CHAPTER XXXII.--PROGRESSIVE IDEAS OF DEITY. IDOLATRY: ITS CHARACTER, USES, HARMLESSNESS, AND PRIMARY ORIGIN.

There is no act, no species, of human conduct, nothing recognized as a sin within the lids of the Christian Bible, which is perhaps more fearfully or more frequently condemned, or denounced with more awful and terrible penalties, than that of idolatry. Those who practiced it are ranked with murderers and liars (Rev. xxii. 15); and it is declared, "They shall not inherit The kingdom of God" (1 Cor. vi. 9), but "shall have their portion in the lake of fire and brimstone" (Rev. xxi. 8). Now, we propose to bestow a brief examination upon the origin, character, and practical moral effect of this ancient practice, that we may learn the nature of the custom which is thus placed at the head of the list of the acts of human depravity, and regarded as the blackest and most infamous crime ever perpetrated by sinful man. We find it manifested under various forms, the original or most primitive aspect of which, so far as disclosed by the light of history, is known as Fetichism,—the worship of inanimate objects. Stretching the imagination far away in the rearward of time,—far back along the receding pathway of human history, over a series of many thousands, not to say millions, of years,—we arrive at a period in which man is found occupying a plane of mere animal, sensorial existence, connected with which was an imperfect development of perception and reflection. In this era of his mental growth he began to perceive and recognize the motions of objects around him. He observed bright and shining bodies rolling over his head,—one by day, and ten thousand more by night. At least he observed that they changed positions,—being in one locality in the morning, and in the opposite direction in the evening. What conclusion from these observations could be more natural, more childlike (for, bear in mind, this was really the childhood of the race), or more reasonable, than that these bodies possessed life,—that they inherently possessed the power of locomotion, the same ability to move that he did himself,—just as the infant, now gazing out upon the sky from the lap of its mother, fancies the darting meteor to be a bird or an animal? Wherever the ignorant, illiterate, primitive inhabitants of our globe perceived motion,—whether it was displayed in the revolution of the planets, the falling tree, or the rippling stream,—there they associated life and motion. And, soon learning that these adjuncts of nature possessed a power and force superior to that with which they themselves were endowed, their feelings of awe and veneration were thereby excited; and to the highest degree their deep in-wrought devotional feelings first found an outlet by bowing in humble acknowledgment to the superior greatness of the shining orbs wheeling in such majestic grandeur along the deep blue sky, and "bidding defiance to all below." This is believed to have been the first form, the first practical manifestation, of religious worship, and the first form or phase of idolatry now denominated Fetichism.

POLYTHEISM.—THIS WORD IS FROM POLUS, "MANY," AND THEOS,

"God;" and hence is used to denote a belief in many or several Gods, which comprehends the second form and stage of idolatry! We have spoken of the early recognition by the primitive inhabitants of the earth of the motion of the heavenly bodies as giving rise to the belief that they possessed self-constituted life and volition. But, progressing a step farther, their attention was turned to motion where there was no visible agent to produce it,—action without a visible actor. The thunder rolled and reverberated along the great archway of heaven, the winds whistled and moaned through the thick foliage of the trees, and rushed along the valleys, oft-times with such violence as to overturn their rude tenements, and prostrate the towering oak at their feet. Yet nothing could be seen of the agent which produced these direful effects. No being, no agent, no cause adequate for their production, was visible. Hence they very naturally concluded that they were produced by invisible beings who could wing their way through space without being seen. This assumed discovery soon gave rise to the thought that the stars might be moved by these beings, instead of possessing, as they had previously been supposed to do, an inherent power of motion of their own. And these prime movers of the planets they concluded to be Gods, or moving spirits. Thus originated the notion of a plurality of Gods, each planet having a separate ruling Deity. And the sun—being greatly superior to, transcending in magnitude, light, power, and influence, all the other luminaries, with their qualities all combined—was, with the most childlike naturalness, supposed to be ruled by the chief of the Gods, "the Lord of lords and King of kings." It was he who, every morning throwing open the magnificent portals of the Orient,—the huge golden gates of the eastern horizon,—slowly lifted aloft his stupendous body of light to dispel the deep dark gloom which fur many hours had been spread like a pall over universal nature.

It was he who, plowing his way through the heavens, despite the mist and clouds piled upon the great highway of his wonted march, rolled down at eventide the western declivity of the cerulean causeway to give place to Luna, queen of night, realizing that,

