced in his Diocess… (London: James Roberts, 1714) 21 pp. no ToC
Barlow (c.1608-1691) was a Calvinistic Anglican. This work is against images in churches and was written upon an incident of laymen setting such images up in a church in 1683. Besides giving good reasons it gives many interesting historical precedents and information.
.
1800’s
The Protestant Association
‘On Idolatry’ 1840, from the Protestant Magazine, Vol. II, November 1, 1840
‘Queen Elizabeth I’s Opinion Of Sacred Pictures’ from the Protestant Magazine, Vol. II, November 1, 1840
.
Quotes
Order of Quotes
Theses of Bern
Zwingli
Calvin
Beza
Leiden Synopsis
Gillespie
Rutherford
Fisher
.
1500’s
10 Theses of Bern
ed. James Dennison, Jr., Reformed Confessions… (RHB, 2008), vol. 1, p. 42
“8. To fashion images in order to stand before them for worship is contrary to the Word of God comprehended in the books of the Old and New Testament. thus wherever they have so dishonored themselves, as it is a danger, they should be abolished, not adored.”
.
Ulrich Zwingli
The Rule of Faith in ed. James Dennison, Jr., Reformed Confessions… (RHB, 2008), vol. 1, pp. 131-32
“Ninethly… Images, however, which are misused for worship, I do not count among ceremonies, but among the number of those things which are diametrically opposed to the Word of God. But those which do not serve for worship and in whose cases there exists no danger of future worship, I am so far from condemning that I acknowledge both painting and statuary as God’s gifts.”
.
John Calvin
The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.11.13
“…when I consider the proper end for which churches are erected, it appears to me more unbecoming their sacredness than I well can tell, to admit any other images than those living symbols which the Lord has consecrated by His own word: I mean Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, with the other ceremonies.
By these our eyes ought to be more steadily fixed, and more vividly impressed, than to require the aid of any images which the wit of man may devise. Such, then, is the incomparable blessing of images—a blessing, the want [lack] of which, if we believe the Papists, cannot possibly be compensated!”
.
Theodore Beza
A Clear & Simple Treatise on the Lord’s Supper (1559, RHB, 2016), p. 144
“We consider the placement of images and statues in the places of worship as explicitly forbidden by God’s Word a thousand times. For why else would they be placed there except for worship? Is it to stir the memory? And yet the Holy Spirit is wiser than we are.”
.
1600’s
The Leiden Synopsis 1625
Andreas Rivetus, Disputation 19, ‘On Idolatry’, Thesis 27
“What we have said about images should not be taken to mean that we generally consider every use of images to be unlawful; in our view this applies in an absolute sense only to images of the Trinity. As far as creatures are concerned, apart from idolatrous worship that is contrary to the first table of the Law, and apart from indecency, shamefulness or other similar abuse contrary to the second commandment, we do not condemn the art of making images; and we don’t deny that it brings about some good for the sake of the illustration of history in public life.
But we do think that in the sacred places where God is worshiped images are not necessary, even if they do contain some historical or doctrinal use, or help to commemorate something. What is more, we think that they are dangerous, and for that reason unlawful, and that they should not be brought into Christian churches but removed and banished from them, even if they are not adored, and lest people “who seek Christ and his apostles not in the written books but on the painted walls meet up with error” (Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels, Book 1, chapter 9).”
.
George Gillespie
English Popish Ceremonies (Naphtali Press, 1993)
Part 2, Ch. 3, p. 77
“…it is well enough known how many heterodox doctrines are maintained by Formalists, who are most zealous for the ceremonies, about universal grace, free-will… images… etc. Their errors about those heads we will demonstrate, if need be, to such as doubt of their mind. In the meantime, it has been preached [by formalists] from our pulpits among ourselves that Christ died for all alike; that the faithful may fall away from grace… that images in churches are not to be condemned…”
.
Part 3, Ch. 2, p. 167
“But they say immediately, ‘We teach that these images are not to be worshipped.’ As if, in fact, says [Jerome] Zanchius (De Imagin., col. 402),
‘God had not once rather diligently done the same thing through Moses and the prophets, that we are doing. So then why did He even want all images abolished? Because it is not enough to teach by word that an evil thing must not be done; but the slight obstacles, the incentives, the causes, the occasions of evil doing must be abolished.’
It is not enough, with the scribes and Pharisees, to teach out of Moses’ chair what the people should do, but all occasions, yea, appearances of evil, are to be taken out of their sight.
‘Those things affect more powerfully, and affect more, which fall upon the eyes than those which fell upon the ears. And so Hezekiah had been able to warn the people not to worship the serpent, but he preferred to break it in pieces and completely remove it from visibility,’ says one well to this purpose. (Thomas Naogeorgus [Kirchmeyer] in 1 Jn 5:21)”
.
