(Calvin, Institutes on the Christian Religion 1, part 9)
Chapter 10.
10. In Scripture, the true God opposed, exclusively, to all the gods
of the heathen.
Sections.
1. Explanation of the knowledge of God resumed. God as manifested in
Scripture, the same as delineated in his works.
2. The attributes of God as described by Moses, David, and Jeremiah.
Explanation of the attributes. Summary. Uses of this knowledge.
3. Scripture, in directing us to the true God, excludes the gods of
the heathen, who, however, in some sense, held the unity of
God.
1. We formerly observed that the knowledge of God, which, in
other respects, is not obscurely exhibited in the frame of the
world, and in all the creatures, is more clearly and familiarly
explained by the word. It may now be proper to show, that in
Scripture the Lord represents himself in the same character in which
we have already seen that he is delineated in his works. A full
discussion of this subject would occupy a large space. But it will
here be sufficient to furnish a kind of index, by attending to which
the pious reader may be enabled to understand what knowledge of God
he ought chiefly to search for in Scripture, and be directed as to
the mode of conducting the search. I am not now adverting to the
peculiar covenant by which God distinguished the race of Abraham
from the rest of the nations. For when by gratuitous adoption he
admitted those who were enemies to the rank of sons, he even then
acted in the character of a Redeemer. At present, however, we are
employed in considering that knowledge which stops short at the
creation of the world, without ascending to Christ the Mediator. But
though it will soon be necessary to quote certain passages from the
New Testament, (proofs being there given both of the power of God
the Creator, and of his providence in the preservation of what he
originally created,) I wish the reader to remember what my present
purpose is, that he may not wander from the proper subject. Briefly,
then, it will be sufficient for him at present to understand how
God, the Creator of heaven and earth, governs the world which was
made by him. In every part of Scripture we meet with descriptions of
his paternal kindness and readiness to do good, and we also meet
with examples of severity which show that he is the just punisher of
the wicked, especially when they continue obstinate notwithstanding
of all his forbearance.
2. There are certain passages which contain more vivid
descriptions of the divine character, setting it before us as if his
genuine countenance were visibly portrayed. Moses, indeed, seems to
have intended briefly to comprehend whatever may be known of God by
man, when he said, "The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious,
long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy
for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and
that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto
the third and to the fourth generation," (Ex. 34: 6, 7.) Here we may
observe, firsts that his eternity and selfexistence are declared by
his magnificent name twice repeated; and, secondly, that in the
enumeration of his perfections, he is described not as he is in
himself, but in relation to us, in order that our acknowledgement of
him may be more a vivid actual impression than empty visionary
speculation. Moreover, the perfections thus enumerated are just
those which we saw shining in the heavens, and on the earth -
compassion, goodness, mercy, justice, judgement, and truth. For
power and energy are comprehended under the name Jehovah. Similar
epithets are employed by the prophets when they would fully declare
his sacred name. Not to collect a great number of passages, it may
suffice at present to refer to one Psalm, (145) in which a summary
of the divine perfections is so carefully given that not one seems
to have been omitted. Still, however, every perfection there set
down may be contemplated in creation; and, hence, such as we feel
him to be when experience is our guide, such he declares himself to
be by his word. In Jeremiah, where God proclaims the character in
which he would have us to acknowledge him, though the description is
not so full, it is substantially the same. "Let him that glorieth,"
says he, "glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that
I am the Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgement, and
righteousness, in the earth," (Jerem. 9: 24.) Assuredly, the
attributes which it is most necessary for us to know are these
three: Loving-kindness, on which alone our entire safety depends:
Judgement, which is daily exercised on the wicked, and awaits them
in a severer form, even for eternal destruction: Righteousness, by
which the faithful are preserved, and most benignly cherished. The
prophet declares, that when you understand these, you are amply
furnished with the means of glorying in God. Nor is there here any
omission of his truth, or power, or holiness, or goodness. For how
could this knowledge of his loving-kindness, judgement, and
righteousness, exist, if it were not founded on his inviolable
truth? How, again, could it be believed that he governs the earth
with judgement and righteousness, without presupposing his mighty
power? Whence, too, his loving-kindness, but from his goodness? In
fine, if all his ways are loving-kindness, judgement, and
righteousness, his holiness also is thereby conspicuous. Moreover,
the knowledge of God, which is set before us in the Scriptures, is
designed for the same purpose as that which shines in creation,
viz., that we may thereby learn to worship him with perfect
integrity of heart and unfeigned obedience, and also to depend
entirely on his goodness.
3. Here it may be proper to give a summary of the general
doctrine. First, then, let the reader observe that the Scripture, in
order to direct us to the true God, distinctly excludes and rejects
all the gods of the heathen, because religion was universally
adulterated in almost every age. It is true, indeed, that the name
of one God was everywhere known and celebrated. For those who
worshipped a multitude of gods, whenever they spoke the genuine
language of nature, simply used the name god, as if they had thought
one god sufficient. And this is shrewdly noticed by Justin Martyr,
who, to the same effect, wrote a treatise, entitled, On the Monarchy
of God, in which he shows, by a great variety of evidence, that the
unity of God is engraven on the hearts of all. Tertullian also
proves the same thing from the common forms of speech. But as all,
without exception, have in the vanity of their minds rushed or been
dragged into lying fictions, these impressions, as to the unity of
God, whatever they may have naturally been, have had no further
effect than to render men inexcusable. The wisest plainly discover
the vague wanderings of their minds when they express a wish for any
kind of Deity, and thus offer up their prayers to unknown gods. And
then, in imagining a manifold nature in God, though their ideas
concerning Jupiter, Mercury, Venus, Minerva, and others, were not so
absurd as those of the rude vulgar, they were by no means free from
the delusions of the devil. We have elsewhere observed, that however
subtle the evasions devised by philosophers, they cannot do away
with the charge of rebellion, in that all of them have corrupted the
truth of God. For this reason, Habakkuk, (2: 20,) after condemning
all idols, orders men to seek God in his temple, that the faithful
may acknowledge none but Him, who has manifested himself in his
word.
Chapter 11.
11. Impiety of attributing a visible form to God. - The setting up
of idols a defection from the true God.
There are three leading divisions in this chapter. The first
contains a refutation of those who ascribe a visible form to God,
(s. 1 and 2,) with an answer to the objection of those who, because
it is said that God manifested his presence by certain symbols, use
it as a defence of their error, (s. 3 and 4.) Various arguments are
afterwards adduced, disposing of the trite objection from Gregory's
expression, that images are the books of the unlearned, (s. 5-7.)
The second division of the chapter relates to the origin of idols or
images, and the adoration of them, as approved by the Papists, (s.
8-10.) Their evasion refuted, (s. 11.) The third division treats of
the use and abuse of images, (s. 12.) Whether it is expedient to
have them in Christian Churches, (s. 13.) The concluding part
contains a refutation of the second Council of Nice, which very
absurdly contends for images in opposition to divine truth, and even
to the disparagement of the Christian name.
Sections.
1. God is opposed to idols, that all may know he is the only fit
witness to himself. He expressly forbids any attempt to
represent him by a bodily shape.
2. Reasons for this prohibition from Moses, Isaiah, and Paul. The
complaint of a heathen. It should put the worshipers of idols
to shame.
3. Consideration of an objection taken from various passages in
Moses. The Cherubim and Seraphim show that images are not fit
to represent divine mysteries. The Cherubim belonged to the
tutelage of the Law.
4. The materials of which idols are made, abundantly refute the
fiction of idolaters. Confirmation from Isaiah and others.
Absurd precaution of the Greeks.
5. Objection, - That images are the books of the unlearned.
Objection answered, 1. Scripture declares images to be teachers
of vanity and lies.
6. Answer continued, 2. Ancient Theologians condemn the formation
and worship of idols.
7. Answer continued, - 3. The use of images condemned by the luxury
and meretricious ornaments given to them in Popish Churches. 4.
The Church must be trained in true piety by another method.
8. The second division of the chapter. Origin of idols or images.
Its rise shortly after the flood. Its continual progress.
9. Of the worship of images. Its nature. A pretext of idolaters
refuted. Pretexts of the heathen. Genius of idolaters.
10. Evasion of the Papists. Their agreement with ancient idolaters.
11. Refutation of another evasion or sophism, viz., the distinction
of dulia and latria.
12. Third division of the chapter, viz., the use and abuse of
images.
13. Whether it is expedient to have images in Christian temples.
14. Absurd defence of the worship of images by the second so-called
Council of Nice. Sophisms or perversions of Scripture in
defence of images in churches.
15. Passages adduced in support of the worship of images.
16. The blasphemous expressions of some ancient idolaters approved
by not a few of the more modern, both in word and deed.
1. As Scripture, in accommodation to the rude and gross
intellect of man, usually speaks in popular terms, so whenever its
object is to discriminate between the true God and false deities, it
opposes him in particular to idols; not that it approves of what is
taught more elegantly and subtilely by philosophers, but that it may
the better expose the folly, nay, madness of the world in its
inquiries after God, so long as every one clings to his own
speculations. This exclusive definition, which we uniformly meet
with in Scripture, annihilates every deity which men frame for
themselves of their own accord - God himself being the only fit
witness to himself. Meanwhile, seeing that this brutish stupidity
has overspread the globe, men longing after visible forms of God,
and so forming deities of wood and stone, silver and gold, or of any
other dead and corruptible matter, we must hold it as a first
principle, that as often as any form is assigned to God, his glory
is corrupted by an impious lie. In the Law, accordingly, after God
had claimed the glory of divinity for himself alone, when he comes
to show what kind of worship he approves and rejects, he immediately
adds, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any
likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth
beneath, or in the water under the earth," (Exod. 20: 4.) By these
words he curbs any licentious attempt we might make to represent him
by a visible shape, and briefly enumerates all the forms by which
superstition had begun, even long before, to turn his truth into a
lie. For we know that the Sun was worshipped by the Persian. As many
stars as the foolish nations saw in the sky, so many gods they
imagined them to be. Then to the Egyptians, every animal was a
figure of God. The Greeks, again, plumed themselves on their
superior wisdom in worshipping God under the human form, (Maximum
Tyrius Platonic. Serm. 38.) But God makes no comparison between
images, as if one were more, and another less befitting; he rejects,
without exception, all shapes and pictures, and other symbols by
which the superstitious imagine they can bring him near to them.