and that

It was this mighty solar orb, "the king of day," who, having performed his wonted journey to the south, returned in early spring to banish the chilling blasts of the drear cold season; to drive from off the earth the biting frosts and freezing snows of gloom-dispensing winter, and pour down, in lieu thereof, his genial and vivifying rays to waken the flowers; to call forth vegetation, and ultimately ripen the golden harvest. In a word, he dispensed heat, light, life, and blessings innumerable over all the earth. How easy, how natural, then, it was for the untutored savage to conclude that the indwelling or on-dwelling spirit of the sun was "the chief of the Gods," to whom all the inferior Deities (those who presided over the stars) bowed in humble allegiance, acknowledging his superior sway, his right to rule over the boundless universe! The sun, being thus the great central wheel of all recognized power,—i.e., the tabernacle or dwelling-place of the supreme, omnipotent God,—became the principal object of admiration and adoration, the pivot around which clustered their deepest devotional aspirations; the subordinate Deities of the planets holding but a second place in their devout contemplations and uprising venerations. The worship of these imaginary beings, including the ruling and overruling "God of all," with his tabernacle pitched in the blazing sun, is now termed idolatry, and may be regarded as the second phase or form of this species of worship. Hence we may note it as a remarkable circumstance, that all the principal systems of religion now existing, as well as most of those which have passed away, exhibit very strong marks of this ancient solar worship; and it is more especially remarkable, that both Judaism and Christianity, with all their exalted claims to a supernatural origin, should be, as they seemingly are, deeply tinctured with this ancient Sabean or solar worship. Distinct traces of it are observable in the whole religious nomenclature of Christianity. It, in fact, pervades the whole system. This declaration is borne out by the fact that nearly every divine epithet, nearly every name applied to the Deity in the Christian scriptures, including those addressed to Jesus Christ, and also nearly every theological term in both the Old and New Testaments, are traceable to the ancient solar worship; that is, the words, when traced to their roots, or original form, are found to have been solar titles. We will present some samples by way of proof: The divine title Lord, in the New Testament, is translated from the Greek Kuros, which is the Persian name for the sun; God is from Gad, an Ammonian name for the sun; Jehovah, by translation and declension, becomes Jupiter, which, according to Macrobius, is "the sun itself;" Deity is from the Latin Deus, which is traceable to dies, a day,—a period of time measured by the sun; Jesus is from Jes or J-es (with the Latin termination us), which means "the one great fire of the sun;" and Christ is derived from Chris, a Chaldean term for the sun; and so on of other divine titles. And whole phrases of scripture-texts disclose the same idolatrous solar origin. Why is Jesus Christ called "the sun of righteousness"? (spelled s-u-n, let it be noticed), as this text, quoted from Malachi, is assumed to apply to him; and why is the term "light," so frequently used and preferred throughout the Christian scriptures, to denote the spiritual condition of man? Why are nations, whose minds are cultivated and stored with knowledge, said to be "enlightened"? Certainly, to our external vision, they are as opaque as the most grossly ignorant barbarians. But they are called enlightened when advanced in knowledge, simply because all knowledge was once supposed to be imparted by the God of the sun through its descending rays of light. Hence light and knowledge are now synonymous terms. David says, "The Lord is my light and my salvation" (Ps. xxvii. 1),—just what the ancient pagans used to say of the sun. Isaiah says, "The Lord shall be to thee an everlasting light" (Isa. lx. 19),—exactly such a conception as the ancient heathen entertained of the sun, to which its application is more obviously appropriate. Habakkuk says, "His brightness was as light" (iii. 4). Apply this language to the sun, and its meaning becomes strikingly significant. Christ is said to be "a light to lighten the Gentiles," "the true light," "the light of the world," &c.; and yet we can not discover that those who have embraced his doctrines, and thus come into possession of this "true light," shed any more light upon a devious pathway, traveled in the darkness of night, than the veriest Jewish pharisee or infidel. The Christian reader will reply, "These phrases are mere figures of speech." To be sure they are: we admit it. But then their derivation and origin are none the less obvious, and, when scrutinizingly examined, disclose remote traces of Oriental idolatry; and, moreover, they most unmistakably prove Christianity to be of heathen extraction with respect to its verbal habiliments, or external vestment, as well as the main drift and scope of its doctrines and teachings, as shown elsewhere. We will observe further, that such conceptions (found in the Christian Bible) as "God is a consuming fire," "God is light," &c. (John i. 5), originated in the primeval ages, when God was supposed to reside in the sun; also such ejaculations as "O Lord, the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising" (Isa. ix. 3). The words "light," "brightness," and "rising" apply with striking force to the sun, and were used by the ancient Persians in such a relation, while, on the other hand, it is difficult to discover any sense or appropriateness in applying them—at least the word "rising"—to the Supreme Being; for he is represented as always occupying "the highest heavens:" so there can be no higher point to rise to. We might also ask, Why are "the Lord's day" and "Sunday" used as synonymous terms? or why is the Lord now worshiped on the very day anciently set apart for the worship of the sun or solar Deities? Do not these facts prove that many remnants of the ancient idolatrous religions are still retained in Christian theology?

Monotheism.—This word—from monos, one, or alone, and Theos, God—represents a belief in but one God. We have shown in the preceding section how a belief in a plurality of Gods originated. We will now trace the progress of this idea to a unitary conception of the Deity. It will be observed, by the study of ancient theology, that, as the human mind becomes enlightened and expanded by the discovery of the laws governing the heavenly bodies, the lesser or inferior Deities gradually fall into disbelief and disuse, and "the Supreme Holy One" proportionally becomes exalted in the devout affections of the worshiping multitude, until most religious nations become, in one view, virtually and practically monotheists. And it may be remarked here, that, as neither the imaginary God nor carved images of God were objects of worship by the most enlightened classes of any nation, they can not strictly and truthfully be termed idolaters. Hence some writers are bold to affirm there never was a nation of idolaters; and we incline to this opinion. We are also bold to affirm that there never was, properly speaking, a nation of monotheists,—believing in but one God, and no more,—neither Jews nor Christians excepted; and we are likewise prepared to exhibit the proof of the affirmation, that every nation, reported in history making a profession of religion, has acknowledged the existence of one supreme God. This is true even of those who believe in a multiplicity of Gods,—a circumstance which places both Jews and Christians in rather an awkward position, claiming as they do, and always have done, a monopoly of this faith; and the fact that they have long professedly labored to bring other nations to this belief, while some of those nations have, as we shall show, been much more consistent, both in the belief and practice of this doctrine, than themselves, places them, as we conceive, in rather a ludicrous aspect. The Christian Bible and the Christian world have arrogated vastly too much to themselves, and overstepped the bounds of truth, in claiming to be the only propagators of the unitary conception of a God, as the following citations from historical authorities will clearly manifest:—

