This reply from the Cathodox is the exact same response the pagans made to the Christians. They said, “We don’t worship images as if those images were literally gods! That’s a false accusation!” But the church fathers never showed any “charity” by reframing the accusation. They continued to accuse the pagans of deifying inanimate matter. They insisted that the actions of bowing to an image, offering it incense, and praying to it take away the honor that belongs to God, which must be rendered to God in spirit (because incense signifies prayer), not to hand-made, lifeless images. The fathers completely rejected the notion that God could be honored by worshiping lifeless statues and paintings.
We ask you, Cathodox: Do pagans commit idolatry with their images? What actions do pagans perform that count as idolatry? Bowing and offering incense? So is it idolatry when pagans bow to their images and offer them incense? Yes? So you worship images? Do you admit that the pagans used your argument to justify worshiping images? And did the pagans worship images exactly the same way you “venerate” images? And did the early church completely reject and refute this argument?
Plato, Greek (428–347 BC):
Neither God, nor a man who has understanding, will ever advise any one to neglect his parents. To a discourse concerning the honour and dishonour of parents, a prelude such as the following, about the service of the Gods, will be a suitable introduction: There are ancient customs about the Gods which are universal, and they are of two kinds: some of the Gods we see with our eyes and we honour them, of others we honour the images, raising statues of them which we adore; and though they are lifeless, yet we imagine that the living Gods have a good will and gratitude to us on this account. – Plato, Laws, book 9
Plutarch, Greek (46–120 AD):
If, then, the most esteemed of the philosophers, observing the enigma of the Divine in inanimate and incorporeal objects, did not think it right to neglect or dishonour anything, even more do I think that the peculiar properties existing in natures that perceive and possess a soul and feeling and character should, in all likelihood, be cherished [i.e. animals]. It is not that we should honour these, but that through these we should honour the Divine, since they are the clearer mirrors of the Divine by their nature also, so that we should regard them as the instrument or device of the God who orders all things. And in general we must hold it true that nothing inanimate is superior to what is animate, and nothing without the power of perception is superior to that which has that power—no, not even if one should heap together all the gold and emeralds in the world. The Divine is not engendered in colours or in forms or in polished surfaces, but whatsoever things have no share in life, things whose nature does not allow them to share therein, have a portion of less honour than that of the dead. But the nature that lives and sees and has within itself the source of movement and a knowledge of what belongs to it and what belongs to others, has drawn to itself an emanation and portion of beauty from the Intelligence “by which the Universe is guided,” as Heraclitus has it. Wherefore the Divine is no worse represented in these animals than in works of bronze and stone which are alike subject to destruction and disfiguration, and by their nature are void of all perception and comprehension. This, then, is what I most approve in the accounts that are given regarding the animals held in honour. – Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, chapter 382B
But these men have taken a false notion of philosophy, they make it much like the art of statuary, whose business it is to carve out a lifeless image in the most exact figure and proportion, and then to raise it upon its pedestal, where it is to continue forever. The true philosophy is of a quite different nature; it is a spring and principle of motion wherever it comes; it makes men active and industrious, it sets every wheel and faculty a-going, it stores our minds with axioms and rules by which to make a sound judgment, it determines the will to the choice of what is honorable and just; and it wings all our faculties to the swiftest prosecution of it. – Plutarch, Essays and Miscellanies, That a Philosopher Ought Chiefly to Converse with Great Men
Dio Chrysostom, Greek (40-120 AD):
For those divine manifestations — I mean the sun and the moon and the entire heavens and the stars — while in and of themselves they certainly appear marvellous, yet the artist’s portrayal of them is simple and has no need of artistic skill, if one should wish merely to depict the moon’s crescent or the sun’s full orb; and furthermore, whereas those heavenly bodies certainly, taken by themselves, reveal in abundance character and purpose, yet in their representations they show nothing to suggest this: which perhaps is the reason why at first they were not yet regarded by the Greeks as deities. For mind and intelligence in and of themselves no statuary or painter will ever be able to represent; for all men are utterly incapable of observing such attributes with their eyes or of learning of them by inquiry. But as for that in which this intelligence manifests itself, men, having no mere inkling thereof but actual knowledge, fly to it for refuge, attributing to God a human body as a vessel to contain intelligence and rationality, in their lack of a better illustration, and in their perplexity seeking to indicate that which is invisible and unportrayable by means of something portrayable and visible, using the function of a symbol and doing so better than certain barbarians, who are said to represent the divine by animals — using as his starting-point symbols which are trivial and absurd. But that man who has stood out most above others in respect of beauty and majesty and splendour, he, we may say, has been by far the greatest creator of the images of the divine beings.
For certainly no one would maintain that it had been better that no statue or picture of gods should have been exhibited among men, on the ground that we should look only at the heavens. For although the intelligent man does indeed reverence all those objects, believing them to be blessed gods that he sees from a great distance [i.e. the constellations], yet on account of our belief in the divine all men have a strong yearning to honour and worship the deity from close at hand, approaching and laying hold of him with persuasion by offering sacrifice and crowning him with garlands. For precisely as infant children when torn away from father or mother are filled with terrible longing and desire, and stretch out their hands to their absent parents often in their dreams, so also do men to the gods, rightly loving them for their beneficence and kinship, and being eager in every possible way to be with them and to hold converse with them. Consequently many of the barbarians, because they lack artistic means and find difficulty in employing them, name mountains gods, and unhewn trees, too, and unshapen stones, things which are by no means whatever more appropriate in shape than is the human form. – Dio Chrysostom, Oration 12.60
- Dio Chrysostom acknowledges that the gods are actually in heaven, but that the Greeks have made images to honor and worship the deity through. Yet the Cathodox pretend these pagans were complete idiots who thought blocks of stone were actually God!