2. This may easily be inferred from the reasons which he
annexes to his prohibition. First, it is said in the books of Moses,
(Deut. 4: 15,) "Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye
saw no manner of similitude in the day that the Lord spake unto you
in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire, lest ye corrupt yourselves,
and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure," &c. We
see how plainly God declares against all figures, to make us aware
that all longing after such visible shapes is rebellion against him.
Of the prophets, it will be sufficient to mention Isaiah, who is the
most copious on this subjects (Isaiah 40: 18; 41:7,29; 45:9; 46:5,)
in order to show how the majesty of God is defiled by an absurd and
indecorous fiction, when he who is incorporeal is assimilated to
corporeal matter; he who is invisible to a visible image; he who is
a spirit to an inanimate object; and he who fills all space to a bit
of paltry wood, or stone, or gold. Paul, too, reasons in the same
way, "Forasmuch, then, as we are the offspring of God, we ought not
to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone,
graven by art and man's device," (Acts 17: 29.) Hence it is
manifest, that whatever statues are set up or pictures painted to
represent God, are utterly displeasing to him, as a kind of insults
to his majesty. And is it strange that the Holy Spirit thunders such
responses from heaven, when he compels even blind and miserable
idolaters to make a similar confession on the earth? Seneca's
complaint, as given by Augustine De Civit. Dei, c. 10, is well
known. He says "The sacred immortal, and invisible gods they exhibit
in the meanest and most ignoble materials, and dress them in the
clothing of men and beasts; some confound the sexes, and form a
compound out of different bodies, giving the name of deities to
objects, which, if they were met alive, would be deemed monsters."
Hence, again, it is obvious, that the defenders of images resort to
a paltry quibbling evasion, when they pretend that the Jews were
forbidden to use them on account of their proneness to superstition;
as if a prohibition which the Lord founds on his own eternal
essences and the uniform course of nature, could be restricted to a
single nation. Besides, when Paul refuted the error of giving a
bodily shape to God, he was addressing not Jews, but Athenians.
3. It is true that the Lord occasionally manifested his
presence by certain signs, so that he was said to be seen face to
face; but all the signs he ever employed were in apt accordance with
the scheme of doctrine, and, at the same time, gave plain intimation
of his incomprehensible essence. For the cloud, and smoke, and
flame, though they were symbols of heavenly glory, (Deut. 4: 11,)
curbed men's minds as with a bridle, that they might not attempt to
penetrate farther. Therefore, even Moses (to whom, of all men, God
manifested himself most familiarly) was not permitted though he
prayed for it, to behold that face, but received for answer, that
the refulgence was too great for man, (Exod. 33: 20.) The Holy
Spirit appeared under the form of a dove, but as it instantly
vanished, who does not see that in this symbol of a moment, the
faithful were admonished to regard the Spirit as invisible, to be
contented with his power and grace, and not call for any external
figure? God sometimes appeared in the form of a man, but this was in
anticipation of the future revelation in Christ, and, therefore, did
not give the Jews the least pretext for setting up a symbol of Deity
under the human form. The mercy-seat, also, (Exod. 25: 17,18,21,)
where, under the Law, God exhibited the presence of his power, was
so framed, as to intimate that God is best seen when the mind rises
in admiration above itself: the Cherubim with outstretched wings
shaded, and the veil covered it, while the remoteness of the place
was in itself a sufficient concealment. It is therefore mere
infatuation to attempt to defend images of God and the saints by the
example of the Cherubim. For what, pray, did these figures mean, if
not that images are unfit to represent the mysteries of God, since
they were so formed as to cover the mercy-seat with their wings,
thereby concealing the view of God, not only from the eye, but from
every human sense, and curbing presumption? To this we may add, that
the prophets depict the Seraphim, who are exhibited to us in vision,
as having their faces veiled; thus intimating, that the refulgence
of the divine glory is so great, that even the angels cannot gaze
upon it directly, while the minute beams which sparkle in the face
of angels are shrouded from our view. Moreover, all men of sound
judgement acknowledge that the Cherubim in question belonged to the
old tutelage of the law. It is absurd, therefore, to bring them
forward as an example for our age. For that period of puerility, if
I may so express it, to which such rudiments were adapted, has
passed away. And surely it is disgraceful, that heathen writers
should be more skilful interpreters of Scripture than the Papists.