1. Christians have a numerous cortege, or retinue, of angels in their system of inspired theology, as is shown in various parts of the Bible, which, in theological parlance, must be regarded as so many secondary Gods, inasmuch as they are assigned the same duties, perform the same functions, and sustain precisely the same relation to the supernal Deity as did the subordinate Gods of the pagans under the ancient systems. It is, in fact, only a change of name, in order to get rid of the illogical dilemma of holding to the existence of but one God, while virtually acknowledging the existence of many. We might cite many facts and testimonies from history in proof of this statement, but will restrict ourselves to one. Mr. Higgins says, "All nations believed in one supreme God, and many subordinates. The latter some termed angels; others called them Gods." More anciently than the Jews, we find that the Babylonians, Chaldeans, Persians, and Syrians all vested these subordinate beings with the properties of mere angels. "Angels," then, with Christians, we legitimately infer, is only another name for second-class Gods, or subordinate Deities of the Orientals.

2. Even if we should pass over, as unworthy of consideration, the historical facts which go to identify the Christian angels with the subordinate Deities of the ancient pagans, there is yet spread out before us a broad and tenable ground for charging Christians with being polytheists,—that is, for rejecting their pretensions of worshiping and preaching a unitary God; for it is a very striking and depreciating fact, that, notwithstanding their boastful and arrogating claims, there are many texts in the Old Testament which imply, in the most distinct manner, a belief in a plurality of Gods. Indeed the first passage in the book, according to Mr. Parkhurst, would read, if correctly translated, "In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth," thus disclosing an acknowledgment of more than one God. And we find many other passages which are made to conceal the old polytheistic idea by a wrong translation. Fortunately, however, for the disclosure of truth, there are many texts in which it comes very distinctly to the surface. As for example, in Genesis i. 26, we have the undisguised language, "Let us make man in our own image." Now "us" and "our" being plural pronouns, it would be folly and nonsense to deny that they refer to a plurality of Gods. "Let us make man" means, "Let us Gods make man;" for no sophistry, shifting, or dodging can make sense of it with any other construction. And several times, in this and other chapters, is similar language used. We will cut the matter short by observing, upon the authority of Parkhurst, that Aleim and Elohim are the Hebrew plurals used to represent God in the Old Testament; that these are much more frequently employed than the singular forms, Al and El, thus disclosing the conception of a plurality of Gods beyond dispute.

3. And this argumentation acquires additional logical strength when based on the fact that the Jews did not claim Jehovah as the only God, but merely as supreme to other Gods. He was "God of Gods" and "Lord of Lords." Nor was he claimed to be a God of any but the Jewish nation. Jethro is made to say, "Now I know that Jehovah is greater than all Gods" (Exod. xviii. 11). And in Exodus xv. 11 it is asked, "Who is like unto Jehovah among the Gods?" Just such a claim as is put forth for Jupiter by Homer in his Iliad:—

Hence it will be observed, that if there were any merit or any honor in professing faith in a unitary Deity, or any truth forming a basis for such a claim, neither Jews nor Christians could justly arrogate a monopoly of such faith, inasmuch as there is an older claim to the doctrine.

4. But we find that the professors of the Christian faith occupy still more untenable and more palpably erroneous ground than the Jews with respect to the profession of holding strictly to the unitary conception of Deity; for they not only tacitly accept the contradictory phases of this doctrine, which we have pointed out above, in the Jewish writings, but they add thereto a new installment or chapter of errors by having accepted into their creed the old Oriental doctrine of a trinity of Gods. They have "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost," which present us with a family of Gods as complete and absolute as the confederated union of Gods in either the ancient Hindoo or Grecian Pantheon. To allege, in defense, that these three Gods were all one, while we find each in various parts of the Bible spoken of separately, and discriminated by peculiar and distinct properties and titles, instead of mitigating the error and contradiction, such a plea only aggravates it. In the same sense the Hindoos claimed that their thousand Gods were one. And all the triads or trinities of Gods swarming through the ancient mythologies were proclaimed to be each "a trinity in unity;" so that such a defense only lands the professor of Christianity amongst heathen myths.

5. The absurdity of the Christian Church in professing to worship a single God, also making a profession of rising above and contemning the idolatrous, polytheistic conception of Deity, culminates in their act of embodying and incorporating the infinite deityship in "the man Christ Jesus," and declaring him to possess "the fullness of the Godhead bodily" For we thus have one full and absolute God perambulating the earth in the person of Christ during his temporary sojourn here, while another absolute God (the Father) occupied the throne of heaven, thus presenting us with a plurality of Gods too marked and undisguised to admit a rational defense. A profession of monotheism arrayed with such facts bespeaks folly supreme. The polytheism of the ancient heathen is science and sense compared with such jargon. For, with all their Gods, they never paid divine honors, or prayed to but one God ("The Supreme Ruler"); while Christians, on the contrary, worship all of theirs,—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,—frequently naming each one separately in their supplications to the throne of grace, thus rendering themselves more open to the charge of polytheism, and that species of idolatry which consists in worshiping several Gods, than those whom they condemn as heathen for committing similar acts. We will prove this statement. The reverend missionary, D. O. Allen, says of a large body of heathen professors, "They believe in the existence of beings whom they call Gods, but do not recognize them as possessing any qualities, or as having any agencies in human affairs, which properly make them objects of worship. They resemble the angels in the Christian system. Brahma with them is the supreme God, and all the other Gods offer him worship." It is evident, then, that they virtually worship but one God, the inferior Deities being but angels; while Christians, on the contrary, have placed two, if not three, Gods on the throne. Which, then, have the best claim to be considered monotheists?