Maximus of Tyre, Greek (2nd Century AD):
In like manner a divine nature has no need of statues or altars; but human nature being very imbecile, and as much distant from divinity as earth from heaven, devised these symbols, in which it inserted the names and the renown of the gods. Those, therefore, whose memory is robust, and who are able, by directly extending their soul to heaven, to meet with divinity, have, perhaps, no need of statues. This race is, however, rare among men, and in a whole nation you will not find one who recollects divinity, and who is not in want of this kind of assistance, which resembles that devised by writing-masters for boys, who give them obscure marks as copies; by writing over which, their hand being guided by that of the master, they become, through memory, accustomed to the art. It appears to me, therefore, that legislators devised these statues for men, as if for a certain kind of boys, as tokens of the honour which should be paid to divinity, and a certain manuduction as it were and path to reminiscence.
Of statues, however, there is neither one law, nor one mode, nor one art, nor one matter. For the Greeks think it fit to honour the gods from things the most beautiful in the earth, from a pure matter, the human form, and accurate art: and their opinion is not irrational who fashion statues in the human resemblance. For if the human soul is most near and most similar to divinity it is not reasonable to suppose that divinity would invest that which is most similar to himself with a most deformed body, but rather with one which would be an easy vehicle to immortal souls, light, and adapted to motion. For this alone, of all the bodies on the earth, raises its summit on high, is magnificent, superb, and full of symmetry, neither astonishing through its magnitude, nor terrible through its strength, nor moved with difficulty through its weight, nor slippery through its smoothness, nor repercussive through its hardness, nor groveling through its coldness, nor precipitate through its heat, nor inclined to swim through its laxity, nor feeding on raw flesh through its ferocity, nor on grass through its imbecility; but is harmonically composed for its proper works, and is dreadful to timid animals, but mild to such as are brave ; it is also adapted to walk by nature, but winged by reason, capable of swimming by art, feeds on corn and fruits, and cultivates the earth, is of a good colour, stands firm, has a pleasing countenance, and a graceful beard. In the resemblance of such a body the Greeks think fit to honour the gods.
O many and all-various statues! of which some are fashioned by art, and others are embraced through indigence; some are honoured through utility, and others are venerated through the astonishment which they excite; some are considered divine through their magnitude, and others are celebrated for their beauty! There is not, indeed, any race of men, neither Barbarian nor Grecian, neither maritime nor continental, neither living a pastoral life, nor dwelling in cities, which can endure to be without some symbols of the honour of the gods. How, therefore, shall any one discuss the question whether it is proper that statues of the gods should be fabricated or not? For if we were to give laws to other men recently sprung from the earth, and dwelling beyond our boundaries and our air, or who were fashioned by a certain Prometheus, ignorant of life, and law, and reason, it might, perhaps, demand consideration whether this race should be permitted to adore these spontaneous statues alone, which are not fashioned from ivory or gold, and which are neither oaks nor cedars, nor rivers nor birds, but the rising sun, the splendid moon, the variegated heaven, the earth itself and the air, all fire and all water; or shall we constrain these also to the necessity of honouring wood, or stones, or images? But if this is the common law of all men, let us make no innovations, let us admit the conception, concerning the gods, and preserve their symbols as well as their names.
For divinity, indeed, the father and fabricator of all things, is more ancient than the sun and the heavens, more excellent than time and eternity, and every flowing nature, and is a legislator without law, ineffable by voice, and invisible by the eyes. Not being able, however, to comprehend his essence, we apply for assistance to words and names, to animals and figures of gold, and ivory and silver, to plants and rivers, to the summits of mountains, and to streams of water; desiring, indeed, to understand his nature, but through imbecility calling him by the names of such things as appear to us to be beautiful. And in thus acting we are affected in the same manner as lovers, who are delighted with surveying the images of the objects of their love, and with recollecting the lyre, the dart, and the seat of these, the circus in which they ran, and every thing, in short, which excites the memory of the beloved object. What then remains for me to investigate and determine respecting statues? Only to admit the subsistence of deity. But if the art of Phidias excites the Greeks to the recollection of divinity, honour to animals the Egyptians, a river others, and fire others, I do not condemn the dissonance: let them only know, let them only love, let them only be mindful of the object they adore. – Maximus of Tyre, Philosophical Oration 38 (WHETHER STATUES SHOULD BE DEDICATED TO THE GODS)
Julian the Apostate (331-362 AD):
Then let everyone make the basis of his conduct moral virtues, and actions like these, namely reverence towards the gods, benevolence towards men, personal chastity; and thus let him abound in pious acts, I mean by endeavouring always to have pious thoughts about the gods, and by regarding the temples and images of the gods with due honour and veneration, and by worshipping the gods as though he saw them actually present. For our fathers established images and altars, and the maintenance of undying fire, and, generally speaking, everything of the sort, as symbols of the presence of the gods, not that we may regard such things as gods, but that we may worship the gods through them. For since being in the body it was in bodily wise that we must needs perform our service to the gods also, though they are themselves without bodies; they therefore revealed to us in the earliest images the class of gods next in rank to the first, even those that revolve in a circle about the whole heavens. But since not even to these can due worship be offered in bodily wise – for they are by nature not in need of anything – another class of images was invented on the earth, and by performing our worship to them we shall make the gods propitious to ourselves. For just as those who make offerings to the statues of the emperors, who are in need of nothing, nevertheless induce goodwill towards themselves thereby, so too those who make offerings to the images of the gods, though the gods need nothing, do nevertheless thereby persuade them to help and to care for them. For zeal to do all that is in one’s power is, in truth, a proof of piety, and it is evident that he who abounds in such zeal thereby displays a higher degree of piety; whereas he who neglects what is possible, and then pretends to aim at what is impossible, evidently does not strive after the impossible, since he overlooks the possible. For even though God stands in need of nothing, it does not follow that on that account nothing ought to be offered to him. He does not need the reverence that is paid in words. What then? Is it rational to deprive him of this also? By no means. It follows then that one ought not to deprive him either of the honour that is paid to him through deeds, an honour which not three years or three thousand years have ordained, but all past time among all the nations of the earth.