Juvenal (Sat. 14) holds up the Jews to derision for worshipping the
thin clouds and firmament. This he does perversely and impiously;
still, in denying that any visible shape of Deity existed among
them, he speaks more accurately than the Papists, who prate about
there having been some visible image. In the fact that the people
every now and then rushed forth with boiling haste in pursuit of
idols, just like water gushing forth with violence from a copious
spring, let us learn how prone our nature is to idolatry, that we
may not, by throwing the whole blame of a common vice upon the Jews,
be led away by vain and sinful enticements to sleep the sleep of
death.
4. To the same effect are the words of the Psalmist, (Psalms
115: 4, 135: 15,) "Their idols are silver and gold, the works of
men's hands." From the materials of which they are made, he infers
that they are not gods, taking it for granted that every human
device concerning God is a dull fiction. He mentions silver and gold
rather than clay or stone, that neither splendour nor cost may
procure reverence to idols. He then draws a general conclusion, that
nothing is more unlikely than that gods should be formed of any kind
of inanimate matter. Man is forced to confess that he is but the
creature of a day, (see Book 3: c. 9 s. 2,) and yet would have the
metal which he has deified to be regarded as God. Whence had idols
their origin, but from the will of man? There was ground, therefore,
for the sarcasm of the heathen poet, (Hor. Sat. I. 8,) "I was once
the trunk of a fig-tree, a useless log, when the tradesman,
uncertain whether he should make me a stool, &c., chose rather that
I should be a god." In other words, an earth-born creature, who
breathes out his life almost every moment, is able by his own device
to confer the name and honour of deity on a lifeless trunk. But as
that Epicurean poet, in indulging his wit, had no regard for
religion, without attending to his jeers or those of his fellows,
let the rebuke of the prophet sting, nay, cut us to the heart, when
he speaks of the extreme infatuation of those who take a piece of
wood to kindle a fire to warm themselves, bake bread, roast or boil
flesh, and out of the residue make a god, before which they
prostrate themselves as suppliants, (Isaiah 44: 16.) Hence, the same
prophet, in another place, not only charges idolaters as guilty in
the eye of the law, but upbraids them for not learning from the
foundations of the earth, nothing being more incongruous than to
reduce the immense and incomprehensible Deity to the stature of a
few feet. And yet experience shows that this monstrous proceeding,
though palpably repugnant to the order of nature, is natural to man.
It is, moreover, to be observed, that by the mode of expression
which is employed, every form of superstition is denounced. Being
works of men, they have no authority from God, (Isa. 2: 8, 31: 7;
Hos. 14: 3; Mic. 5: 13;) and, therefore, it must be regarded as a
fixed principle, that all modes of worship devised by man are
detestable. The infatuation is placed in a still stronger light by
the Psalmist, (Psalm 115: 8,) when he shows how aid is implored from
dead and senseless objects, by beings who have been endued with
intelligence for the very purpose of enabling them to know that the
whole universe is governed by Divine energy alone. But as the
corruption of nature hurries away all mankind collectively and
individually into this madness, the Spirit at length thunders forth
a dreadful imprecation, "They that make them are like unto them, so
is every one that trusteth in them." And it is to be observed, that
the thing forbidden is likeness, whether sculptured or otherwise.
This disposes of the frivolous precaution taken by the Greek Church.
They think they do admirably, because they have no sculptured shape
of Deity, while none go greater lengths in the licentious use of
pictures. The Lord, however, not only forbids any image of himself
to be erected by a statuary, but to be formed by any artist
whatever, because every such image is sinful and insulting to his
majesty.
5. I am not ignorant, indeed, of the assertion, which is now
more than threadbare, "that images are the books of the unlearned."
So said Gregory: a but the Holy Spirit goes a very different
decision; and had Gregory got his lesson in this matter in the
Spirit's school, he never would have spoken as he did. For when
Jeremiah declares that "the stock is a doctrine of vanities," (Jer.
10: 8,) and Habakkuk, "that the molten image" is "a teacher of
lies," the general doctrine to be inferred certainly is, that every
thing respecting God which is learned from images is futile and
false. If it is objected that the censure of the prophets is
directed against those who perverted images to purposes of impious
superstition, I admit it to be so; but I add, (what must be obvious
to all,) that the prophets utterly condemn what the Papists hold to
be an undoubted axiom, viz., that images are substitutes for books.
For they contrast images with the true God, as if the two were of an
opposite nature, and never could be made to agree. In the passages
which I lately quoted, the conclusion drawn is, that seeing there is
one true God whom the Jews worshipped, visible shapes made for the
purpose of representing him are false and wicked fictions; and all,
therefore, who have recourse to them for knowledge are miserably
deceived. In short, were it not true that all such knowledge is
fallacious and spurious, the prophets would not condemn it in such
general terms. This at least I maintain, that when we teach that all
human attempts to give a visible shape to God are vanity and lies,
we do nothing more than state verbatim what the prophets taught.