6. And what sense, we would ask, can attach to the profession of monotheism with such a God as the Bible sets forth,—a limited, local, personal God. No doctrine stands out more prominently as a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith than that which makes God appear a circumscribed, finite being. He is represented in their "inspired" book as possessing those qualities, properties, faculties, and functions which only a local, organized being can possess,—such as a body, head, eyes, nose, mouth, arms, fingers, feet, stomach, bowels, heart, &c.; as eating, sleeping, walking, talking, riding, laboring, resting, laughing, crying; and as getting angry and jealous, and cursing, swearing, smiting, fighting, &c., and on one occasion getting whipped or vanquished in a fight because the enemy were fortified with chariots of iron. (See Josh. 17-18.) And hardly was creation completed before he was down in Eden striding over the bushes, hunting for his lost child Adam,—the first sample of the genus homo. And several times he had to leave his golden throne, and descend to earth before he could be posted in human affairs.

Now it must be evident to any person possessing a moiety of common sense that such a limited, local, circumscribed being, limited in size, and restricted in powers and qualities as Jehovah is represented in the Bible to be, could neither be omnipotent, omniscient, nor omnipresent. True, Christians consider him so; but the Bible fails to make him so. And hence there would be room in infinite space for countless millions of such Gods, and the doctrine of polytheism would be perfectly consistent. Indeed, such a dwarfish and circumscribed God would need thousands of such confederates to aid him in governing the countless worlds of the vast universe; so that the polytheistic doctrine from the Christian stand-point becomes a necessity, as it does also from another plane of view. We are told in Gen. i. that the work of creation was completed in six days; that the myriads of worlds which now chase each other through the sky were all rolled out of the vortex of infinitude in a week. But it is evident to every scientific or reflecting mind that a million of years would not have sufficed for the work, especially for such a God as Moses describes and sets to the task Hence the period of creation should be extended, or the number of Gods increased ad infinitum, to save the credibility of the cosmologic traditions. We would say, then, that, for the following reasons, the more Gods Christians acknowledge, the better for the consistency of their cause:—

1. Their conception of the Divine Essence is that of a local, limited, anthropomorphic, organized being, in exact conformity with the notion of the ancient pagans; with which, in order to have every part of the infinite universe supplied, would require more in number than the most fertile imagination of the heathen ever created. 2. A countless host of such finite Gods would have been required to complete the work of creation in six days. 3. There is room enough for any number of such finite Gods to exist without encroaching on each other's dominions. 4. There should have been at least one such God to be assigned the creation of each planetary world, which would require many millions of creative entities. 5. And the superintendence of the endlessly complicated machinery of each planet, and the supply, specifically and individually, of the various wants of its swarming millions of diversified inhabitants, would require an infinite host more of such local Gods as Jehovah of the Jews. 6. And, as Christians already practically acknowledge the worship of three Gods, the addition of three hundred or three thousand more would only be an extension of the principle, and could not be a whit more objectionable. For it is not any specific number of Gods they object to, but a "plurality;" and three is as certainly and absolutely a plurality as three hundred or three thousand. From the above considerations, founded on views of consistency, we think Christians should ground their arms, and cease their moral warfare upon the votaries of other religions for being polytheistic or idolatrous. And "the sin of worshiping many Gods," which they declaim so much on, is all a mere phantom. We can not see how the divine mind could possibly be offended at the simple mistake of over-numbering the Godhead. We will illustrate the case. We will suppose a merchant in Cincinnati orders a bill of goods from New York, addressing the order to John Ap John & Co. The latter opens and examines it, then returns it unfilled, with the following quaint protest: "Sir, there is no 'Co.' attached to my address. It is simply John Ap John; and you have insulted my dignity by this mistake, thus assuming that I have not the brain and bullion to do business on my own hook, but must have partners. I therefore return it with contempt for your insolent blunder." Now, we ask if there can be a man found who would be guilty of displaying such coxcomb vanity as this. We trow not. Then, why charge it upon an infinite God—an all-wise Deity—by supposing that a prayer addressed, by an innocent mistake, to a hundred or a thousand Gods would not be as acceptable to him as if addressed to him alone, or even if erroneously addressed to the Christian trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