- The Second Council of Nicaea made the same argument as the pagans: “If we offer incense to the images of emperors, how much more should we offer incense to images of God!”
Therefore, when we look at the images of the gods, let us not indeed think they are stones or wood, but neither let us think they are the gods themselves; and indeed we do not say that the statues of the emperors are mere wood and stone and bronze, but still less do we say they are the emperors themselves. He therefore who loves the emperor delights to see the emperor’s statue, and he who loves his son delights to see his son’s statue, and he who loves his father delights to see his father’s statue. It follows that he who loves the gods delights to gaze on the images of the gods, and their likenesses, and he feels reverence and shudders with awe of the gods who look at him from the unseen world. – Julian the Apostate, Fragment of a letter to a priest (1913) Works, vol.2, pp. 297-339.
- “Making images of God is just like having a picture of your family member!” Now where have we heard this argument before? Did Julian look forward in time and predict the arguments of the Cathodox? Or did the Cathodox go back in time to retrieve their arguments from the pagans?
The people streamed out of the city, together with the Senate: before them all, however, advanced to receive her the priests and priestesses, arrayed after the manner of the country, with their attention fixed upon the vessel which was coming in under full sail. They gazed at the surging of the waves as they divided themselves around the keel; and as she sailed up they welcomed her, each one kissing his hand to her, as they happened to be standing in front, from a distance. But the ship, as though desirous to prove to the people of Rome that it was not a mere lifeless wooden image (ξόανον) she was bringing them from Phrygia, but that, whatever it was she was bringing them from the Phrygians, it must possess some greater and supernatural power (δύναμιν) of its own, as soon as the goddess touched the Tiber she made the ship stand still, as though it had suddenly taken root in the bed of the river. – Julian the Apostate, On The Mother of The Gods
Sallustius, Roman (cir. 361-363 AD):
If therefore the gods produced the world by art, they would not cause it simply to be, but to be in some particular manner; for all art produces form. From whence therefore does the world derive its being? If from nature, since nature in fabricating imparts something of itself to its productions and the gods are incorporeal, it is necessary that the world (the offspring of the gods) should be incorporeal. But if any one says that the gods are corporeal, from whence does the power of incorporeals originate? And besides, if this be admitted, the world being corrupted, its artificer also must necessarily be corrupted, on the hypothesis that he operates according to nature. – Sallustius (4th Century AD), On the Gods and the Cosmos, chapter 13
Nor is it lawful that a divine nature should be well or ill affected from human concerns; for the divinities are perpetually good and profitable, but are never noxious, and ever subsist in the same uniform mode of being. But we, when we are good, are conjoined with the gods through similitude; but when evil, we are separated from them through dissimilitude. And while we live according to virtue, we partake of the gods, but when we become evil we cause them to become our enemies; not that they are angry, but because guilt prevents us from receiving the illuminations of the gods, and subjects us to the power of avenging dæmons. – Sallustius (4th Century AD), On the Gods and the Cosmos, chapter 14
From hence we are presented with a solution of the doubts concerning sacrifices and other particulars relative to the cultivation of divinity; for that which is divine does not lack anything. But the honours which we pay to the gods, are performed for the sake of our advantage: and since the providence of the gods is everywhere extended, a certain habitude, or fitness, is all that is requisite in order to receive their beneficent communications. But all habitude is produced through imitation and similitude; and hence temples imitate the heavens, but altars the earth; statues resemble life, and on this account they are similar to animals; and prayers imitate that which is intellectual; but characters, superior ineffable powers; herbs and stones resemble matter; and animals which are sacrificed, the irrational life of our souls. But from all these nothing happens to the gods beyond what they already possess; for what accession can be made to a divine nature? But a conjunction with our souls and the gods is by this means produced. – Sallustius (4th Century AD), On the Gods and the Cosmos, chapter 15
The Apostle Peter:
Through the mouths of others also that serpent is wont to speak in this wise: “We adore visible images in honour of the invisible God.” Now this is most certainly false. For if you really wished to worship the image of God, you would do good to man, and so worship the true image of God in him. For the image of God is in every man, though His likeness is not in all, but where the soul is benign and the mind pure. If, therefore, you wish truly to honour the image of God, we declare to you what is true, that you should do good to and pay honour and reverence to man, who is made in the image of God; that you minister food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, clothing to the naked, hospitality to the stranger, and necessary things to the prisoner; and that is what will be regarded as truly bestowed upon God. And so far do these things go to the honour of God’s image, that he who does not these things is regarded as casting reproach upon the divine image. What, then, is that honour of God which consists in running from one stone or wooden figure to another, in venerating empty and lifeless figures as deities, and despising men in whom the image of God is of a truth? Yea, rather be assured, that whoever commits murder or adultery, or anything that causes suffering or injury to men, in all these the image of God is violated. For to injure men is a great impiety towards God. Whenever, therefore, you do to another what you would not have another do to you, you defile the image of God with undeserved distresses. Understand, therefore, that that is the suggestion of the serpent lurking within you, which persuades you that you may seem to be pious when you worship insensible things, and may not seem impious when you injure sensible and rational beings. – Recognitions of Clement, Book 5, Chapter 23
Melito of Sardis (160 AD):
There are, however, persons who say: It is for the honor of God that we make the image: in order, that is, that we may worship the God who is concealed from our view. But they are unaware that God is in every country, and in every place, and is never absent, and that there is not anything done and He knows it not. Yet you, despicable man! Within whom He is, and without whom He is, and above whom He is, have nevertheless gone and bought wood from the carpenter’s, and it is carved and made into an image insulting to God. To this you offer sacrifice, and do not know that the all-seeing eye sees you, and that the word of truth reproves you, and says to you: How can the unseen God be sculptured? Nay, it is the likeness of yourself that you make and worship. Because the wood has been sculptured, have you not the insight to perceive that it is still wood, or that the stone is still stone? … Though though you have eyes, do you not see? And though you have intelligence, do you not understand? Why do you wallow on the ground, and offer supplication to things which are without sense? – Melito of Sardis, Fragments of Melito of Sardis, A Discourse Which Was in the Presence of Antoninus Caesar
Justin Martyr (160 AD):
And neither do we honour with many sacrifices and garlands of flowers such deities as men have formed and set in shrines and called gods; since we see that these are soulless and dead, and have not the form of God (for we do not consider that God has such a form as some say that they imitate to His honour), but have the names and forms of those wicked demons which have appeared. For why need we tell you who already know, into what forms the craftsmen, carving and cutting, casting and hammering, fashion the materials? And often out of vessels of dishonour, by merely changing the form, and making an image of the requisite shape, they make what they call a god; which we consider not only senseless, but to be even insulting to God, who, having ineffable glory and form, thus gets His name attached to things that are corruptible, and require constant service. And that the artificers of these are both intemperate, and, not to enter into particulars, are practised in every vice, you very well know; even their own girls who work along with them they corrupt. What infatuation! that dissolute men should be said to fashion and make gods for your worship, and that you should appoint such men the guardians of the temples where they are enshrined; not recognising that it is unlawful even to think or say that men are the guardians of gods. – Justin Martyr (160 AD), First Apology, Chapter 9
Origen of Alexandria (235 AD):
In designating others by the epithets of “uninstructed, and servile, and ignorant,” Celsus, I suppose, means those who are not acquainted with his laws, nor trained in the branches of Greek learning; while we, on the other hand, deem those to be “uninstructed” who are not ashamed to address (supplications) to inanimate objects, and to call upon those for health that have no strength, and to ask the dead for life, and to entreat the helpless for assistance. And although some may say that these objects are not gods, but only imitations and symbols of real divinities, nevertheless these very individuals, in imagining that the hands of low mechanics can frame imitations of divinity, are “uninstructed, and servile, and ignorant;” for we assert that the lowest among us have been set free from this ignorance and want of knowledge, while the most intelligent can understand and grasp the divine hope. We do not maintain, however, that it is impossible for one who has not been trained in earthly wisdom to receive the “divine,” but we do acknowledge that all human wisdom is “folly” in comparison with the “divine.” – Origen (248 AD), Against Celsus, Book 6, Chapter 14
After this he compares the one who teaches to a person with an eye disease, and those who are learning to people suffering from eye disease; and he says that such a person blames those who see clearly, as though they were blind. Who then, we might say, are the ones among us who do not see? Is it not those who, from the greatness of the things in the world and the beauty of created works, are unable to lift up their eyes and perceive that one ought to worship, admire, and revere only the one who made these things—and that none of the things constructed by humans and adopted for the honor of gods should properly be revered, whether apart from the Creator God or even along with Him? – Origen, Against Celsus, Book 3, Chapter 77
For these different tribes erected temples and statues to those individuals above enumerated, whereas we have refrained from offering to the Divinity honour by any such means (seeing they are adapted rather to demons, which are somehow fixed in a certain place which they prefer to any other, or which take up their dwelling, as it were, after being removed (from one place to another) by certain rites and incantations), and are lost in reverential wonder at Jesus, who has recalled our minds from all sensible things, as being not only corruptible, but destined to corruption, and elevated them to honour the God who is over all with prayers and a righteous life, which we offer to Him as being intermediate between the nature of the uncreated and that of all created things, and who bestows upon us the benefits which come from the Father, and who as High Priest conveys our prayers to the supreme God. – Origen (248 AD), Against Celsus, Book 3, Chapter 34
But observe whether the principles of our faith, harmonizing with the general ideas implanted in our minds at birth, do not produce a change upon those who listen candidly to its statements; for although a perverted view of things, with the aid of much instruction to the same effect, has been able to implant in the minds of the multitude the belief that images are gods, and that things made of gold, and silver, and ivory, and stone are deserving of worship, yet common sense forbids the supposition that God is at all a piece of corruptible matter, or is honoured when made to assume by men a form embodied in dead matter, fashioned according to some image or symbol of His appearance. And therefore we say at once of images that they are not gods, and of such creations (of art) that they are not to be compared with the Creator, but are small in contrast with the God who is over all, and who created, and upholds, and governs the universe. And the rational soul recognising, as it were, its relationship (to the divine), at once rejects what it for a time supposed to be gods, and resumes its natural love for its Creator; and because of its affection towards Him, receives Him also who first presented these truths to all nations through the disciples whom He had appointed, and whom He sent forth, furnished with divine power and authority, to proclaim the doctrine regarding God and His kingdom. – Origen (248 AD), Against Celsus, Book 3, Chapter 40
