“For the likeness of a man appears to be necessary at that time when he is far away; and it will become superfluous when he is at hand. But in the case of God, whose spirit and influence are diffused everywhere, and can never be absent, it is plain that an image is always superfluous.” ~Lactantius, The Divine Institutes Bk. 2, Chapt. 2

Lactantius is one of the lesser-known early church fathers. Writing at the end of the third century and beginning of the fourth, he became an advisor to Constantine. He stands then at a threshold of history. Lactantius knows the world of persecutions and catacombs. He sounds in some ways like Clement or Tertullian or Cyprian. But Lactantius also experiences the Christianization of the empire and the need for Christians to move from being an oppressed minority, viewing themselves as more than partially alien, towards a status and identity of citizenship– in this world. He is ante-Nicene and reads like it. He advocates chiliasm, and he still speaks of the concept of fallen angels taking up with human women. He has also been criticized for a lack of biblical and doctrinal knowledge, though I myself am not convinced that this is wholly fair. Even apart from direct Scriptural quotations, he uses familiar categories and tropes, including a noticeably Hebraic critique of idolatry. And indeed, Lactantius can also “sound like” Athanasius and Augustine at times. His history of unbelief and paganism and the triumph of the Cross is strikingly similar to Contra Gentes, De Incarnatione, and De Civitate Dei. Of course, it would be more accurate to say that Athanasius and Augustine sound like Lactantius, and there is surely some dependence. In The Divine Institutes, Lactantius explains the history of false worship, as well as the origin of the gods, and he then traces this through the incomplete revolution of the philosophers. Finally, this leads to the true prophets and the coming of Jesus Christ.

As he lays out this apologetic history, Lactantius also begins to attack image worship. He gives the usual (and Biblical!) argument that God is not in need of anything created, that art is necessarily inferior to the artist, and that the true image of God is actually man himself. Importantly, Lactantius makes a clear distinction between “images” as a medium and the false gods themselves. I believe this to be important because later Christian advocates of the use of images in worship typically argue that the patristic critique of images is only a critique of the worship of false gods. Whenever we see “image” used as a vice, we ought to, they assert, equate this with “idol.” The bad image is simply the false god itself, or perhaps some sort of conflation of the image and the false god, as if the pagans were unaware that their deity was not locally bound and limited to the image. Emphases will vary, but the common goal is to move the polemic away from the use of imagery as a medium.

Lactantius, however, provides a clear attack on the medium. He writes:

What madness is it, then, either to form those objects which they themselves may afterwards fear, or to fear the things which they have formed? But, 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. You fear them doubtless on this account, because you think that they are in heaven; for if they are gods, the case cannot be otherwise. Why, then, do you not raise your eyes to heaven, and, invoking their names, offer sacrifices in the open air? Why do you look to walls, and 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, of the images themselves, which are memorials either of the dead or absent? For the plan 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 separated by absence.

Right away we see the attempt at evasion. The pagans do not fear the objects themselves– they do not fear the art, “things which they have formed.” Rather the image is a representation of the true thing. It is a likeness. And it makes the true thing, the thing that is otherwise absent, present in some way.

But Lactantius rejects this. He says that it is wholly inappropriate for a god:

In which of these classes, then, shall we reckon the gods? If among the dead, who is so foolish as to worship them? If among the absent, then they are not to be worshipped, if they neither see our actions nor hear our prayers. But if the gods cannot be absent,—for, since they are divine, they see and hear all things, in whatever part of the universe they are,—it follows that images are superfluous, since the gods are present everywhere, and it is sufficient to invoke with prayer the names of those who hear us. But if they are present, they cannot fail to be at hand at their own images. It is entirely so, as the people imagine, that the spirits of the dead wander about the tombs and relics of their bodies. But after that the deity has begun to be near, there is no longer need of his statue.  

Notice the argument. Lactantius states that an image or a statue is only necessary if the person is absent. And if they are absent, then they necessarily lack the capacity to hear prayers. If, on the other hand, the god is not absent– since part of being god includes omniscience and omnipresence– then the statute or image is unnecessary for the god is actually present. And if the god is present, then it would be foolish to continue to direct one’s worship to the image. Rather, one should go directly to the god.