The Construction and Worship of Images.—In Exod. xx. 4 we find the following command: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Here, it will be observed, is a sweeping interdiction against image-making; and, as it prohibits the likeness of any thing that "is in heaven above or the earth beneath," it is a dead-lock upon the fine arts. All engravings, paintings, photographs, &c., with which the civilized world is now flooded, and which hold high rank among the arts and sciences, involve an open infraction of this command. And hence, this biblical interdiction being devoid of reason, and of an anti-civilizing tendency, the enlightened portion of Christendom, by common consent, tramples it heedlessly under foot. And we are bold to say that this command is both foolish and of impracticable application; for a living, thinking human being can no more avoid forming images of every thing that comes within the range of his mental vision, whether situated in heaven above or the earth beneath, than he can stop the entire machinery of his thoughts, or the blood from circulating through his veins. It is as natural as eating, and as inevitable as breathing. To be sure, he does not give expression with wood, metal, or canvas to every image formed in the mind; but the nature of the act, morally speaking, is precisely the same as if he did. St. Clemens admits this when he declares it to be a sin for women to look in the glass, because they form images of themselves. All true! viewed from the Christian stand-point, which regards image-making as a sin. The most sinful or reprehensible act of image-making, however, in the view of Christians, is the construction of idols or images to represent the Deity. Living in a civilized age, they would be ashamed to occupy the broad ground assumed by the command which we have quoted above, which forbids the likeness of every thing that exists; yet they still hold that it is wrong to make images of the Deity,—not anymore so, according to the above command, than the acceptance of engravings of animals and photographs of friends. But where is the man now living, or when did the man live, who has not formed images of the Deity, or who does not instinctively and habitually do it every day of his life? Every man makes a likeness of God, or what he supposes to be such, every time he thinks of such a being. It is impossible to make him the subject of thought without constructing a mental image of him,—i.e., without constructing an image of him in the brain. And can it be more sinful to make an image of him with the hand than with the head?—in other words, to construct a likeness of him externally, than to construct it internally. Certainly not. One is shaped out in the mind; the other is shaped out of a block of wood or metal: and most certainly, if the latter is idolatry, the former is also. The Christian kneels in supplication with the image of God set up in his mind; the pagan worships with the image set up in the temple or on the altar. One is externally represented with words; the other, with wood. The only difference between the Christian and pagan idolatry is, that, after each has sketched out a likeness of the Creator upon the tablet or dial-plate of his mind according to his conception of the form of Deity, the Christian stops short with his work but half completed, while the pagan goes on and gives practical expression to his by representing it with wood, stone, or other material, by which it is more thoroughly impressed upon the memory, and "the devout contemplation," "the remembrance of God," kept more constantly in the mind; and thus the savage is proved to be the most practically religious of the two. We have shown that the representation and delineation upon canvas, paper, wood, or steel, of the various objects of art,—of human creation,—are set down as the highest marks and the most distinguishing proofs of civilization. And can it be right and laudable to thus represent or Image the works of the Creator, and wrong to image the Creator himself? Not according to the above command. Or can one be pleasing to him, and the other offensive? There is neither sense nor science, logic nor lore, in such conclusions. Christian reader, do you not know that your little innocent daughter 'violates the command every day of her happy life by nursing, dressing, and caressing her wax doll, her image miniature man? For if it be true—and the Bible teaches it—that "man was created in the image of God," then these artificial human likenesses, these images of the infant man, are also images of God; and your little girl daily commits "the awful sin of idolatry," and you, too, for countenancing her in the act. It may be noticed here that the pious Christian confers upon himself an honor which he denies to the Creator when he has his photograph struck off for the accommodation of a friend, while he denounces as idolatry all attempts to construct an imaginary likeness of God. But consistency is a jewel rarely found.

Image Worship.—We may be met here with the answer that "it is not the making of images, but the worship of images, in lieu of the worship of God, that constitutes idolatry." To this we reply, we have no proof that any nation or people reported in history were ever obnoxious to the charge. True, the people of many countries have been in the habit of prostrating themselves before idols in their daily worship. Yet in no case which we have examined do we find that those idols were worshiped with the thought of their being the true and living God, or of their being endowed with divine attributes, but only as types or representations of God. It is possible that some of the lower stratum of society—some of the debased and ignorant—may have been deluded into the idea that God had taken up his abode in those lifeless images. In fact we are assured that the priest, in some cases, labored to instill this belief into their minds. Some of them may have been ignorant and pliable enough to be misled by his artful misrepresentation. But, by a large proportion of the idol-worshipers of every nation, we have the highest authority for asserting that these artificial images were not regarded as any thing more than the mere representation, or outward type, of the Deity, and were venerated with the same religious conviction which Christians experience in part aking of the body and blood of Christ with the images of bread and wine, and without the suspicion of incurring the charge of idolatry. The two acts are precisely the same in spirit and essence. But the untutored denizens of the Pacific isles do not conceive that the dumb and lifeless sylvan figure before which they prostrate themselves in worship is the omnipotent, self-existent God, the Creator of heaven and earth, more truly than the Christians believe they are really eating and drinking "the body and blood of Christ" when partaking of the sacrament. They are both mere symbols, or representations, of something higher. It is irrational to suppose that beings endowed with minds believe that inanimate figures of gold, silver, iron, &c., possess omnipotent thought, power, and feeling. That able, pious Mahomedan writer, Abel Fezzel, declares (in his "Aren Akberry") that "the opinion that the Hindoos (who make many idols) are idolaters has no foundation in fact; but they are worshipers of God, and only one God." "This," says the modern traveler, Mr. Ditson of New York, "I know to be true; for I had it from the lips of the Hindoos themselves." And this will apply with undiminished force to other nations habitually styled idolaters. "Even the most savage nations," says Mr. Parker, "regard their idols only as types of God." And we might quote whole pages from heathen writers to that effect. The ancient Grecian poet Ovid says, "It is Jove we adore in the image of God." "The Gods inhabit our minds and bodies," says Statius, a Latin writer, "and not the images made to represent them." Hence it is evident they had a perception of their true character. And the missionary, Rev. D. O. Allen, tells us that even those who have been represented as worshiping the sun, moon, and stars, only contemplate these planets as symbols of the Deity, and that "their worship is really aimed to the invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent God." It appears, then, that whatever external objects the most ignorant and savage tribes have addressed, or have been supposed to worship, have been used merely as types and symbols to enhance their devotion in the worship of the true God. Though, as Cicero remarks (in his philosophical works), "A few may have been so feeble in their perceptions as to confound and identify the statues and Gods together." But another writer avers, "There is not in all antiquity the least trace of a prayer addressed to a statue." He also says, "All paganism does not offer a single fact which can lead to the conclusion that they ever adored idols; nor was there ever a law compelling them to do so." When Paul declared to the Athenians, "Whom ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you," he confessed most explicitly that they worshiped the true God through their idols. Where, then, is the sin of idolatry?