For in our judgment all are intoxicated who address themselves to inanimate objects as to God. And why do I say “intoxicated?” “Insane” would be the more appropriate word for those who hasten to temples and worship images or animals as divinities. And they too are not less insane who think that images, fashioned by men of worthless and sometimes most wicked character, confer any honour upon genuine divinities. – Origen (248 AD), Against Celsus, Book 3, Chapter 76
Let us now see what follows. “Let us pass on,” says he [Celsus], “to another point. They [Christians] cannot tolerate temples, altars, or statues (ἀγάλματα). In this they are like the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, the Seres who worship no god, and some other of the most barbarous and impious nations in the world. That the Persians hold the same notions is shown by Heraclitus in these words: ‘I know that among the Persians it is considered unlawful to erect statues (ἀγάλματα), altars, or temples; but they charge those with folly who do so, because, as I conjecture, they do not, like the Greeks, suppose the gods to be of the nature of men.’ Heraclitus also says in one place: ‘Persons who address prayers to these images (ἀγάλμασι) act like those who speak to the walls, without knowing who the gods or the heroes are.’ And what wiser lesson have they to teach us than Heraclitus? He certainly plainly enough implies that it is a foolish thing for a man to offer prayers to images (ἀγάλμασιν), whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are. This is the opinion of Heraclitus. But as for them, they [the Christians] go further, and have open contempt for statues (ἀγάλματα). If they merely mean that the stone, wood, brass, or gold which has been wrought by this or that workman cannot be a god, they are ridiculous with their wisdom. For who, unless he be utterly childish in his simplicity, considers these things to be gods, but rather dedications to the gods and statues [ἀγάλματα] representing them? But if [the objection is that] we ought not to regard statues as images (εἰκόνας) of the Divine Being, seeing that God has a different form, as the Persians concur with them in saying, then let them [the Christians] take care that they do not contradict themselves; for they say that God made man His own image, and that He gave him a form like to Himself. However, they will admit that these images, whether they are like or not, are made and dedicated to the honour of certain beings. But they will hold that the beings to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of God ought not to worship demons.” – Origen (248 AD) Against Celsus, Book 7, Chapter 62
Athenagoras of Athens (176 AD):
What then? Because the multitude, who cannot distinguish between matter and God, or see how great is the interval which lies between them, pray to idols made of matter, are we therefore, who do distinguish and separate the uncreated and the created, that which is and that which is not, that which is apprehended by the understanding and that which is perceived by the senses, and who give the fitting name to each of them,—are we to come and worship images (προσκυνήσομεν ἀγάλματα)? If, indeed, matter and God are the same, two names for one thing, then certainly, in not regarding stocks and stones, gold and silver, as gods, we are guilty of impiety. But if they are at the greatest possible remove from one another—as far asunder as the artist and the materials of his art—why are we called to account? For as is the potter and the clay (matter being the clay, and the artist the potter), so is God, the Framer of the world, and matter, which is subservient to Him for the purposes of His art. But as the clay cannot become vessels of itself without art, so neither did matter, which is capable of taking all forms, receive, apart from God the Framer, distinction and shape and order. And as we do not hold the pottery of more worth than him who made it, nor the vessels of glass and gold than him who wrought them; but if there is anything about them elegant in art we praise the artificer, and it is he who reaps the glory of the vessels: even so with matter and God—the glory and honour of the orderly arrangement of the world belongs of right not to matter, but to God, the Framer of matter. So that, if we were to regard the various forms of matter as gods, we should seem to be without any sense of the true God, because we should be putting the things which are dissoluble and perishable on a level with that which is eternal. – Athenagoras (177 AD) A Plea for the Christians Chapter 15
But, since it is affirmed by some that, although these are only images (εἰκόνας), yet there exist gods in honour of whom they are made; and that the supplications and sacrifices presented to the images (εἰκόνες) are to be referred to the gods, and are in fact made to the gods; and that there is not any other way of coming to them, for
“’Tis hard for man
To meet in presence visible a God;”
and whereas, in proof that such is the fact, they adduce the energies (ἐνεργείας) possessed by certain images, let us examine into the power attached to their names. – Athenagoras (177 AD), A Plea for the Christians, Chapter 18
Arnobius (305 AD):