6. Moreover, let Lactantius and Eusebius be read on this
subject. These writers assume it as an indisputable fact, that all
the beings whose images were erected were originally men. In like
manner, Augustine distinctly declares, that it is unlawful not only
to worship images, but to dedicate them. And in this he says no more
than had been long before decreed by the Libertine Council, the
thirty-sixth Canon of which is, "There must be no pictures used in
churches: Let nothing which is adored or worshipped be painted on
walls." But the most memorable passage of all is that which
Augustine quotes in another place from Varro, and in which he
expressly concurs: - "Those who first introduced images of the gods
both took away fear and brought in error." Were this merely the
saying of Varro, it might perhaps be of little weight, though it
might well make us ashamed, that a heathen, groping as it were in
darkness, should have attained to such a degree of light, as to see
that corporeal images are unworthy of the majesty of God, and that,
because they diminish reverential fear and encourage error. The
sentiment itself bears witness that it was uttered with no less
truth than shrewdness. But Augustine, while he borrows it from
Varro, adduces it as conveying his own opinion. At the outset,
indeed, he declares that the first errors into which men fell
concerning God did not originate with images, but increased with
them, as if new fuel had been added. Afterwards, he explains how the
fear of God was thereby extinguished or impaired, his presence being
brought into contempt by foolish, and childish, and absurd
representations. The truth of this latter remark I wish we did not
so thoroughly experience. Whosoever, therefore, is desirous of being
instructed in the true knowledge of God must apply to some other
teacher than images.
7. Let Papists, then, if they have any sense of shame,
henceforth desist from the futile plea, that images are the books of
the unlearned - a plea so plainly refuted by innumerable passages of
Scripture. And yet were I to admit the plea, it would not be a valid
defence of their peculiar idols. It is well known what kind of
monsters they obtrude upon us as divine. For what are the pictures
or statues to which they append the names of saints, but exhibitions
of the most shameless luxury or obscenity? Were any one to dress
himself after their model, he would deserve the pillory. Indeed,
brothels exhibit their inmates more chastely and modestly dressed
than churches do images intended to represent virgins. The dress of
the martyrs is in no respect more becoming. Let Papists then have
some little regard to decency in decking their idols, if they would
give the least plausibility to the false allegation, that they are
books of some kind of sanctity. But even then we shall answer, that
this is not the method in which the Christian people should be
taught in sacred places. Very different from these follies is the
doctrine in which God would have them to be there instructed. His
injunction is, that the doctrine common to all should there be set
forth by the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the
sacraments, - a doctrine to which little heed can be given by those
whose eyes are carried too and fro gazing at idols. And who are the
unlearned, whose rudeness admits of being taught by images only?
Just those whom the Lord acknowledges for his disciples; those whom
he honours with a revelation of his celestial philosophy, and
desires to be trained in the saving mysteries of his kingdom. I
confess, indeed, as matters now are, there are not a few in the
present day who cannot want such books. But, I ask, whence this
stupidity, but just because they are defrauded of the only doctrine
which was fit to instruct them? The simple reason why those who had
the charge of churches resigned the office of teaching to idols was,
because they themselves were dumb. Paul declares, that by the true
preaching of the gospel Christ is portrayed and in a manner
crucified before our eyes, (Gal. 3: 1.) Of what use, then, were the
erection in churches of so many crosses of wood and stone, silver
and gold, if this doctrine were faithfully and honestly preached,
viz., Christ died that he might bear our curse upon the tree, that
he might expiate our sins by the sacrifice of his body, wash them in
his blood, and, in short, reconcile us to God the Father? From this
one doctrine the people would learn more than from a thousand
crosses of wood and stone. As for crosses of gold and silver, it may
be true that the avaricious give their eyes and minds to them more
eagerly than to any heavenly instructor.
8. In regard to the origin of idols, the statement contained in
the Book of Wisdom has been received with almost universal consent,
viz., that they originated with those who bestowed this honour on
the dead, from a superstitious regard to their memory. I admit that
this perverse practice is of very high antiquity, and I deny not
that it was a kind of torch by which the infatuated proneness of
mankind to idolatry was kindled into a greater blaze. I do not,
however, admit that it was the first origin of the practice. That
idols were in use before the prevalence of that ambitious
consecration of the images of the dead, frequently adverted to by
profane writers, is evident from the words of Moses, (Gen. 31: 19.)
When he relates that Rachel stole her father's images, he speaks of
the use of idols as a common vice. Hence we may infer, that the
human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols. There was a
kind of renewal of the world at the deluge, but before many years
elapse, men are forging gods at will. There is reason to believe,
that in the holy Patriarch's lifetime his grandchildren were given
to idolatry: so that he must with his own eyes, not without the
deepest grief, have seen the earth polluted with idols - that earth
whose iniquities God had lately purged with so fearful a judgement.