In one of the Hindoo Bibles (the Baghavat Gita) God is made to say, "They who serve other Gods with a firm belief of being right do really involuntarily serve me, and shall be rewarded." How admirable, how noble, how magnanimous and merciful is this sentiment compared with the damning, death-dealing denunciations against idolatry by the Jewish Jehovah! And the Mahomedan Bible (the Koran) contains a similar sentiment to the above. Thus, we observe, both the Hindoo and Mahomedan Bibles evince in this respect a higher degree of moral sense than that of the Christian Bible, whose violent interdictions against idolatry have caused many nations to be butchered, and their lands deluged with blood. "There is nothing in the Christian Bible," says Mr. Higgins, "of one-twentieth part of the value of this text of the Hindoo Bible in the way of preventing a foolish persecution and bloodied." It may be remembered here that Christians inherited their extreme hatred of idolatry from the Jews, which is fostered by the Jewish Bible, and that the Jews derived their feelings of opposition to it from the two nations under which they were long enslaved,—the Persians and Egyptians,—both of which, according to Herodotus, forbid the making of idols, the former interdicting it by law; as did also the Roman emperor, Numa Pompilius, 600 B.C. The Parsees of India to this day oppose idolatry; and the learned among the Chinese have always discountenanced it. Strabo and other Grecian philosophers wrote against it. "And many sects arose among the ancient heathen," says the "Hierophant," "who rejected all external symbols of the Deity." On the other hand, neither Jews nor Christians have been entirely free from this "sin" so called. As for "the Lord's holy people," there probably never was a nation who manifested a stronger or more invincible proclivity to idolatry than they, or who indulged more eagerly in the practice of it whenever opportunity presented; and frequently did they break over all restraint to plunge into this seemingly untiring luxury, not even withholding their ear-rings when a molten image or golden calf was to be constructed. And even their lawgiver Moses consented to the construction of a number of imitations or substitutes for the carved images of the pagans. Their brazen serpent displayed upon a pole; their carved cherubims with the body of a man, the head of an animal, and the wings of a bird; and the ark of the covenant, which was borne about in the same manner the heathen carried their idols,—were all compromises with and concessions to idolatry, and were all venerated with the same spirit and in the same fashion the heathen adored their carved or molten images. As for the holy ark, the Jews as solemnly believed that God Almighty was shut up in that little box of shittim-wood as truly as ever the pagans believed that he sometimes condescended to a transient abode in their idols; while it was death to touch it with "unholy hands," and sixty thousand were butchered because one man (the pious Iliza), on a certain occasion, instinctively and devoutly clapped his hand on it to keep it from falling. In fact, the golden image which it contained was an idol to all intents and purposes; nor were the brazen serpent and cherubim of the altar much less so. Hence the vindictive condemnation of other nations for making and adoring images came with an ill grace from the Jews. Nor are the skirts of the disciples of Christ any freer from the stain of idolatry. In fact, it constitutes the very substratum of their religion. In the first place, they quote approvingly such texts as the following: "The Lord is my rock" (Ps. xviii. 2); "Who is a rock save our God?" (Ps. xviii. 31); "The shepherd the stone of Israel" (Gen. xlix. 24). Peter calls him "a living stone" (1 Pet. ii. 4). And there are a number of other similar texts, all of which disclose real fetichism, or the first form of idolatry. The ancient Laplanders.

Arabians, Phoenicians, and several tribes of Asia Minor used rocks and stones as representative images of Deity. And here we find the same association of ideas in the Christian Bible. Do you reply, "They must be considered figurative"? Very well: prove that the ancient heathen tribes did not also consider them figurative.