We have therefore—as I suppose—shown sufficiently, that to the immortal gods temples have been either reared in vain, or built in consequence of insulting opinions held to their dishonour and to the belittling of the power believed to be in their hands. We have next to say something about statues and images, which you form with much skill, and tend with religious care,—wherein if there is any credibility, we can by no amount of consideration settle in our own minds whether you do this in earnest and with a serious purpose, or amuse yourselves in childish dreams by mocking at these very things. For if you are assured that the gods exist whom you suppose, and that they live in the highest regions of heaven, what cause, what reason, is there that those images should be fashioned by you, when you have true beings to whom you may pour forth prayers, and from whom you may ask help in trying circumstances? But if, on the contrary, you do not believe, or, to speak with moderation, are in doubt, in this case, also, what reason is there, pray, to fashion and set up images of doubtful beings, and to form with vain imitation what you do not believe to exist? Do you perchance say, that under these images of deities there is displayed to you their presence, as it were, and that, because it has not been given you to see the gods, they are worshipped in this fashion, and the duties owed to them paid? He who says and asserts this, does not believe that the gods exist; and he is proved not to put faith in his own religion, to whom it is necessary to see what he may hold, lest that which being obscure is not seen, may happen to be vain. – Arnobius (305 AD) The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen Book 6 Chapter 8
“We worship the gods,” you say, “by means of images.” What then? Without these, do the gods not know that they are worshipped, and will they not think that any honour is shown to them by you? Through bypaths, as it were, then, and by assignments to a third party, as they are called, they receive and accept your services; and before those to whom that service is owed experience it, you first sacrifice to images, and transmit, as it were, some remnants to them at the pleasure of others. And what greater wrong, disgrace, hardship, can be inflicted than to acknowledge one god, and yet make supplication to something else—to hope for help from a deity, and pray to an image without feeling? Is not this, I pray you, that which is said in the common proverbs: “to cut down the smith when you strike at the fuller;” “and when you seek a man’s advice, to require of asses and pigs their opinions as to what should be done?” – Arnobius (305 AD) The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen Book 6 Chapter 9
Here also the advocates of images are wont to say this also, that the ancients knew well that images have no divine nature, and that there is no sense in them, but that they formed them profitably and wisely, for the sake of the unmanageable and ignorant mob, which is the majority in nations and in states, in order that a kind of appearance, as it were, of deities being presented to them, from fear they might shake off their rude natures, and, supposing that they were acting in the presence of the gods, put away their impious deeds, and, changing their manners, learn to act as men; and that august forms of gold and silver were sought for them, for no other reason than that some power was believed to reside in their splendour, such as not only to dazzle the eyes, but even to strike terror into the mind itself at the majestic beaming lustre. Now this might perhaps seem to be said with some reason, if, after the temples of the gods were founded, and their images set up, there were no wicked man in the world, no villany at all, if justice, peace, good faith, possessed the hearts of men, and no one on earth were called guilty and guiltless, all being ignorant of wicked deeds. But now when, on the contrary, all things are full of wicked men, the name of innocence has almost perished, and every moment, every second, evil deeds, till now unheard of, spring to light in myriads from the wickedness of wrongdoers, how is it right to say that images have been set up for the purpose of striking terror into the mob, while, besides innumerable forms of crime and wickedness, we see that even the temples themselves are attacked by tyrants, by kings, by robbers, and by nocturnal thieves, and that these very gods whom antiquity fashioned and consecrated to cause terror, are carried away into the caves of robbers, in spite even of the terrible splendour of the gold? – Arnobius (305 AD) The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen Book 6 Chapter 24
Lactantius (313 AD):
“What madness is it, then, either to form those objects that they themselves may afterwards fear, or to fear the things that they have formed? However, they say, “We do not fear the images themselves, but those beings after whose likeness they were formed, and to whose names they are dedicated.” No doubt you fear them for this reason: because you think that they are in heaven. For if they are gods, the case cannot be otherwise. So why, then, do you not raise your eyes to heaven? Why do you not invoke their names and offer sacrifices in the open air? Why do you look to walls, wood, and stone—rather than to the place where you believe them to be? What is the meaning of temples and altars? What, in short, is the meaning of the images themselves, which are memorials either of the dead or of the absent? For the idea of making likenesses was invented by men for this reason: that it might be possible to retain the memory of those who had either been removed by death or else separated by absence. How much better, therefore, is it, to leave vain and insensible objects and, instead, to turn our eyes in that direction where is the seat and dwelling place of the true God. – Lactantius (304–313 AD), The Divine Institutes, Book 2, chapter 5
Eusebius of Caesarea (260-339 AD):
Are they not again convicted of deifying “the creature rather than the Creator,” and the handiwork of the world but not the worker, with great risk and danger, and with mischief that must fall on their own head? But if they shall assert that they deify not the visible bodies of sun and moon and stars, nor yet the sensible parts of the world, but the powers (δυνάμεις), invisible in them, of the very God who is over all–for they say that God being One fills all things with various powers, and pervades all, and rules over all, but as existing in all and pervading all in an incorporeal and invisible manner, and that they rightly worship Him through the things which we have mentioned–why in the world therefore do they not reject the foul and unseemly fables concerning the gods as being unlawful and impious, and put out of sight the very books concerning them, as containing blasphemous and licentious teaching, and celebrate the One and Only and Invisible God openly and purely and without any foul envelopment?