Samuel Rutherford
A Peaceable & Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland (1642), Ch. 20, Article 1
“We acknowledge the scriptures of God contained in the Old and New Testament to contain the whole doctrine of faith and good manners, our Covenant rejects all traditions contrary, without and beside the word of God, and so it rejects all religious observances, all human ceremonies, all religious symbolical signs, all new means of worshipping God, all images, positive rites which have any influence in God’s worship as will-worship, and impious additions to God’s word, Jer. 7:7; 2 Sam. 7:7; Deut. 12:32; Deut. 4:2; Lev. 10:2; Heb. 1:13; Heb. 7:14; 1 Chron. 15:13; 1 Kings 12:32; Matt 15:14; Rev. 22:18, whereas they lack warrant from God’s word. All actions of divine worship, all religious means of worship, all actions of moral conversation must be warranted by, according as it is written…”
.
James Fisher 1753
The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism Explained
“Q. 23. Is it lawful, as some plead, to have images or pictures in churches, though not for worship, yet for instruction, and raising the affections?
No; because God has expressly prohibited not only the worshipping but the MAKING of any image whatever on a religious account; and the setting them up in churches, cannot but have a natural tendency to beget a sacred veneration for them; and therefore ought to be abstained from, as having at least an “appearance of evil,” Isa. 45:9-18; 1 Thess. 5:22.
Q. 24. May they not be placed in churches for beauty and ornament?
No; the proper ornament of churches is the sound preaching of the gospel, and the pure dispensation of the sacraments, and other ordinances of divine institution.
Q. 25. Were not the images of the cherubims placed in the tabernacle and temple, by the command of God himself?
Yes; but out of all hazard of any abuse, being placed in the holy of holies, where none of the people ever came: they were instituted by God Himself, which images are not; and they belonged to the typical and ceremonial worship, which is now quite abolished.
Q. 26. Are our forefathers to be blamed for pulling down altars, images, and other monuments of idolatry, from places of public worship at the Reformation?
No; they had Scripture precept and warrant for what they did, Num. 33:52, and Deut. 7:5 — “Ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.“
.
Latin
Articles
1500’s
Oecolampadius, Johannes – A Golden Book… that Idols, which we Term Images of Gods, are to be Wholly Removed from Churches where the Populace of the Faithful Gathers in Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew & some other things which follow… Several Popular Sermons, a Libel that the Mass is not a Sacrifice, & a Libel that Images are to be taken out of Churches for Protestant Worship (Basel: [Andreas Cratander], 1536), pp. 487-505
Oecolampadius (1482-1531)
.
1600’s
Bachoff, Reinhard – Q. 98,‘Whether Indeed Images, which are for Books for the Ignorant Multitude, are not able to be Tolerated?’ in Catechism of the Christian Religion, which is Taught in the Churches & Schools of the Palitinate (Hanau, 1603), pp. 423-30
Bachoff (1544-1614)
Pareus, David – Collection 5, 19. ’Of Statues & Images in Church Buildings’ in Theological Collections of Universal Orthodox Theology, where also All of the Present Theological Controversies are Clearly & Variously Explained (1611/20), vol. 2, pp. 212-13
Waser, Kaspar – 3rd Problem, ‘Whether it is Lawful to have made Images in Church Buildings, etc.’ in Four Theological Problems on Images (Zurich: Wolfius, 1612)
Scharpius, Johann – Controversy 2, Question 4, ‘Whether Images are Rightly Placed in Church Buildings’ in A Course of Theology… (Geneva: Chovet, 1618), vol. 2, cols. 1540-43
Chamier, Daniel – Panstratiae Catholicae, or a Body of the Controversies of Religion Against the Papists (Geneva: Roverian, 1626), vol. 2, pt. 2, ‘Of Worship’, bk. 22,‘Of the Cross & Images in Church Buildings’
ch. 7, ‘On Setting up Images in Church Buildings: Arguments of the Papists’, pp. 879-82
ch. 8, ‘Images are Not to be Set up in Church Buildings’, pp. 882-85
Du Moulin, Pierre – 31. pt 2, Are Images to be in Church Buildings? & What is the Pontiff’s Declaration about the Adoration of Them? in A Collection of the Theological Disputations held at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan (Geneva, 1661), vol. 1, pp. 275-82
Cocceius, Johannes – Question 98, ‘Whether even in Church Buildings Images are Not able to be Tolerated, which are Commanded for Books for the Multitude?’ in An Explanation of the Heidelberg Catechism (separately paginated) in All the Works… (d. 1669), vol. 7, p. 57
.
1700’s
Strimesius, Samuel – Annotation 4, ‘On Rites Figuring & Not Wholly Indifferent; on the Use of Sacred Images in Churches’ in A Hexad of Annotations, Comprehending Controversies Between Protestants on the Person of Christ, God-Man, of Baptism, & of Rites which are Not Wholly Indifferent (Frankfurt, 1706), pp. 32-48
Strimesius (1648-1730) was a reformed professor of philosophy, physics and theology at Frankfurt, Germany.
.
Books
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
.
.
That Images, Simply, are Lawful contra Islam
Order of Quotes
Zwingli
Beza
Durham
.
