Peter Martyr (1499-1562), also known as Vermigli, was a truly significant Protestant Reformer. He wrote an extensive treatment on images that is included in the 1583 English translation of a compilation of his work entitled Common Places. Reading this work is a challenge because of the unfamiliar script and the archaic spelling. In the quotations below, I have updated the spelling and punctuation found in the original.
In one particularly interesting paragraph, Peter Martyr explained why he was not necessarily opposed to visual representations of Jesus in His humanity. He also here explained his disagreement with the argument against all visual representations of Jesus in His humanity that is today commonly called the Christological argument. Here is the beginning of this paragraph:
Now, as touching those images, which resemble things created, let us see how they may be suffered, or not suffered. And first of all, Christ comes very well to remembrance, in that he is man, for in that respect he may be resembled and painted out. For that is not against the nature of the thing, seeing he was very man, neither against the art of painting, which may imitate bodies. True indeed it is, that in the seventh Synod, which the papists allow not, (being held by Constantine and his son) it was decreed that Christ should not be painted or fashioned out, no not as touching his human nature. And the reason is set down because nothing but his humanity can be expressed by art. Wherefore they, which make such things, seem to embrace the Nestorian heresy, which separated the human nature from the divine. But to say truly, I do not much allow of this reason; which if it were true, it should not be lawful to picture any man, because the soul, which is a spirit, cannot be expressed. And they which describe the human nature of the Lord, do not exclude the divine nature from the understanding, neither do they show or allow, that the humanity of Christ, either was, or is destitute of his godhead. (p. 340, 2.5.10.)
He said something similar in some earlier introductory comments:
Wherefore, images do either represent God the Creator of all things or else things created, which be the sundry workmanships of GOD. And among those things which be created, we place even Christ himself as touching his humanity. This being set down, it seems meet to be determined that all creatures may be represented by images … (p. 335, 2.5.4.)
Thus Peter Martyr was open to visual representations of Jesus in His humanity because they are depictions of a created human nature.
Peter Martyr also made a statement about the potential usefulness of paintings of historical scenes:
Howbeit, this seems the safest way of all others, that if things should be painted, the profitable and holy histories should chiefly be painted; whereby the beholders may receive some edifying. (p. 341, 2.5.11.)
At the same time he was opposed to anyone’s allowing paintings to replace the Scriptures, and he was opposed to images in a place of worship:
And it is very frivolous that they have always in their mouth that images are certain visible words of God which help the faith of them that be ignorant. For Paul testifies that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, not by pictures or images. If any be desirous to have Christ pictured, let him read the holy scriptures, let him have in his hand the gospels, the apostolical epistles, and the Acts of the apostles, and let him be oftentimes present at godly sermons. (p. 353, 2.5.25.)
Lastly from them must be removed all religious worship, the which that it be not given them, it must be always provided that they be not placed in the churches. (pp. 341-342, 2.5.11.)
Peter Martyr was more open than some today to allowing visible representations of Jesus in His humanity. At the same time, he was more restrictive than some today about visual representations of deity. He wrote that visual representations of deity are forbidden because they cannot meet the impossible standard of depicting the undepictable essence of deity and possessing divine attributes (p. 337, 2.5.7.). All should agree with him that such direct depictions of deity are both forbidden and impossible. Yet that still leaves open the question of visual metonymical representations and analogical symbols. Peter Martyr acknowledged that God at times revealed Himself in visual forms to certain people in visions and events in redemptive history. These would have to be visual metonymical representations or analogical symbols rather than direct depictions of the divine. He argued that the verbal descriptions of such appearances which are found in Scripture should suffice because people can be tempted to worship visual representations of such appearances (p. 339, 2.5.8.). He also seemed to regard the use of such visual metonymical representations of deity as a strictly divine prerogative:
Howbeit, we must grant that God would have some signs whereby he would open himself unto men. Such were the ark of the covenant, the tabernacle of Moses, the temple of Solomon and also the pillar of fire and of the cloud, but it must be considered that he devised and ordained these figures for himself. Neither is it lawful for men to do so much as it is for God. (p. 338, 2.5.7.)
After mentioning the Ancient of Days in the vision in Daniel chapter seven and the appearance of a man sitting on the likeness of a throne in the vision in Ezekiel chapter one and some other anthropomorphic representations of deity found in Scripture, Peter Martyr said:
Where it is afterward said that it is lawful for us to use the same lineaments, colors and engravings, it follows not: for there is no law given unto God. All things which he does both rightly and justly are not lawful for men to do … (p. 339, 2.5.8.)
He specifically criticized certain paintings which used “the picture of a dove, and that instead of the holy Ghost” (p. 338, 2.5.8.). I would assume that Peter Martyr would be open to some visual representations of the narrative scene of Jesus being baptized in the Jordan River by John the Baptist but not to any which included a visual representation of the Holy Spirit coming down upon Jesus like a dove.
Should we today regard as in possible agreement with Westminster Larger Catechism Question 109 people who, like Peter Martyr, believe that visual representations of Jesus in His humanity are not necessarily forbidden by the second commandment? Should we also regard as in possible agreement with Westminster Larger Catechism Question 109 people who, unlike Peter Martyr, believe that the use of an external image of a dove as a visual metonymical representation or analogical symbol of the Holy Spirit is not necessarily forbidden by the second commandment? I think that Westminster Larger Catechism Question 109 should be interpreted broadly enough to allow for both people who agree and people who disagree with Peter Martyr on either of these two issues.
I also think that the more consistent positions on these two issues are either to accept them both as morally legitimate possibilities or else to accept neither as a morally legitimate possibility. A depiction of Jesus in His humanity and a depiction of a dove are both external images of a created nature and both function as visual metonymical representations of deity. I also find it inconsistent that Peter Martyr used what I elsewhere call the irresistible temptation argument against depicting certain manifestations of deity which God showed to people and which are described in the Bible but did not use this same argument against depicting Jesus in His humanity. In addition, I find it inconsistent that he used the uniqueness of God’s prerogatives as an argument against the former but not the latter.
Grover Gunn's Blog 