Lactantius is aware of the argument that an image is meant to represent the deity or to stand as a sacred memorial. He is aware of the way in which people attempt to argue a mystical unity beteen the image and the real. And he rejects these arguments.

For Lactantius, the image is precisely an ersatz deity. It is a stand in for when the real thing is unavailable. It is a counterfeit:

For I ask, if any one should often contemplate the likeness of a man who has settled in a foreign land, that he may thus solace himself for him who is absent, would he also appear to be of sound mind, if, when the other had returned and was present, he should persevere in contemplating the likeness, and should prefer the enjoyment of it, rather than the sight of the man himself? Assuredly not. For the likeness of a man appears to be necessary at that time when he is far away; and it will become superfluous when he is at hand. But in the case of God, whose spirit and influence are diffused everywhere, and can never be absent, it is plain that an image is always superfluous. (Divine Inst. 2.2)

And in another place:

For whatever is an imitation, that must of necessity be false; nor can anything receive the name of a true object which counterfeits the truth by deception and imitation. But if all imitation is not particularly a serious matter, but as it were a sport and jest, then there is no religion in images, but a mimicry of religion. (Divine Inst. 2.19)

This is a definitive argument against the cultic use of images. In the case of the true God, “it is plain that an image is always superfluous.”

Lactantius’ geographical history is of interest at this point. He was born in North Africa and may have traveled to Rome in his early life. He moved to Asia Minor where he interacted with many imperial leaders and also where he seems to have converted to Christianity. He may have returned to North Africa before ending in his life in Trier (the German frontier). As such, he would have a familiarity with a rather broad range of Christian practice. The use of images for prayer is not something that he considers Christian at this time.

Indeed, Lactantius does not argue against a false use of images and then pivot towards a true and appropriate use of icons or statues. Instead, he argues against images and then for the dignity of man, particularly his faculties of perception and action:

But they fear lest their religion should be altogether vain and empty if they should see nothing present which they may adore, and therefore they set up images; and since these are representations of the dead, they resemble the dead, for they are entirely destitute of perception. But the image of the ever-living God ought to be living and endued with perception. But if it received this name from resemblance, how can it be supposed that these images resemble God, which have neither perception nor motion? Therefore the image of God is not that which is fashioned by the fingers of men out of stone, or bronze, or other material, but man himself, since he has both perception and motion, and performs many and great actions. (Divine Inst. 2.2)

Notice, it is the pagans who fear a religion without visuals. Lactantius counters that their visuals are of no use, since those visuals themselves cannot see. A stationary image is also of no use to those who need deliverance.

After this section, Lactantius attacks any assumption that God needs decoration or earthly gifts. He then returns to an extended critique of false religions. After several chapters, he returns to the matter of religious media, arguing that we ought to direct our worship above, to the true reality:

Let him not seek God under his feet, nor dig up from his footprints an object of veneration, for whatever lies beneath man must necessarily be inferior to man; but let him seek it aloft, let him seek it in the highest place: for nothing can be greater than man, except that which is above man. But God is greater than man: therefore He is above, and not below; nor is He to be sought in the lowest, but rather in the highest region. Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image. For if religion consists of divine things, and there is nothing divine except in heavenly things; it follows that images are without religion, because there can be nothing heavenly in that which is made from the earth. And this, indeed, may be plain to a wise man from the very name. For whatever is an imitation, that must of necessity be false; nor can anything receive the name of a true object which counterfeits the truth by deception and imitation. But if all imitation is not particularly a serious matter, but as it were a sport and jest, then there is no religion in images, but a mimicry of religion. That which is true is therefore to be preferred to all things which are false; earthly things are to be trampled upon, that we may obtain heavenly things. (Divine Inst. 2.19)

Students of this topic will recognize the line “There is no religion wherever there is an image.” It became a commonplace quotation. Similar statements are to be found in Clement, Origen, and Tertullian. But this is not a mere assertion of prejudice. Notice the logic being employed. An image is, by definition, an imitation. It is not the real. And in the case of a God who is real and who is present, worshipping an imitation is impious.

Lactantius is not arguing against false gods merely, nor of the wrong sort of images. He is arguing against the cultic use of images as a medium in worship. They are too low. Rather than looking for anything “under his feet” or “from his footprints,” man should look above. He should lift up his heart.