When, therefore, it is said that we do not worship images (which is not true, for we do worship them more reverently than any heathen ever worshipped idols; but let us grant this), for all that the conclusion does not follow:

It is, then, permissible to have images; for two reasons:

[1.] First, because we have the worship of idols so expressly forbidden in both the New Testament and the Old. For this is the distinction between the worshippers of the one true God and idolaters, that we worship a God who is invisible and who forbids us to make any visible representation of Him, while they clothe their gods with any shape they please. There-

fore, Christians have ever been bound not to fashion an image in representation of Him whom they worshipped, lest they should walk after the manner of the impious, much less in representation of those whom they were in no wise permitted to worship even when still upon earth. The objection that some persons bring up as to Christ is so clumsy that ever since entering upon this subject answering all their nonsense has caused me disgust. For how can they help knowing that, in so far as He is visible and human, Christ is in no wise to be worshipped, but only in so far as He is God? Therefore, when they say that Christ can be visibly represented as God, they are mistaken; for no art can or should represent His divine nature. And if they say that as man He can be represented, I shall ask whether or not it is permisible to worship the image of Him thus represented. They will doubtless say, “No”; for no image whatever is to be worshipped. Then, if we may not worship this, may we worship the pure humanity of Christ? They will again say, “No.” What, then, do we understand when we say that Christ is worshipped in the wood of the cross? His divine nature? But that cannot be given shape. His human nature? But that should not be worshipped in this way, much less any image of those who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. But who can answer in short compass the contentions of all? In that booklet which I promised above I shall, with God’s help, clearly shatter these frivolous objections. [II.] Second, that it is not permissible to have images, even if they are not worshipped, is plain from the fact that the reason which leads them to assert that images can be made use of betrays our vast coldness; first, in that there is no love of God in us, for that is a sufficient spur to right living; second, in that it is not safe to conform to any image but His who wishes not to be represented in visible form. When, therefore, we feel the cooling of the love of God within us, in consequence of which we are lukewarm towards all divine works, no images can kindle our hearts to the love of God. An image can rouse some trifling and fleeting emotion, but it cannot kindle love. An image of wood can kindle a fire and burn the victim, but naught can burn up the brutal affections upon the altar of the heart save the divine Spirit.

I have made these brief controversial remarks only in order to afford a foretaste of the booklet hereafter to be published, that meanwhile those who defend statues and other representations may see that, if the matter is to be settled by reasoning, it will be more evident that no images at all can be kept, than that they are ἀδιάφορα [2 matter of indifference] where they cannot fail to have the appearance of evil. Not that my feeling is different from what I said in the beginning, namely, that they ought to be done away with when they are worshipped. Why, then, in this matter, which is set forth with such distinet and clear ordinances all through the Scriptures, do we split hairs, especially as nobody attacks any images but those that are worshipped, and as no image, if set up in the place where we put the things we worship, can fail to be rendered more impressive and august? But the greater and more precious it is in our sight the less is our trust in God. Since there are so many important passages in Scripture on the subject, it is better for me to note them by book and chapter than to give them here in full. Read, therefore, Exodus 20, in which chapter you will find mention of gold and silver statues; Exod. 34: 17, Exod. 19: 1, Lev. 26: 1, Deut. 4: 15-19, Deut. 5: 8, I Sam. 7: 3, Num. 25: 4-5, Deut. 7: 5, Deut. 11: 28, Deut. 13: 6-9, Deut. 27: 15, Josh. 24: 23, Judg. 10: 13, Ps. 96: 5, Ps. 115: 4, Isa. 42: 8, Isa. 44: 9, Jer. 10: 8, Jer. 13: 27, Ezek. 14: 7, Ezek. 6: 6, Mie. 1: 7, Hab. 2: 18f., and II Kings 18: 4, II Kings 10: 27, II Kings 23: 4-15, II Chron. 31:1, I Cor. 5:10, Acts 15:29, I Cor. 5:10, Acts 15:29, I Cor. 8:1-8, I Cor. 10: 19, I Cor. 12:2, 66]. δ: 20, I Thess. 1:9, I Pet. 4:3, I John 5:21. “There are also many besides these, but let him who is not content with these leaf through the whole Bible. Now, when you examine these individual passages, kind reader, you will find in some places strange gods forbidden, in others images, and in others both strange gods and images together. This you are not to understand in the sense that—as the contentious say, but without the authority of the word—strange gods only are prohibited, or that images are considered as gods, or put in their place, although sometimes the passages cited seem verbally to imply this. If God had wished to forbid strange Gods only, it would