For Joshua testifies, (Josh. 24: 2,) that Torah and Nachor, even
before the birth of Abraham, were the worshipers of false gods. The
progeny of Shem having so speedily revolted, what are we to think of
the posterity of Ham, who had been cursed long before in their
father? Thus, indeed, it is. The human mind, stuffed as it is with
presumptuous rashness, dares to imagine a god suited to its own
capacity; as it labours under dullness, nay, is sunk in the grossest
ignorance, it substitutes vanity and an empty phantom in the place
of God. To these evils another is added. The god whom man has thus
conceived inwardly he attempts to embody outwardly. The mind, in
this way, conceives the idol, and the hand gives it birth. That
idolatry has its origin in the idea which men have, that God is not
present with them unless his presence is carnally exhibited, appears
from the example of the Israelites: "Up," said they, "make us gods,
which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that
brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wet not what is become of
him," (Exod. 22: 1.) They knew, indeed, that there was a God whose
mighty power they had experienced in so many miracles, but they had
no confidence of his being near to them, if they did not with their
eyes behold a corporeal symbol of his presence, as an attestation to
his actual government. They desired, therefore, to be assured by the
image which went before them, that they were journeying under Divine
guidance. And daily experience shows, that the flesh is always
restless until it has obtained some figment like itself, with which
it may vainly solace itself as a representation of God. In
consequence of this blind passion men have, almost in all ages since
the world began, set up signs on which they imagined that God was
visibly depicted to their eyes.
9. After such a figment is formed, adoration forthwith ensues:
for when once men imagined that they beheld God in images, they also
worshipped him as being there. At length their eyes and minds
becoming wholly engrossed by them, they began to grow more and more
brutish, gazing and wondering as if some divinity were actually
before them. It hence appears that men do not fall away to the
worship of images until they have imbibed some idea of a grosser
description: not that they actually believe them to be gods, but
that the power of divinity somehow or other resides in them.
Therefore, whether it be God or a creature that is imaged, the
moment you fall prostrate before it in veneration, you are so far
fascinated by superstition. For this reason, the Lord not only
forbade the erection of statues to himself, but also the
consecration of titles and stones which might be set up for
adoration. For the same reason, also, the second commandment has an
additional part concerning adoration. For as soon as a visible form
is given to God, his power also is supposed to be annexed to it. So
stupid are men, that wherever they figure God, there they fix him,
and by necessary consequence proceed to adore him. It makes no
difference whether they worship the idol simply, or God in the idol;
it is always idolatry when divine honours are paid to an idol, be
the colour what it may. And because God wills not to be worshipped
superstitiously whatever is bestowed upon idols is so much robbed
from him.
Let those attend to this who set about hunting for miserable
pretexts in defence of the execrable idolatry in which for many past
ages true religion has been buried and sunk. It is said that the
images are not accounted gods. Nor were the Jews so utterly
thoughtless as not to remember that there was a God whose hand led
them out of Egypt before they made the calf. Indeed, Aaron saying,
that these were the gods which had brought them out of Egypt, they
intimated, in no ambiguous terms, that they wished to retain God,
their deliverer, provided they saw him going before them in the
calf. Nor are the heathen to be deemed to have been so stupid as not
to understand that God was something else than wood and stone. For
they changed the images at pleasure, but always retained the same
gods in their minds; besides, they daily consecrated new images
without thinking they were making new gods. Read the excuses which
Augustine tells us were employed by the idolaters of his time,
(August. in Ps. 113). The vulgar, when accused, replied that they
did not worship the visible object, but the Deity which dwelt in it
invisibly. Those, again, who had what he calls a more refined
religion, said, that they neither worshipped the image, nor any
inhabiting Deity, but by means of the corporeal image beheld a
symbol of that which it was their duty to worship. What then? All
idolaters whether Jewish or Gentile, were actuated in the very way
which has been described. Not contented with spiritual
understanding, they thought that images would give them a surer and
nearer impression. When once this preposterous representation of God
was adopted, there was no limit until, deluded every now and then by
new impostures, they came to think that God exerted his power in
images. Still the Jews were persuaded, that under such images they
worshipped the eternal God, the one true Lord of heaven and earth;
and the Gentiles, also, in worshipping their own false gods,
supposed them to dwell in heaven.
10. It is an impudent falsehood to deny that the thing which
was thus anciently done is also done in our day. For why do men
prostrate themselves before images? Why, when in the act of praying,
do they turn towards them as to the ears of God? It is indeed true,
as Augustine says, (in Ps. 113,) that no person thus prays or
worships, looking at an image, without being impressed with the idea
that he is heard by it, or without hoping that what he wishes will
be performed by it. Why are such distinctions made between different
images of the same God, that while one is passed by, or receives
only common honour, another is worshipped with the highest
solemnities? Why do they fatigue themselves with votive pilgrimages
to images while they have many similar ones at home? Why at the
present time do they fight for them to blood and slaughter, as for
their altars and hearths, showing more willingness to part with the
one God than with their idols? And yet I am not now detailing the
gross errors of the vulgar - errors almost infinite in number, and
in possession of almost all hearts. I am only referring to what
those profess who are most desirous to clear themselves of idolatry.