Quotes
Ulrich Zwingli
The Rule of Faith in ed. James Dennison, Jr., Reformed Confessions… (RHB, 2008), vol. 1, pp. 131-32
“Ninethly… Images, however, which are misused for worship, I do not count among ceremonies, but among the number of those things which are diametrically opposed to the Word of God. But those which do not serve for worship and in whose cases there exists no danger of future worship, I am so far from condemning that I acknowledge both painting and statuary as God’s gifts.”
.
Theodore Beza
Lutheranism vs. Calvinism: The Classic Debate at the Colloquy of Montbeliard 1586 (Concordia Publishing House, 2017), ch. 4
p. 459
“We acknowledge that painting and sculpture has a great use in civil affairs; this is not our business.”
.
pp. 468-69
“We have never disapproved of pictures or sculptures; they are of great use in representing histories as well as in civil affairs, especially in describing and depicting plants. So we do not disapprove those arts, but recommend them and affirm that they should be exercised as useful to the Republic.”
.
James Durham
An Exposition of the Ten Commandments… (London, 1675), 1st Commandment, p. 54
“That making of pictures of creatures, which are visible or may be comprehended, or historical fancies (to speak so) such as the senses and elements use to be holden forth by (which are rather hieroglyphics than real pictures) these I say, are not simply unlawful, but are so when they are abused (so Solomon made images of lions for his use, and thus the gift of engraving and painting as well as others which God has given to men, may be made use of, when (as has been said) it is not abused)…”
.
.
That Images or Decorative Ornaments in Churches, not Religiously Used, are Lawful
Quotes
Theodore Beza
Lutheranism vs. Calvinism: The Classic Debate at the Colloquy of Montbeliard 1586 (Concordia Publishing House, 2017), ch. 4, p. 462
“…Christ… so zealously threw out of the temple those who were selling and buying, and overturned the tables of the money changers; even though they could not be adorned with any images, they could nevertheless have some decorative ornament.”
.
James Durham
An Exposition of the Ten Commandments… (London, 1675), 1st Commandment, pp. 55 & 57-58
“Though making of images simply be not unlawful and discharged by this [2nd] Commandment, yet thereby every representation of God (who is the object to be worshipped) and every image religiously made use of in worship is condemned (though civil and political images and statues, which are used as ornaments, or badges of honor, or remembrancers of some fact, etc. be not condemned)…
…images (otherwise lawful) when abused to idolatry become unlawful, and are not to be suffered but orderly to be removed, we call that more than a civil or a common use, when religious worship or reverence is purposely intended to them, or there is, by some one occasion or other, danger lest they may be so abused; and of this sort (viz. dangerous ones) are: 1. Images in places of worship, but it is not idolatry to have dead men’s images on their tombs or monuments in churches.”
.
On Bowing Before Religious Images
Article
1600’s
Rutherford, Samuel – pp. 85-86 & 88-89 of Introduction, Section 6, ‘What Honor, Praise, Glory, Reverence, Veneration, Devotion, Service, Worship, etc. Are’ in The Divine Right of Church Government… (London, 1646)
.
Rutherford’s 5 Considerations & Conclusions
The Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646), ch. 1, Question 5
Section 2, ‘Whether the idolatrous Jews were charged with the crime of idolatry, because they adored the creature as such, or because they adored the Godhead in, with, or under the creature’s shape? & whether or no do Papists commit idolatry with them in this point?’, pp. 150-1
Consideration 1. That the Jews believed the image to be God by way of representation, not essentially or really; they believed the image to be God objective, commemorative, representative, relative, declarative, significative; Non essentialiter, non per se, non realiter.
2. There is an honor or negative-reverence due to any image of God ordained by Himself, or to any mean of honoring God, because it is such, though it cannot be expressed in the act of adoration; but the question is, if the honor of adoration, either relative or absolute, be due to the image?
3. The Jews intended to honor Jehovah in their images; what inferiour intention they had to honor the image, we are now to inquire.
4. We bow our knee two ways before a creature: either before a creature as an object by accident, as while we pray there of necessity must be before us some creature, a wall, a table, a pulpit; none of these are adored, because they are before us by accident, as having no religious state. The image before the Jew, and the sacramental elements before the kneeler cannot be thus present. 2. The creature is before the kneeler of religious purpose, as a religious object.
5. The creature is religiously present before the kneeler two ways: 1. active; 2. passive.
1. In the mere and naked act of teaching and exciting the memory, so that when that act is past, I turn from the creature and adore the Creator; So at the sight of the sun or moon, being taught and instructed of the wisdom and power of God in creating such excellent creatures, I am to turn from them, and adore the Lord of these creatures. Thus the creatures are kindly and per se objects in the act of teaching, but not objects at all in the act of adoration.
2. The creatures are objects-passive when bodily bowing in a religious state is directed toward the creatures really and bodily present, by a commandment of the Church or of purpose, and so they are made objects of adoration.
* * *
1st Conclusion. The relative expression of God which is in the works of God is no formal ground of any adoration of the creatures.
2. The idolatrous Jews did not adore the golden calf as a creature, but as God by representation.
.