For this was what those who had known the truth ought to do, and not to degrade and debase the venerable name of God into foul and lustful fables of things unspeakable; nor yet to shut themselves up in cells and dark recesses and buildings made by man, as if they would find God inside; nor to think that they are worshipping the Divine powers in statues made of lifeless matter, nor to suppose that by vapours of gore and filth steaming from the earth, and by the blood of slain animals they are doing things pleasing to God. Surely it became these men of wisdom and of lofty speech, as being set free from all these bonds of error, to impart of their physical speculations ungrudgingly to all men, and to proclaim as it were in naked truth to all, that they should admire (ἀποθαυμάζειν) not the things that are seen, but only the unseen Creator of things visible, and worship (θρησκεύειν) His invisible and incorporeal powers in ways invisible and incorporeal, not by kindling fire, nor yet by offerings of rams and bulls, nay, nor yet by imagining that they honour the Deity by garlands and statues and the building of temples, but by worshipping Him with purified thoughts and right and true doctrines, in dispassionate calmness of soul, and in growing as far as possible like unto Him. But no one ever yet, barbarian or Greek, began to show all men this truth except only our Saviour; who, having proclaimed to all nations an escape from their ancient error, procured abundantly for them all a way of return and of devotion to the one true and only God of the universe. Yet the men perversely wise who boasted of the highest philosophy of life, whereby as the inspired Apostle says, “though they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. They professed indeed to be wise, but became fools… and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.” – Eusebius, Preparation of the Gospel, book 3, chapter 13
Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373 AD):
For what other form do they give them by sculpture but that of men and women and of creatures lower yet and of irrational nature, all manner of birds, beasts both tame and wild, and creeping things, whatsoever land and sea and the whole realm of the waters produce? For men having fallen into the unreasonableness of their passions and pleasures, and unable to see anything beyond pleasures and lusts of the flesh, inasmuch as they keep their mind in the midst of these irrational things, they imagined the divine principle to be in irrational things, and carved a number of gods to match the variety of their passions…. Thus they wallow in them, and portray God, the Father of the Word, in irrational shapes. As to which those who pass for philosophers and men of knowledge among the Greeks, while driven to admit that their visible gods are the forms and figures of men and of irrational objects, say in defense that they have such things to the end that by their means the deity may answer them and be made manifest; because otherwise they could not know the invisible God, save by such statues and rites. – Athanasius, Against the Heathen, chapter 19
For one might reply to them, bringing the case before the tribunal of truth, How does God make answer or become known by such objects? Is it due to the matter of which they consist, or to the form which they possess? For if it be due to the matter, what need is there of the form, instead of God manifesting Himself through all matter without exception before these things were fashioned? And in vain have they built their temples to shut in a single stone, or stock, or piece of gold, when all the world is full of these substances. But if the superadded form be the cause of the divine manifestation, what is the need of the material, gold and the rest, instead of God manifesting Himself by the actual natural animals of which the images are the figures? For the opinion held about God would on the same principle have been a nobler one, were He to manifest Himself by means of living animals, whether rational or irrational, instead of being looked for in things without life or motion. Wherein they commit the most signal impiety against themselves. For while they abominate and turn from the real animals, beasts, birds, and creeping things, either because of their ferocity or because of their dirtiness, yet they carve their forms in stone, wood, or gold, and make them gods. But it would be better for them to worship the living things themselves, rather than to worship their figures in stone. But perhaps neither is the case, nor is either the material or the form the cause of the divine presence, but it is only skilful art that summons the deity, inasmuch as it is an imitation of nature. But if the deity communicates with the inmates on account of the art, what need, once more, of the material, since the art resides in the men? For if God manifests Himself solely because of the art, and if for this reason the images are worshipped as gods, it would be right to worship and serve the men who are masters of the art, inasmuch as they are rational also, and have the skill in themselves. – Athanasius, Against the Heathen, chapter 20
For you carve the figures for the sake of the apprehension of God, as you say, but invest the actual images with the honour and title of God, thus placing yourselves in a profane position. For while confessing that the power of God transcends the littleness of the images, and for that reason not venturing to invoke God through them, but only the lesser powers, you yourselves leap over these latter, and have bestowed on stocks and stones the title of Him, whose presence you feared, and call them gods instead of stones and men’s workmanship, and worship them. For even supposing them to serve you, as you falsely say, as letters for the contemplation of God, it is not right to give the signs greater honour than that which they signify. For neither if a man were to write the emperor’s name would it be without risk to give to the writing more honour than to the emperor; on the contrary, such a man incurs the penalty of death; while the writing is fashioned by the skill of the writer. So also yourselves, had you your reasoning power in full strength, would not reduce to matter so great a revelation of the Godhead: but neither would you have given to the image greater honour than to the man that carved it…. Far more would it be right to deify the artist who carved and engraved them, as being far more powerful and divine than they, inasmuch as they were cut and fashioned according to his will. – Athanasius, Against the Heathen, chapter 21
