Calvin's Institutes

Section: 1.11.11-16

11. Foolish evasions of the papists

Yet I am not unaware, nor ought I to conceal the fact, that they escape by a wily distinction, of which fuller mention will be made a little later. For the honor that they pay to their images they allege to be idol service, denying it to be idol worship. For they speak thus when they teach that the honor which they call dulia can be given to statues and pictures without wronging God. Therefore they deem themselves innocent if they are only servants of idols, not worshipers of them too. As if, indeed, it were not something slighter to worship than to serve! And yet while they take refuge in a Greek word, they childishly contradict themselves. For since Xarpevav means nothing else among the Greeks than “to worship,” what they say signifies the same thing as confessing that they “worship the images but without worship.” And there is no reason for them to object that I am trying to trip them in words; but they themselves display their own ignorance while they try to spread darkness over the eyes of the simple folk. Yet however eloquent they may be, never will they succeed by their eloquence in proving to us that one and the same thing is really two things. Let them show, I say, the real difference that makes them unlike the ancient idolaters. For just as an adulterer or a homicide cannot escape guilt by dubbing his crime with some other name, so it is absurd for them to be absolved by the subtle device of a name if they differ in no respect from idolaters-whom they themselves are compelled to condemn. Yet so far are they from separating their own cause from the cause of these idolaters that the source of the whole evil is rather a preposterous emulation in which they vie with the latter while they both contrive by their own wit, and fashion with their own hands, the symbols to represent God for themselves.

12. The junctions and limits of art

And yet I am not gripped by the superstition of thinking absolutely no images permissible. But because sculpture and painting are gifts of God, I seek a pure and legitimate use of each, lest those things which the Lord has conferred upon us for his glory and our good be not only polluted by perverse misuse but also turned to our destruction. We believe it wrong that God should be represented by a visible appearance, because he himself has forbidden it [Ex. 20:4] and it cannot be done without some defacing of his glory. And lest they think us alone in this opinion, those who concern themselves with their writings will find that all well-balanced writers have always disapproved of it. If it is not right to represent God by a physical likeness, much less will we be allowed to worship it as God, or God in it. Therefore it remains that only those things are to be sculptured or painted which the eyes are capable of seeing: let not God’s majesty, which is far above the perception of the eyes, be debased through unseemly representations. Within this class some are histories and events, some are images and forms of bodies without any depicting of past events. The former have some use in teaching or admonition; as for the latter, I do not see what they can afford other than pleasure. And yet it is clear that almost all the images that until now have stood in churches were of this sort. From this, one may judge that these images had been called forth not out of judgment or selection but of foolish and thoughtless craving. I am not saying how wickedly and indecently the greater part of them have been fashioned, how licentiously the painters and sculptors have played the wanton here-a matter that I touched upon a little earlier. I only say that even if the use of images contained nothing evil, it still has no value for teaching.

13. As long as doctrine was pure and strong, the church rejected images

But setting aside this distinction, let us in passing examine if it is expedient to have in Christian churches any images at all, whether they represent past events or the bodies of men. First, if the authority of the ancient church moves us in any way, we will recall that for about five hundred years, during which religion was still flourishing, and a purer doctrine thriving, Christian churches were commonly empty of images. Thus, it was when the purity of the ministry had somewhat degenerated that they were first introduced for the adornment of churches. I shall not discuss what reason impelled those who were the first authors of this thing; but if you compare age with age, you will see that these innovations had much declined from the integrity of those who had done without images. Why? Are we to think that those holy fathers would have allowed the church to go for so long without something they adjudged useful and salutary? Of course it was because they saw in it either no usefulness or very little, but very much danger, that they repudiated it out of deliberation and reason, rather than overlooked it out of ignorance or negligence. Augustine even states this in clear words: “When they are established in these seats,” he says, “in honorable loftiness, so that they are attended by those who pray and those who sacrifice, by the very likeness of living members and senses-although they lack both sense and life-they affect infirm minds, so that they seem to live and breathe,” etc. And elsewhere, “For the shape of the idol’s bodily members makes and in a sense compels the mind dwelling in a body to suppose that the idol’s body too has feeling, because it looks very like its own body,” etc. A little later, “Images have more power to bend the unhappy soul, because they have mouth, eyes, ears, feet, than to straighten it, because they do not speak, or see, or hear, or walk.”

This seems likely to be the reason why John wished to warn us not only against the worship of idols but also against idols themselves [I John 5:21]. And by the dreadful madness that has heretofore occupied the world almost to the total destruction of godliness, we have experienced too much how the ensign of idolatry is, as it were, set up, as soon as images are put together in churches. For men’s folly cannot restrain itself from falling headlong into superstitious rites. But even if so much danger were not threatening, when I ponder the intended use of churches, somehow or other it seems to me unworthy of their holiness for them to take on images other than those living and symbolical ones which the Lord has consecrated by his Word. I mean Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, together with other rites by which our eyes must be too intensely gripped and too sharply affected to seek other images forged by human ingenuity.