Section 3, ‘Whether Papists & Formalists give that divine honour that is proper only to God and his son Jesus Christ to Images, and the elements of Bread and Wine?’
1st Conclusion. To adore images is to give worship to God before images, or, in, or through the images without any faith of a Godhead, or divine power in the image, according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome.
2. Grosser Papists go a subtiler way to work, and do avouch that the very latreia and supreme worship that is proper to God, is given to the image.
.
Physical Homage to Images is Wrong Despite Any Intention Otherwise
Articles
1600’s
Ames, William – A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633)
Manuduction, ch. 12, ‘Concerning Worship’, p. 133
ch. 2, section 6, ‘Concerning our Divines’ judgement about ceremonious worship invented by man’, pp. 127-28
Brown of Wamphray, John – on ch. 11:5-6, p. 431, sections 22-23 in An Exposition of… Romans (Edinburgh: Paterson, 1766)
.
Order of Quotes
Calvin
Ames
Gillespie
Rutherford
.
Quotes
John Calvin
Commentary on 1 Cor. 10, verse 14
“He certainly did not suspect the Corinthians of such a degree of ignorance or carelessness as to think that they worshipped idols in their heart. But as they made no scruple of frequenting the assemblies of the wicked, and observing along with them certain rites instituted in honor of idols, he condemns this liberty taken by them, as being a very bad example. It is certain, then, that when he here makes mention of idolatry, he, speaks of what is outward, or, if you prefer it, of the profession of idolatry.
For as God is said to be worshipped by the bending of the knee, and other tokens of reverence, while the principal and genuine worship of Him is inward, so is it also as to idols, for the case holds the same in things opposite. It is to no purpose that very many in the present day endeavor to excuse outward actions on this pretext, that the heart is not in them, while Paul convicts of idolatry those very acts, and assuredly with good reason.
For, as we owe to God not merely the secret affection of the heart, but also outward adoration, the man who offers to an idol an appearance of adoration takes away so much of the honor due to God. Let him allege as he may that his heart is quite away from it. The action itself is to be seen, in which the honor that is due to God is transferred to an idol.”
.
William Ames
A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship… (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633), Manuduction, ch. 4, ‘Concerning the Nature & Definition of a Ceremony’, pp. 27-28
“Again if by this phrase he [the opponent] mean that a purposed observation of an outward act, with an aim and reference to such a thing, is of necessity required to make up a ceremony or a ceremonious action, in worship or otherwise, it is a miserable mistake: Instance thus:
A carnal protestant presents himself amongst such as are at mass, he professes to his companions, before he goes in, and does in the purpose of his heart seriously loath the pix and idol there, yet when it’s lifted up, he bows as others do: Let any man in reason tell me, did he not use or abuse rather a divine ceremony in that bowing or no?
If the Rejoinder say yes, as he must, unless he will speak against all reason and truth: I then reply upon his own grounds: That outward action which is not purposely referred, that is not a ceremony; but this action is not purposely observed with any aim to that end for the party intended no such thing, purposed no such matter, but did it as a thing of-course, as a man should bow his knee for exercise when he is alone.
2. Peter withdrawing himself from the gentiles at the coming of the Jews, he did not purposely this, with reference to any Judaical seperation, as judging any legal pollution in joining with the gentiles, or holiness in parting from them, and therfore he did not practice any Jewish ceremony, according to the Rejoinder’s conceit, but directly contrary to the text: there is no end of these absurdities.”
.
George Gillespie
English-Popish Ceremonies (1637), pt. 3, ch. 4
p. 53
“Now that a man who adores before the painted or graven image of Christ, though he profess that he intends his whole adoration to Christ, and that he places the image before him only to represent Christ, and to stir up his mind to worship Christ, does nevertheless commit idolatry, I trust none of our Opposites will deny.”
.
pp. 56-57
“Our Opposites here tell us of two things necessary to the making up of idolatry, neither of which is found in their kneeling. First, they say except there be an intention in the worshipper to adore the creature which is before his eyes, his kneeling before it is no idolatry…
Answer. …Nay then the three children should not have been idolaters if they had kneeled before Nebuchadnezzar’s image, intending their worship to God only, and not to the image. Our Opposites here take the Nicodemites by the hand. But what says Calvin? ‘Si isti boni sapientesque Sophistae, ibi tum fuissent, simplicitatem illorum trium servorum Dei irrisissent. Nam hujusmodi credo cos verbis objurgassent: miseri homines istud quidem*non est adorare, quum vos in rebus nullam fidem adhibetis: nulla est Idololatria nisi ubi est devotio, hoc est quaedam animi ad idola colenda venerandasque adjunctio atque applicatio, &c.’ (De fugiend. idololat., homily 1)
If Paybody had been in Calvin’s place he could not have called the [protestant] Nicodemites idolaters, forasmuch as they have no intention to worship the Popish images when they kneel and worship before them. Nay, the grossest idolaters that ever were, shall by this doctrine be no idolaters, and Paul shall be censured for teaching that the Gentiles did worship devils, since they did not intend to worship devils. ‘Idololatrae nec olim in Paganismo inten∣debant, nec hodie in Papatu intendunt, Daemonibus offerre. Quid tum? Aposto∣lus contrarium pronuntiat, quicquid illi intendant,’ says Pareus (Com. in illum locum, sect. 11).”