They say, we do not call them our gods. Nor did either the Jews or
Gentiles of old so call them; and yet the prophets never ceased to
charge them with their adulteries with wood and stone for the very
acts which are daily done by those who would be deemed Christians,
namely, for worshipping God carnally in wood and stone.
11. I am not ignorant, however, and I have no wish to disguise
the fact, that they endeavour to evade the charge by means of a more
subtle distinction, which shall afterwards be fully considered, (see
infra, s. 16, and chap. 12 s. 2.) The worship which they pay to
their images they cloak with the name of "idolodulia", and deny to
be "idolatria". So they speaks holding that the worship which they
call "dulia" may, without insult to God, be paid to statues and
pictures. Hence, they think themselves blameless if they are only
the servants, and not the worshipers, of idols; as if it were not a
lighter matter to worship than to serve. And yet, while they take
refuge in a Greek term, they very childishly contradict themselves.
For the Greek word "latreuein" having no other meaning than to
worship, what they say is just the same as if they were to confess
that they worship their images without worshipping them. They cannot
object that I am quibbling upon words. The fact is, that they only
betray their ignorance while they attempt to throw dust in the eyes
of the simple. But how eloquent soever they may be, they will never
prove by their eloquence that one and the same thing makes two. Let
them show how the things differ if they would be thought different
from ancient idolaters. For as a murderer or an adulterer will not
escape conviction by giving some adventitious name to his crime, so
it is absurd for them to expect that the subtle device of a name
will exculpate them, if they, in fact, differ in nothing from
idolaters whom they themselves are forced to condemn. But so far are
they from proving that their case is different, that the source of
the whole evil consists in a preposterous rivalship with them, while
they with their minds devise, and with their hands execute,
symbolical shapes of God.
12. I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all
visible representations of every kind are unlawful. But as sculpture
and painting 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, and because it cannot be done
without, in some degree, tarnishing his glory. And lest any should
think that we are singular in this opinion, those acquainted with
the productions of sound divines will find that they have always
disapproved of it. If it be unlawful to make any corporeal
representation of God, still more unlawful must it be to worship
such a representation instead of God, or to worship God in it. The
only things, therefore, which ought to be painted or sculptured, are
things which can be presented to the eye; the majesty of God, which
is far beyond the reach of any eye, must not be dishonored by
unbecoming representations. 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. The latter, so
far as I can see, are only fitted for amusement. And yet it is
certain, that the latter are almost the only kind which have
hitherto been exhibited in churches. Hence we may infer, that the
exhibition was not the result of judicious selection, but of a
foolish and inconsiderate longing. I say nothing as to the improper
and unbecoming form in which they are presented, or the wanton
license in which sculptors and painters have here indulged, (a point
to which I alluded a little ago, supra, s. 7.) I only say, that
though they were otherwise faultless, they could not be of any
utility in teaching.
13. But, without reference to the above distinction, let us
here consider, whether it is expedient that churches should contain
representations of any kind, whether of events or human forms.
First, then, if we attach any weight to the authority of the ancient
Church, let us remember, that for five hundred years, during which
religion was in a more prosperous condition, and a purer doctrine
flourished, Christian churches were completely free from visible
representations, (see Preface, and Book 4, c. 9 s. 9.) Hence their
first admission as an ornament to churches took place after the
purity of the ministry had somewhat degenerated. I will not dispute
as to the rationality of the grounds on which the first introduction
of them proceeded, but if you compare the two periods, you will find
that the latter had greatly declined from the purity of the times
when images were unknown. What then? Are we to suppose that those
holy fathers, if they had judged the thing to be useful and
salutary, would have allowed the Church to be so long without it?
Undoubtedly, because they saw very little or no advantage, and the
greatest danger in it, they rather rejected it intentionally and on
rational grounds, than omitted it through ignorance or carelessness.
This is clearly attested by Augustine in these words, (Ep. 49. See
also De Civit. Dei, lib 4 c. 31) "When images are thus placed aloft
in seats of honour, to be beheld by those who are praying or
sacrificing, though they have neither sense nor life, yet from
appearing as if they had both, they affect weak minds just as if
they lived and breathed," &c. And again, in another passage, (in Ps.
