They Should Be Utterly Abolished

The argument in hand I frame thus:

All things and rites which have been notoriously abused to idolatry, if they are not such as either God or nature has made to be of a necessary use, should be utterly abolished and purged away from divine worship, in such sort that they may not be accounted nor used by us as sacred things or rites pertaining to the same.

But the cross, surplice, kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, &c., are things and rites,  &c., and are not such as either God or nature, &c.

Therefore they should be utterly abolished, &c.

~George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies (Naphtali Press, 2nd critical ed., 2013), 149.


The Reformed View on Images is Not a Novelty

Mint, Anise, and the Cumin:

What is the historical testimony of the Patristic regarding images of Christ? How does the Reformed view compare to the Patristic? Is the Reformed view a novelty?

The answer is that the Reformed view is faithful to the Patristic testimony and is not a novelty or something made up in the 16th century. At the end of all the quotes are two additional quotes by early church fathers regarding when and why images came into the Christian faith..

What Lactantius said in the 3rd century is still equally true today, “Wherefore there is no doubt, but that no religion is in that place wheresoever any image is”…

Read more:

No Crosses

Michael Daniels:

It always seems to come as a surprise to many Christians including those of other Reformed and Presbyterian background that Covenanters (Reformed Presbyterians) are against not only all images of the Triune God as much as inside the Worship as outside the Worship of the Yahovah that we are also against images of the Cross. Not just a Crucifixes with Christ up on the Cross but also plain Crosses as well. It baffles other Christians as for the reason behind this prohibition. How on Earth can we justify this prohibition and why would be want to? The following is a small summary of our reasons.

Read more: