Ralph Erskine and Mental Images by Rev. Benjamin Glaser

 

One of the most common exceptions taken in the ARP (and the PCA et al) by newly ordained men and those taking transfer exams in presbytery is without a doubt a certain clause in the explanation to Westminster Larger Catechism #109. This mainly concerns the prohibition against making mental images of the Godhead, especially the Second Person, in accordance with the catechism’s teaching on the Second Commandment. I will post the question below:

Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.

Now there is a lot more there than just mental images under the purview of the Q/A, however this brief post will only deal with the main question at hand. 

As the title suggests my purpose is to provide a brief view from the writing of Ralph Erskine against the taking of this exception and show a positive defense for the Catechism from his work. Erskine's is without a doubt the largest and most comprehensive book ever written on this subject. I would challenge any man interested in taking this exception to read at least a portion of the arguments contained therein. You will find almost every argument for taking an exception to WLC 109 handled by Erskine. The impetus for writing the book was to handle a work by James Robe in defense of the Cambusland Revival. Robe takes the view that our senses and imagination due surely greatly enhance our faith in Christ when we imagine and dwell on the Divine nature of Jesus. Erskine posits that not only is it impossible to do so, as any mental image is by its very nature false and therefore provides an at best misleading idea of Christ, but it in fact results in the human worshipping falsely. By logic then it makes mental images not only violate the Second Commandment, but also the 1st, 3rd, and 9th. Hence why Erskine calls it "Fancy" to try and do so. 

The work is called and is linked here:

“Faith No Fancy, a Treatise On Mental Images”.

In this post I am going to provide a few relevant quotations by the author to whet the appetite. My intention is not to do the work for you, but to challenge you to deal with our father in the faith.

The quotes will be generally chronological from the book and I pray it will be edifying and answer some of the common objections to the Catechism. 

Erskine's main desire in writing this work was to make sure that the Christ of Faith was never to be obscured by the Christ of Fancy, or in modern parlance, that which is made up by the mind. 

Enjoy!

"If Mr. Robe think that these visible things that strike our senses can lead us to the quid fit, or what God is, and that He must be clothed with such perfections, then there would be little need of any other Bible than the visible heavens. To say that our senses and imaginations are greatly helpful to our knowledge of the divine nature & perfections, or to think upon the invisible things of God, that are the objects of faith, and not of sense, is in flat contradiction to what Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:11-13." -- Ralph Erskine 

“Our Lord charges them with mental adultery, that look after a women as having committed adultery with here. (Matt. 5:28). This sin may be as really committed, though a woman be not present to be looked at with the bodily eye. If a man shall frame an imaginary idea of a woman in his mind to lust after her, it is mental adultery. Even so it is mental idolatry to form a picture of Christ's human nature in our mind, by an imaginary idea of it; and so to make that the object of faith or worship. To form that picture of His humanity in the mind, is a mental looking to it: And to make that the object of faith and worship is a falling down to that image; and committing mental idolatry with it. Indeed I know not who can justify themselves, and say they are free of this sin in some measure. It is too natural, and, I believe to every saint, as long as he is in the flesh, and hath a body of sin and death carrying about with him. But I think it is possible for true believers, to take up a vast difference between that fancy or imagination of Christ as man, which can lead a person no farther, and that faith that apprehends Him as God-man, and sees the glory of God in His person.” – Ralph Erskine 

“Again, let a man have an imaginary idea of Christ’s human nature, now exalted to heaven, and sitting at the right hand of God, and on the throne of God; he forms the idea of a man, and the idea of a throne on which he sits. I would ask, whether the idea he hath of a man, be any better than the idea he hath of a throne; or if any of these ideas give the least help or assistance to his faith; or rather, if they do not cloud his mind, and contribute to make him have a gross, carnal, and unworthy notion of Christ? Can he in that glass see anything of the invisible glory of God in Christ, as the image of the invisible God?

Peter Martyr, Loc. Com., p. 155, speaking of images of Christ, says, “If the bodily presence of Christ was a hindrance to the apostles, and the sight of His human nature an impediment, unfitting them from receiving the Spirit, till once He went away in that respect from them (John 16:7), how much more will images of Christ prove impediments.[”]

We have no other glass to see Christ in, but the gospel; no other eye to see Him by, but faith. If the eye of sense and imagination come between, there is no seeing of Christ by faith, till that eye of sense be shut. Again, to conceive of Christ as man, is carnal worship and idolatry, when this imaginary idea of Him as man is brought in, as helpful and necessary to faith or worship. Which two I mention together, because faith is a special leading part of divine worship.” – Ralph Erskine 

“The image of Christ as God in our nature, represented to us in the light of the gospel, which is the only glass wherein we can behold His glory (2 Cor. 3:18) is of such a nature, that no image of His human body formed in the brain, can stand before it, any more than Dagon could stand before the ark of God.” — Ralph Erskine, “Faith No Fancy”, pg. 19

“To seek after any part of the knowledge of Christ in our own imaginary idea of Him as man, is equally as foolish as to seek the morning star in a dungeon or the sun in a dunghill.” — Ralph Erskine, “Faith No Fancy, a Treatise On Mental Images”, pg. 32

“Now, it must be said even of natural reason and human understanding: How much more must sense and natural imagination be rejected and cast out, when it is brought in, under the strange term of an imaginary idea of Christ as man, to be helpful to the right knowledge and understanding of this great mystery of godliness, an incarnate God?” — Ralph Erskine, “Faith No Fancy, a Treatise On Mental Images”, pg. 41

“Again, let a man have an imaginary idea of Christ’s human nature, now exalted to heaven, and sitting at the right hand of God, and on the throne of God; he forms the idea of a man, and the idea of a throne on which He sits. I would ask whether the idea of the Man, be any better than the idea he has of a throne; or if any of these ideas give the best help or assistance to his faith, or rather if the do not in fact cloud his mind and contribute to make him have a gross, carnal, and unworthy notion of Christ? Can he in that glass be anything of the invisible glory of God in Christ, as the image of the invisible God?” — Ralph Erskine, “Faith No Fancy”, pg. 65

“They bring forth an image of Christ formed in the brain by an imaginary idea, as Aaron said of the idol I cast the gold into the fire, and there came out this calf. They bring forth an image of Christ, that diverts the mind from the true Christ, and from the true spiritual object of faith set before us in the gospel, where alone we see Christ. (2 Cor 3:18).” — Ralph Erskine, “Faith No Fancy”, pg. 73