Behold! The incomparable boon of images, for which there is no substitute, if we are to believe the papists!

14. Childish arguments for images at the Council of Nicaea

Now, I believe, I should have said quite enough of this matter but for the fact that the Nicene Council commands my attention -not that most celebrated council called by Constantine the Great, but the one held eight hundred years ago at the command and under the auspices of the Empress Irene. For it decreed not only that there were to be images in churches but also that they were to be worshiped. For whatever I say, the authority of the Council will occasion a great prejudice in favor of the opposite side. Yet, to speak the truth, this does not move me so much as does the desire to inform my readers how far the madness went of those who were more attached to images than was becoming to Christians. But let us dispose of this first. Those who today defend the use of images allege the support of that Council of Nicaea. However, there exists a book in refutation under the name of Charlemagne, the style of which leads me to conclude that it was composed at the same time. In it are set forth the opinions of the bishops who participated in the Council and the proofs which they employed. John, the legate of the Easterns, said: “God created man in his image” [Gen. 1:27], and from this he therefore concluded that we must have images. The same man thought that images were commended to us by this sentence: “Show me thy face, for it is beautiful” [Cant. 2:14]. Another, to prove that images ought to be set upon altars, cited this testimony: “No one lights a lantern and puts it under a bushel” [Matt. 5:15]. Still another, to show us that looking upon them is useful to us, adduced a verse from The Psalms: “O Lord, the light of thy countenance has been sealed upon us” [Ps. 4:7, Vg.; 4:6, EV]. Another seized upon this comparison: just as the patriarchs have used the sacrifices of the heathen, so ought saints’ images for Christians to take the place of the heathens’ idols. To the same end they twisted that verse: “O Lord, I love the beauty of thy house” [Ps. 25:5, Vg.; 26:8, EV]. But pre-eminently ingenious is this interpretation: “As we have heard, so also have we seen” [I John 1:1 p.]. Therefore he implies that men know God not only by hearing his Word but also by looking upon images. Bishop Theodore speaks with similar penetration: “Wonderful is God in his saints” [Ps. 67:36, Vg.]; and elsewhere it is said, “To the saints who are on earth” [Ps. 15:3, Vg.; 16:3, EV]. Therefore this ought to refer to images. In short, so disgusting are their absurdities that I am ashamed even to mention them.

15. Ridiculous misuse of Scripture texts

When they are discussing adoration, they bring forward the adoration of Pharaoh [Gen. 47:10], of Joseph’s rod [Gen. 47:31; Heb. 11:21], and of the pillar set up by Jacob [Gen. 28:18].

Notwithstanding, in this last allegation they not only corrupt the meaning of Scripture, but seize upon something that is nowhere to be read. Then, “Worship his footstool” [Ps. 98:5, Vg.; 99:5, EV]; likewise, “Worship on his holy mountain” [Ps. 98:9, Vg.; 99:9, EV]; again, “All the rich men of the people shall entreat thy countenance” [Ps. 44:13, Vg.; 45:13, EV]. These appear to be absolutely firm and apposite proofs for them. If anyone in mockery wished to attribute a ridiculous character to the patrons of images, could he enumerate greater and grosser follies? To remove any remaining doubt, Theodosius, Bishop of Mira, confirms the adoration of images from the dreams of his archdeacon as gravely as if a heavenly oracle had been present. Now let the promoters of images go and urge upon us the decree of that synod. As if those venerable fathers do not abrogate all trust in themselves either by treating Scripture so childishly or by rending it so impiously and foully!

16. Blasphemous and shocking claims for images

I come now to the terrible blasphemies, which it is a marvel that they have dared to spew forth, and a double marvel that everybody did not cry out against them with greatest loathing. But it is expedient that this wicked madness be publicly exposed, that the pretense of antiquity which the papists allege may at least be torn away from the worship of images. Theodosius, Bishop of Amorium, pronounces anathema against all who are unwilling that images be adored. Another imputes all the misfortunes of Greece and the East to the crime that images had not been adored. What punishments do the prophets, apostles, martyrs, deserve, in whose day no images existed? Thereafter they add: if the image of the emperor be approached with perfume and incense, much more do we owe this honor to the images of saints. Constantius, Bishop of Constance in Cyprus, professes to embrace images reverently, and affirms that he is going to show toward them the same worship and honor that is owed to the life-giving Trinity. Anyone who refuses to do the same he anathematizes and relegates among the Manichees and Marcionites. And lest you think this the private opinion of one man, the rest agree. Indeed, John, the legate of the Easterns, moved by even greater heat, warned that it would be better to admit all brothels into the city than to deny the worship of images. Finally, it was determined by the consent of all that the Samaritans are worse than all heretics, yet image fighters are worse than the Samaritans. Besides, lest the play should go unapplauded, a clause is added: let those who, having an image of Christ, offer sacrifice to it rejoice and exult. Where now is the distinction between latria and dulia, by which they are wont to hoodwink God and men? For the Council accords, without exception, as much to images as to the living God.