.
Samuel Rutherford
Letters (Edinburgh, 1894), pp. 193-94 Also reprinted by Banner of Truth. Rutherford is here quoting from some other public document, possibly from the Latin of David Calderwood’s Altar of Damascus, p. 595.
Letter 91, to Robert Gordon of Knockbrex
“As the religious homage done to an image, or even to elements, is in itself an external act of idolatry, insofar as the act is concerned, although the intention of such homage may be directed to God the Great First Cause, —so the act of kneeling to a piece of bread, seeing that, according to the ordinance, the whole man, internal and external, ought to be engaged in the elementary signs, is a relative act of worship and an adoration of the bread itself.
The reason is: an intention to worship a material object is not of the essence of external adoration, as appears in a religious act of homage. Thus, the bending of the knee before the Babylonish image is an external act of worship, even though the three youths had no intention to worship any but the true God; and in like manner, those who, from fear or the hope of reward or vain-glory, bend the knee to Jeroboam’s golden calf (which the text clearly enough proclaims to have been done by the king himself, from no religious motive but the mere desire to rule), do pay ad- oration to the calf by the external act, although, no doubt, they may suppose the calf a mere created object and unworthy of honor,—because the act of homage, whether we mean it or not, is, from the ordinance of God and nature, a symbol of worship.
Therefore, as the bread [in the Lord’s Supper] denotes the body of Christ (even though that idea be not present to the mind), so in like manner, kneeling, when used as a religious service, is the external adoration of that bread, in presence of which we bow as before the delegated representative of God, be our intention what it may.”
.
Crosses are Not to be in a Place of Worship
See also ‘On Reverance to the Cross, Crossing & the Cross in Baptism’.
.
Excerpts
Calvin, John
Letter 12, ‘Calvin to Dr. Richard Cox & his Associates at Frankfort’ in Gorham, Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears, pp. 346-47 June 12, 1555
“Undoubtedly, in my opinion, no man endued with sound judgment will deny that lights, crosses and trifles of that sort flowed from superstition. Whence I hold, that those who retain them, while they possess liberty of choice, draw too eagerly from dregs.
Nor do I see what purpose can be answered by burdening the Church with frivolous and useless (not to call them by their proper name, noxious) ceremonies, where we enjoy the liberty of establishing a pure and simple order.”
.
Calfhill, James 1530?–1570 English puritan
An Answer to John Martiall’s ‘Treatise of the Cross’, ‘To the Reader’, p. 51
“I appeal to the conscience of every Christian, whether we (avoiding the occasion of idolatry) tend any whit to paganism, as the Papists by their devices do, or whether we (by removing all images, and consequently the cross too) do derogate from Christ and from His passion as they do, which, having the material cross, cannot come to the knowledge and faith of The Crucified.”
Fulke, William 1538–1589 English puritan
Stapleton’s Fortress Overthrown, ch. 3, p. 80
“[Stapleton:] ‘From the Church they take altars, crosses, images,’ etc. [Fulke:] Because the temple of God hath nothing to do with images, 2 Cor. 6:16.”
.
Cox, an English bishop
Number 22 in John Strype, Annals of the Reformation & Establishment of Religion, & other Various Occurrences in the Church of England, during Queen Elizabeth’s Happy Reign, vol. 1, part 2, pp. 500-503
.
Ames, William
A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship, pp. 7-8, 214, 232, 353, 464
“The next step which the Rejoinder takes… is to [Flacius] Illiricus [d. 1575], about permitting the use of a surplice, where it is to be noted that before Illyricus there had been effectual pleading against [human] ceremonies, even cross and surplice, in Helvetia [Switzerland] at Tigur [Zurich], whereupon they were removed, as Zwingli relates (De Baptismo).
And a long time before that, the Waldenses (of whose blood were made torches to light us in the right way) did contend against all human traditions as unlawful.”
…
“To the [citation of the] Confession of Wittenburg [by ‘good divines’] it is answered [by Ames’s opponents]: 1. That it does not so much as give any glance at Mark 7.
Which, how true it is, may appear by these their words:
‘Nor is it lawful to restore either the old rites of the law, or to devise new in their place to signify the truth of the gospel now come to light, as for example, to use banners and crosses to sign Christ’s victory on the cross: of which kind of i […]ly devised representations is the whole furniture of Mass accontrements, which they say does set forth the whole passion of Christ and many such like things. Of which sacred ceremonies Christ preaches out of Isaiah: In vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the precepts of men.'”
…
“The divines of France and the low countries (with the [Wittenburg] Confession) reject all ceremonies that carry some mystery or signification in them. Our question is, whether human ceremonies of mystical signification be lawful? If these testimonies be not plain enough, I know not what is plain.”