Augustine (354-430 AD):
We worship a God who is invisible. He cannot be seen by any bodily eye but is known only to very clean hearts, and few of us have those. This might seem to give pagans an excuse to ask, “Where is their God?” since, unlike us, they can show us their gods, visible to our eyes. This is why the foregoing psalm warned us in advance that the presence of our God is to be discerned in his works, for being enthroned in heaven above, he has done all that he willed in the heavens and on earth. Let the pagans show us their gods, it seems to be saying, for the idols of the Gentiles are fashioned of silver and gold, the work of human hands. We cannot display our God before your eyes, you pagans, though you ought to perceive him through his works; you, on the contrary, can point to the deities you worship. But do not let that lead you astray into empty fantasies. It would do you far more credit to admit you have nothing to show than to prove how blind your hearts are by demonstrating your gods to our bodily eyes. What are you showing us? Only gold and silver. – Augustine, Exposition 2 of Psalm 113, chapter 1
Moreover, we must consider ourselves distinct even from the so-called deities said to dwell within those stones or statues of wood, gold, and silver. For some, seeking to excuse themselves in some fashion, say: “We too know that the idols are vain things, but we do not worship the image itself.” And if you ask them what, then, they worship, they answer: “The divinities that dwell within the image. We bow before the visible form, but we adore the invisible.” But what are these invisible divinities? Let us hear it from our God, who speaks through the prophet: “All the gods of the nations are demons, but the Lord made the heavens” (Psalm 96:5). The demons are not worthy to dwell there. The prophet mocks the demons in one way, and the idols in another. How does he mock the idols? “The statues of the nations are silver and gold” (Psalm 115:4). He does not mention stone or wood, but chooses as the object of ridicule what men esteem most, what they consider precious — the very materials they prize. Thus they are silver and gold, yet still “the work of human hands” (Psalm 115:4). And in what sense are they the work of man? Was it man who made them to be gold or silver? No — that was the work of God. What then did man do? He made them have eyes but not see (Psalm 115:5). Such is the work of man when he fashions his god — a work he himself would not wish to be done to him by the God who made him. He has made a blind god, though he would never wish to have been created blind by God. What more need be said? The psalmist names gold and silver, the most precious of metals, and selects them precisely to mock their divinities, according to what men themselves value most. But is there truly any difference in what he mocks? There is indeed a difference between gold and wood, for gold is more precious than wood; yet as to seeing or not seeing, having eyes or lacking them, the two materials do not differ in the least. Different in use and brightness, they are equal in blindness. — Augustine, Sermon 23B, chapter 8
And lest any of them should say, I do not worship an image, but that which the images signify, he immediately added: “And they worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25). Understand this prudently. For they worship either an image or a creature. He who worships an image turns the truth of God into a lie. For the sea is a real thing; but Neptune is a lie made by man, the truth of God turned into a lie: because God made the sea, but man made the image of Neptune. In the same way, God made the sun; but when man makes an image of the sun, he turns the truth of God into a lie. But lest they say, I do not worship an image, I worship the sun, for this reason he said, “They worshiped the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25). – Augustine, Sermon 197, Against the Pagans, chapter 1 – PL 38:1022
There are people who declare, “I worship neither an idol nor a demon, but I regard the image as a physical sign of what I ought to worship.” Such people think themselves practitioners of a purer religion.… When the worshippers begin to be embarrassed by the charge that they are adoring material things like earth, sea, air, and fire—objects that are readily available for our use—they have the temerity to reply that they are not paying cult to the physical objects themselves but to the deities who preside over and rule them. (Less embarrassment is felt in the case of objects in the sky, since we cannot handle these, or even make contact with them, except visually.) The apostle pronounces both condemnation and punishment in a single sentence: They changed the truth of God into a lie, and they worshipped and served a creature rather than the creator, who is blessed for ever (Rom 1 :25). In the first half of this sentence he condemned idols and in the second half the interpretations imposed on them. By giving to images made by a craftsman the names of things fashioned by God they change God’s truth into a lie; by paying divine honors to the things signified they are serving a creature rather than the creator, who is blessed for ever. – Augustine, Exposition 2 of Psalm 113, chapter 4
Does anyone worship or pray with his eyes fixed on the image, without being persuaded that the image is hearing his petition and without hoping that it will give him what he wants? Probably not. So thoroughly entangled do people become in such superstitions that they often turn their backs on the real sun and pour out their prayers to the statue they call Sun; or again, while the sound of the sea is battering them from behind they batter the statue of Neptune with their sighs as though it were conscious, that statue which they venerate as representative of the actual sea. What causes this error—almost forces the illusion on them, in fact—is the human likeness with all its bodily parts. The minds of the worshippers are accustomed to living with their own bodily senses, and so they judge that a body very similar to their own is more likely to be responsive than the sun’s orb. or the wide waves, or any other object clearly not built on the same plane as the living creatures they are used to seeing.