But we have a much more serious and conclusive proof than tins that nearly the entire retinue of Christian professors are practical idolaters, and that their "holy religion," in all its essential characteristics, comprises, in its very nature, the highest species of idolatry. Some Christian professors tell us that those who worship idols must have a limited conception of the character and attributes of the Deity; thus conceding that idolatry consists in ascribing to God a false character. Well, now, this is the very objection which we would urge as one of the first, and one of the most serious charges against the Christian system. It presents us with a cramped, dwarfish, and childish conception of Deity. In the first place, the disciples of Christianity still cling to the old tradition, which they inherited from the heathen, of investing God with the form and characteristics of a man. For if the Deity possesses the human form, as they and their Bible teach, then he must possess the human characteristics,—a logical sequence, which science defies all Christendom to overturn, as it is the infallible testimony of the natural history of all time that nothing can possess the form of one being and the characteristics of another. As is form, so is and must be the character, is an axiom supported by numberless proofs of daily and hourly observation. Hence, Jesus Christ possessing, according to the scriptures, the form of a man,—"the form of a servant,"—must inevitably have possessed the character of a man. Hence we are not surprised to find, that, in spite of the combined efforts of his evangelical biographers to make him a God (if they are really to be understood as designing to elevate him to the Godhead), his finite human qualities are dis-played in his history in every chapter. Every saying and every credible incident of his life prove him to have been a man, notwithstanding some of them are apparently set forth as prima-facie evidence of his being a God. Therefore the conclusion that, as Jesus Christ had the form of a man, he could not have been a God; and to worship him as such was and is idolatry in the highest and fullest sense. And, besides the form, there are other evidences of his having been a man. He walked, talked, ate, slept, wept, shed tears, &c., and finally died just as other men do. And, furthermore, he believed and taught some of the traditions and superstitions of finite, ignorant men,—such as a vengeful God, an endless hell, disease produced by demons, a personal devil, the speedy conflagration of the world, &c. Thus we have a threefold proof of his manhood, and disproof of his Godhead, and a proof that those who worship him are idolaters. And as the primitive or primordial Bible God Jehovah is represented as possessing, as we have already shown, a comprehensible body, eyes, nose, mouth, hands, arms, legs, feet, bowels, &c., and as being a jealous, angry, revengeful, fighting God (the God of battles), and inferior in several respects to some of the men who worshiped him, such worship is consequently idolatry. We observe, then, that the Jews worshiped one idol (Jehovah); and the Christians, three ("Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"),—the two former possessing the form of man, and the latter the form of a bird (a dove). There is exactly the same objection, and it is to exactly the same extent idolatry, to worship Jesus Christ as to worship Chrishna, Confucius, Mahomet, or any of the wooden Gods or graven images of the idolatrous pagans. In each case it is assuming that God, instead of being eternally infinite in all his attributes, has been invested with the finite, limited, and comprehensible form of man, to say nothing of the corresponding finite qualities which his worshipers have assigned him. And this narrow, childish assumption, with its attendant conceptions, keeps the mind of the worshiper in an intellectually cramped and dwarfish condition, besides perpetuating their dishonorable and disparaging views of Deity. And herein lies the great objection to idolatry. If any of these venerated beings could possess divine attributes, there would be less moral objection to worshiping them as Gods. The error is not in ascribing divine attributes to the wrong being, but in the conception of wrong qualities and attributes as comprehensible in a divine being.

For God is not possessed of the vanity to be offended by the simple mistakes of men and women directing their prayers and devotions to another being or object instead of to him. The grand error consists in mistaking the real character and attributes of Deity; that is, in constructing false images of him,—whether mental or material is all the same. In other words, idolatry consists in worshiping, for God, beings or objects possessing finite forms, with whom, consequently, infinite and divine attributes could not be properly associated, and through whom they could not possibly be displayed. And so self-evident was the proof that these beings, possessing the form, size, and physical outline of men, and presenting every appearance of men (as Christ, Chrishna, Confucius, &c.), were nothing but men, that even those who were habitually taught to adore them as the supreme, omnipotent Deity, naturally and instinctively, in their intercourse with them and their descriptions of them, invested them with human qualities as well as divine. And thus they came to present to the world the awkward and ludicrous figure of beings displaying both finite and infinite attributes,—i.e., of being demi-gods, half God and half man. This is especially true of "the man Christ Jesus." And it may be safely assumed as an incontrovertible proposition, that just so long as men are in the habit of worshiping beings in the human form, whether Jehovah or Jesus Christ, or beings possessing any conceivable form as the great "I am," just so long will they entertain, to their own injury and to the disgrace of religion, inferior and dishonorable views of God. They must learn that a finite body can not contain an infinite spirit, nor possess an infinite attribute; and that to worship an object or being known to possess or even supposed to possess any conceivable form, size, or shape within the comprehension of man, whether the materials composing this adored object or being are gold, silver, wood, brass, iron, or flesh and blood (as in the case of Jesus Christ), constitutes the highest species of idolatry. It can make no difference what the materials are, as it is just as impossible to associate divine and infinite attributes with an image of flesh and blood or a finite body, as to associate them with an image of wood, stone, or metal. All is alike idolatry.