…
“But for the interpretation of doctrine, by practice, if the Rejoinder will have this hold in the ancient times, what reason can he give that it should not also hold in our time? If so, then why is not our argument good: Calvin, Bucer, Beza, the divines of Helvetia, France, Netherland, etc. have in their practice, banished cross, surplice and kneeling [in receiving the Lord’s Supper]…”
…
“…it is added by the Rejoinder that Beza says of some that retain the cross, they may use their own liberty. But in the next words he adds: ‘If they have any just causes of retaining this sign in their churches.’ So that he limits that liberty unto such causes as he was not privy to; nay [not for any use] to such as they at Geneva found to be clean contrary. As for us, we have many necessary reasons why we do no way tolerate that sign, and their causes (alleged in the 8th Epistle) were not peculiar to any time or place, but pertain as well to England as to Geneva.”
.
Rutherford, Samuel
The Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646)
p. 10
“If these other things of policy be necessary, necessitate precepti [by the necessity of precept], in regard that Jesus Christ has commanded them to be observed, why then are some things alterable which Christ has commanded to be observed, some things unalterable?
Cross and surplice, which prelates say have been in the Church these twelve hundred years, are in themselves as positive, and have as small affinity with the civil laws, customs and manners of nations (except they mean sinful customs) as sacramental eating and drinking. And the like may be said of all the alterable ceremonies sometimes in use, in England, and now in force amongst Papists.”
.
p. 40
“…as Papists say, their unwritten traditions are agreeable to the Word, and though beside Scripture, yet not against it: and [are] the very will of God no less than the written Word; and let Formalists assure us that their positive additaments of surplice and cross are the same which God commands in the Scriptures by the prophets and apostles, and though beside, yet not contrary to the Word:
But I pray you what better is the distinction of beside the Word, not contrary to the Word of God, out of the mouth of Papists, to maintain unwritten traditions, which to them is the express Word of God, than out of the mouth of Formalists, for their unwritten positives, which are worse than Popish traditions in that they are not the express Word of God, by their own grant?”
.
A Dispute Touching Scandal & Christian Liberty, pp. 89-92 appended to The Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646)
“Answer 1: Though the cross were first framed for no adoration, yet we plead against the images and crosses of Lutherans as not necessary in divine worship, and therefore to be removed, though never adored.”
…
“3. We say the sign of the cross is a mere instrument of idolatry and superstition, and what ever good intention or pious signification was stamped on it at the first by men’s carnal wisdom and will-zeal, it no more made it good than if upon the image of Dagon you would found the like good intention and pious signification.”
…
“2. How does [Richard] Hooker prove that the vessels made for Baal are in their own nature more incurable than the sign of the Cross?
You may remove the superstitious intention and idolatrous use of any vessel and turn it to a good use; yet Josiah burnt them to ashes. The like may be said of the groves which he stamped to powder and cast in the brook Kidron, and of the chariots five of the sun which he burnt with fire, and of the bones of dead men, not any of these being of their own nature more indifferent and innocent creatures of God, [nor] were of their own nature more scandalous and more incurable than the sign of the cross.
The like may be said of altars, and I pray, are reasonable men, the priests of the high places, of their own nature incurable? Are they not capable of repentance and curable by doctrine? Yet 2 Kings 23:20, Josiah slew all the priests of the high places.
…
4. It is false that scandalous objects of the third sort [named by Richard Hooker: things subject to great corruption which are curable with ‘more facility and ease’] are more easily cured, except they be removed for no human prudence, when the sign of the cross and the brazen serpent are sure not necessary in God’s worship.
And when men have, and so still may abuse them t, superstition and idolatry, can make these, being now actively scandalous, to be not actively scandalous, as no arc can make a pite [brick-shaped fuel] to be no pite.
Indeed God’s ordinances, because necessary, may be cured from scandal by teaching. But it is only God’s prerogative by his commanding will to make a thing, not necessary in his worship, to be necessary, and to alter the nature of things so as his command could have made the brazen serpent to remain a lawful teaching sign and no scandalous object, and only He might have forbidden the burning of incense to it.”
.
Gillespie, George – English-Popish Ceremonies, pp. 51, 81-82, 96-98
.
Articles
Willet, Andrew – ‘Of the Image of the Cross, or Crucifix’ in Synopsis Papismi (London, 1592), Controversies Concerning the Church Triumphant, 9th Controversy: concerning Saints Departed, 2nd Part, 5th Question, 2nd Part, pp. 357-58
Fentiman, Travis – ‘The Cross’ in ‘Visual Imagery, Drama & Dance in Worship’ (2017)
.
Books
1500’s
Calfhill, James – Answer to Martiall’s Treatise of the Cross (d. 1570)
Calfhill (1530?–1570) was an Anglican clergyman, academic and controversialist.
This was Calfhill’s major work, it being a response against the Roman Catholic John Martiall, who had dedicated his book to Queen Elizabeth on hearing that she had retained the cross in her chapel. Martiall replied against Calfhill, who was in turn responded to by William Fulke.
