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,
"Soon as the evening shades prevail,
The moon takes up the wondrous tale;"
and that
"Ten thousand marshaled stars, a silver zone,
Diffuse their blended radiance round the throne."
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:--
"O first and greatest God, by Gods adored,
We own thy power, our Father and our Lord!"
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.