The Christian world have an image or idol, constructed in part of flesh and blood, restricted, as they tell us, to a spiritual body, which they call Jesus Christ, and which they place upon an imaginary throne situated in or above the clouds, and worship it as God; while the Babylonians had the same image carved from wood and metal, which they called Dagon, and set upon a throne in the temple: and, in both cases, we are told, by way of apology, that it was not the external form, or outward body, which constituted the divinity, but the spirit within. Now, as there is room in infinite space for millions of such beings (such finite Gods), there could be no moral objection to multiplying their number, and worshiping as many of them as the imagination could conjure up, or the polytheist's fancy could create. We worship none but the infinite God; the living, moving, all-pervading, and all-energizing spirit of the infinite universe, who has no finite or comprehensible body, and never had; and hence, being infinite in extent and in all his attributes, but one such being can possibly exist, and monotheism thus becomes a virtue and a necessity. We will only remark further, that the man who can worship a being with the human form or any form as the infinite God, no matter if he swells his proportions by imagination to the size of the planet Jupiter or the whole solar system, yet still, as this is not one step of an approach toward infinitude or omnipresence, his conceptions of Deity are puerile, childish, belittling, and dishonorable, if not blasphemous. If there is such a thing as blasphemy, it is found here. And his ignorance of the essential characteristics of an infinite being, or the scientific view of God, is on a par with the child's ignorance of astronomy, who exclaims, "Give me the moon!" Here we desire to apprise the reader more distinctly that we do not regard idolatry as a crime or blameworthy act in those who originated it, but actually useful when restricted to its legitimate uses. To those groveling in spiritual darkness, on the lower plane of religious development, it is as "eyes to the blind, and crutches to the lame." It is only in those, who, like Christians, profess to be enlightened, that it becomes a culpable act. Several writers have shown that idols were really practically useful, in a religious point of view, in the primitive spiritual condition of mankind, and are yet so to the lower classes in various countries; that is, to those who dwell upon the sensorial plane, and whose spiritual perceptions are hence too feeble to soar to an ethereal world to find the great object of spiritual worship. The learned Hindoo, Roh Mun Roy, who wrote a work against idolatry, and who condemned the Christian churches for "worshiping an idol in the person of Jesus Christ," beautifully sets forth the true nature and purpose of idolatry when he says (after stating that idols were not made for the learned), "The Vedas [Hindoo Bible] directs those who are spiritually incapable of adoring the invisible Supreme Being to apply their minds to some visible object as an external manifestation of the only true God, rather than lose themselves in the mazes of irreligion, the bane of society. As God exists everywhere, and pervades every thing (even idols), such means were mercifully provided for the ignorant and untrained to lead them on to true mental adoration and spiritual worship." And thus idols were used as aids and stepping-stones to the true worship for those who were mentally incapable of raising their minds from "nature up to nature's God," as taught by this heathen writer. Thus they served the same purpose as pictures do for children, and were equally innocent and useful. It is, therefore, no more sinful to be an idolater than to be a child. In fact, idolatry was a necessity of man's religious nature. The Vedas makes God say, "The ignorant believe me visible while I am invisible." The able, pious Abel Fezzel (a Mahomedan writer) says, in his "Aren Akberry," "The Brahmins and Hindoos all believe in the unity of the God-head; yet they hold images in high veneration, because they represent celestial beings, and prevent the mind from wandering." Swedenborg says in like manner, "The heathen kept images not only in their temples, but in their houses, not to worship them, but to call to mind the heavenly being they represented." Thus it will be observed that the idol was the sanctuary where man, in his childhood, met to commune with his God, just as the Christian now seeks his spiritual presence at the communion-table or the altar. The pagan, who was a child in religious experience, was morally necessitated to have a God, or representation of God, he could see, feel, and handle. And it is remarkable that the Christian world, after two thousand years' religious experience, still occupy the same plane,—are still pagans or children with respect to believing in visible external Gods, as they virtually worship two, Jehovah and Jesus Christ, who, according to the teaching of their Bible and their established creeds, were often seen in the human form, and one of them with a human body. Thus it will be observed they have not outgrown or advanced beyond the essential principle of idolatry,—that of worshiping a visible or imaginary form for an invisible God, who, the "positive philosophy" teaches, never has been and never can be seen under any circumstances, because, being omnipresent (that is, present everywhere, and everywhere alike), if he could be seen at all, he could be seen at all times and in all places. This is a self-evident, axiomatic truth.

Origin of Idolatry.—Here we deem it proper to speak more directly and specifically of the primary origin of idolatry, or image-worship, than is disclosed in the preceding pages. After the primitive inhabitants of the earth had conceived the notion that the sun, moon, and stars are moved in their orbits through the heavens by beings who occupied them (as has already been shown), they were in the habit of gazing upon these tower-lights of the Elvsian fields (the home of the Gods) with the most intense delight, the most reverential awe and devotion. But ever and anon this pleasing reverie was interrupted, and subjected to sad suspense, by "the departure of the heavenly host to other and distant lands." First of all, the solar God, mounted upon his gem-wheeled chariot drawn by his fleet steeds, after plowing his way through the deep-blue vault of the sky, was off on his swift-sped journey behind the western hills, but followed almost immediately by the whole retinue of stellar orbs (the homes of the lesser Gods), who danced along in his wake; but, ever true to the line of march, followed on apace, and were soon beyond the bounds of human vision. This left an aching void in their devout minds. Hence the invention and construction of images as imaginary likenesses of the Gods, to serve as substitutes for them, to be venerated in their stead daring their absence, as we secure the likeness of a friend when about to leave us for a journey, or to be long absent. And here we may date the primary origin of idolatry, which is nothing more nor less than the first rude germination of man's religious nature.

II. ALL CHRISTIANS ATHEISTS OR IDOLATERS.

It seems most strikingly strange that atheism and idolatry should be considered by the orthodox representatives of the Christian faith as "the most God-defying and heaven-daring sins that man can be guilty of" (as one Christian writer represents them to be), when there is not a professor of the Christian faith, and never has been, who was not guilty most unquestionably of one of these sins. It requires but a few words to prove this statement. Nearly all the early Christian writers defined atheism to be "disbelief in a personal God," and idolatry as "image-making."

How obtuse must have been their perceptions that they could not see that their definition of these terms made them all either atheists or idolaters, and that it is impossible to escape one of these charges without becoming obnoxious to the other! No person can believe in a personal God without forming an image of him in the mind; and this is just as much idolatry as though that mental image should find expression in wood or stone or brass, as shown in the preceding chapter. On the other hand, to believe in an infinite and spiritual God, instead of a personal God, is, as shown above, atheism. It will be seen, then, to believe in a personal, organized Deity is, to all intents and purposes, idolatry; while to reject this anthropomorphic and sensuous idea, and accept the belief in a spiritual God in its stead, is atheism. And thus the position is reduced to a demonstrated problem, that all Christians are either atheists or idolaters.

---