Fulke, William – A Rejoinder to John Martiall’s Reply Against the Answer of Master Calfhill to the Blasphemous Treatise of the Cross in Fulke’s Answer to Stapleton, Martiall & Sanders (d. 1589)
Fulke (1538–1589) was an English Puritan divine.
The Roman Catholic priest John Martiall had dedicated his book, A Treatise on the Cross, to Queen Elizabeth on hearing that she had retained the cross in her chapel. Calfhill, above, responded to this work. Martiall returned the response. This work of Fulke is a second response to Martiall.
.
Latin Articles
1600’s
Chamier, Daniel – Panstratiae Catholicae, or a Body of the Controversies of Religion Against the Papists (Geneva: Roverian, 1626), vol. 2, pt. 2, ‘Of Worship’, bk. 22,‘Of the Cross & Images in Church Buildings’
ch. 1, ‘Whether Images of the Cross were in Use before Constantine’, pp. 864-67
ch. 2, ‘On the Adoration which the Papists bestow on the Cross’, pp. 867-68
ch. 3, ‘Arguments of Papists from Scripture for the Adoration of the Cross’, pp. 869-71
ch. 4, ‘Arguments of Papists besides Scripture for the Adoration of the Cross’, pp. 871-75
ch. 5, ‘Of Adoring Images of the Cross’, pp. 875-78
ch. 6, ‘Of the Adoration of the Sign of the Cross’, pp. 878-79
Hommius, Festus – Disputation 37, ‘Of Worship of Images & of the Sign of the Cross’ in 70 Theological Disputations Against Papists (Leiden, 1614), pp. 221-31
.
Crosses (& other Religious Symbols), Apart from Worship & Superstition, may be Lawful
Quotes
Antoine de la Faye
A Brief Treatise on the Virtue of the Cross & the True Manner How to Honour It (London, 1599), ‘How the Cross Ought to be Honored’, no page number. de La Faye (1540-1615) served with Theodore Beza in Geneva as a reformed professor of philosophy and theology.
“In this sort may Christians honor the cross: for who makes any question but in our wars against the Jews or Mahumetists, we may bear our ensigns or arms crossed, for public testifying to the infidels that we are Christians, and our adversaries are miscreants and void of faith.
So may the cross be engrave[n] on money to show that it is the coin or stamp of a Christian prince. So may the cross be placed on the gates of cities, castles or houses, to deliver apparently that the inhabitants in such places do make profession of Christianity. So was it long since ordained that the instruments of contracts or bargaining made by public notaries should be sealed and signed with the cross, as it is read in lib. de Cod. And in such like politic considerations, we reject not the use of the material cross.”
.
Rutherford, Samuel
A Dispute Touching Scandal & Christian Liberty, pp. 89-92 in The Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646)
“Objection: Be it true that crosses were purposely appointed to be adored, yet not so now. The Jews would not admit of the image of Caesar in the Church, yet they abolished it not, but admitted it in their coin…
[Rutherford’s] Answer:
1. Though the cross were first framed for no adoration…
…
5. We remove not crosses from coinage, no more than the Jews did the image of Caesar. But we agree with them [the Jews], [Richard] Hooker [an Anglican] being judge, in banishing them from the worship.”
.
What About Wearing a Cross Around One’s Neck in Daily Life, or on Clothing or Jewelry? Usually not wise
Intro
While a cross without an image of Christ on it, representing Christianity, is lawful in itself, and such may be used for lawful purposes in some circumstances for identifying persons or things as Christian, yet the regular wearing of a cross in daily life tends to give occasion for persons (through the innately carnal heart) to associate true religion with carnal things and a show of external religion; it may also give an occasion tending towards superstition, all of which things ought to be avoided.
Rom. 14:16-17, “Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
The quote below by Gillespie has regard to vestments (religious garments for ministers), but is very pertinent to the issue of wearing crosses.
.
Quote
George Gillespie
English Popish Ceremonies (1637), pt. 2, ch. 9, p. 47.
“The replier to Dr. Mourton’s Particular Defence, observes (ch. 1, section 3), that this superstition about apparel in divine worship began first among the Frensh bishops, unto whom Caelestinus writes thus. Discernendi, etc.
‘We are to be distinguished from the common people and others by doctrine, not by garment, by conversation, not by habit [one’s dress], by the purity of mind, not by attire: for if we study to innovation, we tread underfoot the order which has been delivered unto us by our fathers, to make place to idle superstitions; wherefore we ought not lead the minds of the faithful into such things: for they are rather to be instructed than played withal: neither are we to blind and beguile their eyes, but to infuse instructions into their minds.’
In which words Caelestinus reprehends this apparel, as a novelty which tended to superstition, and made way to the mocking and deceiving of the faithful.”
.
Historical Images from the Bible, apart from Worship, are Lawful, as are Secular Images
Quotes
1500’s
Calvin, John
Institutes, bk. 1, ch. 11, section 12 trans. Beveridge
“I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all visible representations of every kind are unlawful. But as sculpture and paintings are gifts of God, what I insist for is, that both shall be used purely and lawfully, that gifts which the Lord has bestowed upon us, for his glory and our good, shall not be preposterously abused, nay, shall not be perverted to our destruction. We think it unlawful to give a visible shape to God, because God Himself has forbidden it…
Visible representations are of two classes, viz., historical, which give a representation of events, and pictorial, which merely exhibit bodily shapes and figures. The former are of some use for instruction or admonition…”
.