be of no use for Him to speak of images; for if, as our friends say, it was permissible to have images, why does He forbid it? Again, if the images and the strange gods are the same thing, images ought certainly as little to be worshipped as strange gods. But if strange gods are forbidden by themselves and images by themselves, why do we not see that there is no further room for argument? No one denies that strange gods ought not to be worshipped, for the reason that they are forbidden by the mouth of the Lord. When, therefore, we admit that images are just as much forbidden as the gods whose images they are, why do we not in the same way admit that we cannot have images at all, any more than strange gods? The reason is that we still have many, or strange, gods. I am sorry to have to say this, for it is a secret disease and those who suffer from it do not acknowledge it. Every man makes a god of that which he hopes can help him when occasion demands. Now let us see whether all the statues and most of the images have not been placed in the churches to remind us of those helpers to whom we are to run in various ills. We set up a wooden Magdalene to remind us of her to whom many sins were forgiven; not because we wish to imitate her by sitting at the feet of the Lord and listening to and following His word, but because we have the hope that this saint, as she once, overcome by the weakness of the flesh, yielded overmuch to her natural desires, so today also will plead before God for those guilty of fornication, nay, will pardon fornication itself. For there have been those who ascribed to the saints what belongs to God alone. We have made this saint a goddess, and no one can truly deny it; and we have worshipped her image for its own sake, as doing a thing acceptable to this goddess of ours. And do we still urge that these images be kept? Do we not all see that men run for help to the places in which images have been placed? To a certain Anna—whether the mother of the Virgin Mother of God was called by that name is not sure from the Holy Scriptures, but let us grant that this was her nameto Saint Anna, I say, prayer has here and there been made, but at the same time statues were everywhere set up, and as soon as they were set up the people prostrated themselves before them, thinking they would be blessed if they were allowed to

kiss or touch the wood. See how august an object in our eyes the image has become which the artist, or rather our own madness, has exalted into a god. Since, therefore, the images in the churches are not free from this danger, how comes it that we deem worthy of any advocacy these things that so greatly i draw us away from God? It is impossible that those whose only hope is the Lord should not pursue with hatred everything that is even only a reminder of that which draws away from God. Remove this image of Anna, and no one will run to the place where it had stood before. This view is confirmed by the Christian steadfastness of the people of Stammheim, who, seeing the statues of Anna worshipped in their sanctuary in a quite unchristian manner, in conformity with the decree of the Council of Zurich cast them out and burned them, being unwilling to endure longer this abominable worship before the eyes of their Creator and of pious men. After that no one looked there for what certain men falsely declared they had found before. Thus does the evil spirit mock us. This is the view which everyone sees we ought to take of all images in general. And if we did not set great hopes upon those whose images we worship in the churches, we should not take their removal so hard; nay, the greater and more sincere our faith in God was, the greater would be our zeal also to remove from sight everything that calls us away from God. When, therefore, they say, “Images can be kept for teaching purposes,” they have already been given a sufficient answer as to the source from which we ought to derive our teachings. But I add this also, that since sure danger of a decrease of faith threatens wherever images stand in the churches, and imminent risk of their adoration and worship, they ought to be abolished in the churches and wherever risk of their worship threatens. So also only those images ought to be abolished which offend piety or diminish faith in God, such as are all those in human shape which are set up before altars or churches, even though they were not at first set up to saints. Length of time makes an image venerable, so that we sometimes see a very bad tyrant and impious man worshipped as a saint for no other reason than that a statue was once set up to him in a church; for, as everything in a church has a certain august character, the

simple-minded later on cherished and worshipped the statue, after some centuries had made the image ἀμαυρότερον; i. €. blacker and dingier. Next after these I do not think those images should be disturbed which are put into windows for the sake of decoration, provided they represent nothing base, for no one worships them there. In short, no one who has not experienced it has a right conception of how much the removal of the images aids true piety. At Zurich thankfulness to the Most High, piety, and all zeal for blamelessness began, as if de novo, to bloom again with far greater luxuriance after the images were taken away by order of the Council and People. I am not speaking from personal feeling, for no one is a greater admirer than I of paintings and statuary; but those that offend piety ought not to be tolerated but to be abolished by unyielding command of the authorities. So much here on images and idols, until pressure of affairs allows a fuller treatment. And as far as taking offence into account in abolishing these images is concerned, we must deal with images in the same manner as with those externals that seem to pertain to, or have some power towards, salvation, of which I spoke in the last section. Teaching should come first, and the abolition of the images follow without disturbance; and love will teach all things in all cases.

---

← 61. Commentary on True and False Religion · Contents · 63. Commentary on True and False Religion →