112) he says, "The effect produced, and in a manner extorted, by the
bodily shape, is, that the mind, being itself in a body, imagines
that a body which is so like its oven must be similarly affected,"
&c. A little farther on he says, "Images are more capable of giving
a wrong bent to an unhappy soul, from having mouth, eyes, ears, and
feet, than of correcting it, as they neither speak, nor see, nor
hear, nor walk." This undoubtedly is the reason why John (1 John 5:
21) enjoins us to beware, not only of the worship of idols, but also
of idols themselves. And from the fearful infatuation under which
the world has hitherto laboured, almost to the entire destruction of
piety, we know too well from experience that the moment images
appear in churches, idolatry has as it were raised its banner;
because the folly of manhood cannot moderate itself, but forthwith
falls away to superstitious worship. Even were the danger less
imminent, still, 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
of which, if we believe the Papists, cannot possibly be compensated!
14. Enough, I believe, would have been said on this subject,
were I not in a manner arrested by the Council of Nice; not the
celebrated Council which Constantine the Great assembled, but one
which was held eight hundred years ago by the orders and under the
auspices of the Empress Irene. This Council decreed not only that
images were to be used in churches, but also that they were to be
worshipped. Every thing, therefore, that I have said, is in danger
of suffering great prejudice from the authority of this Synod. To
confess the truth, however, I am not so much moved by this
consideration, as by a wish to make my readers aware of the lengths
to which the infatuation has been carried by those who had a
greater fondness for images than became Christians. But let us first
dispose of this matter. Those who defend the use of images appeal to
that Synod for support. But there is a refutation extant which bears
the name of Charlemagne, and which is proved by its style to be a
production of that period. It gives the opinions delivered by the
bishops who were present, and the arguments by which they supported
them. John, deputy of the Eastern Churches, said, "God created man
in his own image," and thence inferred that images ought to be used.
He also thought there was a recommendation of images in the
following passage, "Show me thy face, for it is beautiful." Another,
in order to prove that images ought to be placed on altars, quoted
the passage, "No man, when he has lighted a candle, putteth it under
a bushel." Another, to show the utility of looking at images, quoted
a verse of the Psalms "The light of thy countenance, O Lord, has
shone upon us." Another laid hold of this similitude: As the
Patriarchs used the sacrifices of the Gentiles, so ought Christians
to use the images of saints instead of the idols of the Gentiles.
They also twisted to the same effect the words, "Lord, I have loved
the beauty of thy house." But the most ingenious interpretation was
the following, "As we have heard, so also have we seen;" therefore,
God is known not merely by the hearing of the word, but also by the
seeing of images. Bishop Theodore was equally acute: "God," says he,
"is to be admired in his saints;" and it is elsewhere said, "To the
saints who are on earth;" therefore this must refer to images. In
short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to
quote them.
15. When they treat of adoration, great stress is laid on the
worship of Pharaoh, the staff of Joseph, and the inscription which
Jacob set up. In this last case they not only pervert the meaning of
Scripture, but quote what is nowhere to be found. Then the passages,
"Worship at his footstool" - "Worship in his holy mountain" - "The
rulers of the people will worship before thy face," seem to them
very solid and apposite proofs. Were one, with the view of turning
the defenders of images into ridicule, to put words into their
mouths, could they be made to utter greater and grosser absurdities?
But to put an end to all doubt on the subject of images, Theodosius
Bishop of Mira confirms the propriety of worshipping them by the
dreams of his archdeacon, which he adduces with as much gravity as
if he were in possession of a response from heaven. Let the patrons
of images now go and urge us with the decree of this Synod, as if
the venerable Fathers did not bring themselves into utter discredit
by handling Scripture so childishly, or wresting it so shamefully
and profanely.
16. I come now to monstrous impieties, which it is strange they
ventured to utter, and twice strange that all men did not protest
against with the utmost detestation. It is right to expose this
frantic and flagitious extravagance, and thereby deprive the worship
of images of that gloss of antiquity in which Papists seek to deck
it. Theodosius Bishop of Amora fires oft an anathema at all who
object to the worship of images. Another attributes all the
calamities of Greece and the East to the crime of not having
worshipped them. Of what punishment then are the Prophets, Apostles,
and Martyrs worthy, in whose day no images existed? They afterwards
add, that if the statue of the Emperor is met with odours and
incense, much more are the images of saints entitled to the honour.
Constantius, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, professes to embrace
images with reverence, and declares that he will pay them the
respect which is due to the ever blessed Trinity: every person
refusing to do the same thing he anathematises and classes with
Marcionites and Manichees. Lest you should think this the private
opinion of an individual, they all assent. Nay, John the Eastern
legate, carried still farther by his zeal, declares it would be
better to allow a city to be filled with brothels than be denied the
worship of images. At last it is resolved with one consent that the
Samaritans are the worst of all heretics, and that the enemies of
images are worse than the Samaritans. But that the play may not pass
off without the accustomed Plaudite, the whole thus concludes,
"Rejoice and exult, ye who, having the image of Christ, offer
sacrifice to it." Where is now the distinction of latria and dulia
with which they would throw dust in all eyes, human and divine? The
Council unreservedly relies as much on images as on the living God.
Calvin, Institutes on the Christian Religion, Volume 1
(continued in part 10...)
---------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-04:cvin1-09.txt
.