Theodore Beza
Lutheranism vs. Calvinism: The Classic Debate at the Colloquy of Montbeliard 1586 (Concordia Publishing House, 2017), ch. 4, pp. 469-70
“But as far as images are concerned, whether painted or sculpted, though we do not reject their use when sacred material or histories are represented, nevertheless we do not admit them in holy places without hesitation. Nor do we do we judge it prudent especially that sculpted images be set up in Temples, not because it is impious in and of itself, or because we think it not allowed, but rather because of the sad appearance of the Churches we see in Temples of the Papists, which took its origin from the use of Images and pictures…
For this reason, though I completely concede that the use of images in which sacred things and histories are represented in temples is a matter of indifference (adiaphoron), nevertheless since people easily abuse thme when they are seen in sacred places, I think they do wisely who eliminate all these things from temples.”
.
1600’s
Andrew Willet
pp. 349-50 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
“2. Though it be not simply unlawful to express in painting the visible shapes that were showed in vision to the prophets, if it be only for use and signification of the history, or if there be any other commendable use: yet to make those shapes for any use of religion, or service of God, is abominable idolatry.
Fulke, ibid.: Epiphanius saw in a Church at Anablatha, an image painted in a table, as it had been of Christ or a saint; he took it down and cut it in pieces: affirming that it was contrary to the Scripture for any image of a man to hang in the Church of Christ. The Elibertine Council, Canon 36 decreed that no pictures should be made in Churches. If no pictures, much less carved images, which are a more strong provocation to idolatry.
Augustine renders a reason why it is dangerous to have images in Churches, where there is yea but the least fear of superstition: Quis orat intuens simu∣lachrum, qui non sic afficitur, vt ab eo se exaudiri putet, nec ab eo sibi praestari, quod desideret, putet? Who (sayth he) prayeth beholding an image, and is not so affected as though he were heard of it, and hopeth not to have that performed by it which he desireth? Ps. 113.”
.
The Synopsis of Pure Theology, vol. 1 (1625; Brill), p. 481
“What we have said about images should not be taken to mean that we generally consider every use of images to be unlawful; in our view this applies in an absolute sense only to images of the Trinity. As far as creatures are concerned, apart from idolatrous worship that is contrary to the first table of the Law, and apart from indecency, shamefulness or other similar abuse contrary to the second commandment, we do not condemn the art of making images; and we don’t deny that it brings about some good for the sake of the illustration of history in public life.
But we do think that in the sacred places where God is worshipped images are not necessary, even if they do contain some historical or doctrinal use, or help to commemorate something. What is more, we think that they are dangerous, and for that reason unlawful, and that they should not be brought into Christian churches but removed and banished from them, even if they are not adored, and lest people ‘who seek Christ and his apostles not in the written books but on the painted walls meet up with error’ (Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels, Book 1, ch. 9).”
.
Ames, William
A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship, pp. 283-84 (1633)
“Whereunto it was replied that then Cassander’s images (not for adoration, but for information and incitement) are not Popish, which the Rejoinder does not only grant, but also proves it, by the consent of Calvin himself (Institutes, book 1, ch. 11, sect. 12), where he says, that historical images, or pictures, may have some use, in teaching, and putting, in remembrance.
Now for this, let it be considered that Calvin in that section speaks only of ordinary pictures for teaching and putting in remembrance of that which they represent of themselves, without any ecclesiastical institution, as certain words written do signify a certain meaning without any special institution. Such (it may be) would be the picture of Ananias in a white surplice, signifying with other pictures agreeable to the story, that Paul esteemed and called him a whited wall (Acts 23:3). But in the very next section, which is the thirteenth, Calvin, disputing against setting up of any images in churches, does sufficiently declare that he allowed of no ceremonial religious use of images, such as is of our cross and surplice.”
.
.
The History of Images in Worship
.
The Early Church
Article
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.
.
.
The Reformation
Quote
On Bucer
Steven Wedgeworth, ‘Martin Bucer: The Ecumenical Reformer’, p. 2-3
“Though his changes were sweeping [in Strasbourg], Bucer showed a pastoral spirit in going about reform. He allowed for the continuation of pilgrimages and the honoring of the saints, so long as this was not done in superstition, but merely respect. He even waited the course of six years to remove all images from the churches. He admitted that their existence was not objectionable, but the threat of abuse was too great.”
.
Article
Todd, Margo – p. 27 in The Culture of Protestantism in Early Modern Scotland (Yale University Press, 2002)
.
Book
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.
.
.
Puritan Era
Book
Spraggon, Julie – Puritan Iconoclasm during the English Civil War in Studies in Modern British Religious History Pre (Boydell, 2003)
.
.
.
Related Pages