Chapter VI. Idolatry.

IT was against the worship of idols that the early Christians most solemnly and most determinedly protested. “We Christians,” says Origen, “have nothing to do with images, on account of the second commandment; the first thing we teach those who come to us is to despise idols and images; it being the peculiar characteristic of the Christian religion to raise our minds above images, agreeably to the law which God himself has given to mankind.” And Gibbon affirms, “The primitive Christians were possessed with an unconquerable repugnance to the use and abuse of images.” Again: The public worship of the Christians was uniformly simple and spiritual.”

Most cunningly was this spirituality undermined and idolatry substituted. In the early part of the fourth century, after the subversion of Paganism, some bishops began to encourage the use of pictures and images as aids to the devotion and instruction of the ignorant. Even till the time of Gregory it was the prevalent opinion that, if used at all, images must be used merely as books for the unlearned. The Pontiff, however, so far encouraged their erection that almost every church in the west could boast of at least one. Before these the multitude soon learned to bow; to these they offered prayers.

So disgusting became this growing superstition that in 700 AD the Council of Constantinople solemnly condemned the use of images, and ordered their expulsion from the churches. But in 713 AD Pope Constantine pronounced an anathema against those who “deny that veneration to the holy images which the Church has appointed.” A few years later began that famous controversy between the Emperor Leo and Gregory II. which continued to distract the Church for more than fifty years. The Emperor and his successors, Constantine V., and Leo IV., strenuously endeavored to restore Christianity to its primitive purity. Gregory II, and the Popes succeeding him, with a zeal bordering on fanaticism, undertook a defense of image-worship. The Emperors were charged with ignorance, rudeness, pride, contempt of the authority of the sovereign Pontiff, and opposition to the teachings of the Church. Defying the wrath of the Pope, however, and encouraged by the unanimous decision of the Seventh Greek Council (AD 754), which condemned idolatry, Constantine V. burned the images and demolished the walls of the churches bearing painted representations of Christ, of the Virgin, and of the saints. The efforts of his son, Leo IV., were directed to the same end. But the Emperor dying suddenly—as is generally supposed from the effects of poison administered by his wife, Irene—the contest ended in a victory for the image-worshipers. Irene, prompted by a desire to occupy the throne, ordered, her own son, Constantine VI., to be seized and his eyes put out. The order was faithfully executed, and with such cruelty that the unhappy son almost immediately expired. To this wretched and terribly brutal woman Papists are deeply indebted. Assisted by Pope Adrian, she extended idolatry throughout the entire empire, and in 787 AD summoned a Council at Nice, which decreed “That holy images of the cross should be consecrated, and put on the sacred vessels and vestments, and upon walls and boards, in private houses and in public ways. And especially that there should be erected images of the Lord God, our Saviour Jesus Christ, of our blessed Lady, the Mother of God, of the venerable angels, and of all the saints. And that whosoever should presume to think or teach otherwise, or to throw away any painted books, or the figure of the cross, or any image, or picture, or any genuine relics of the martyrs, they should, if bishops or clergymen, be deposed, or if monks or laymen, be excommunicated.”

Owing a debt of gratitude to Irene, Papists have endeavored to defend her monstrous wickedness. Unable to deny the cruelties practiced upon her son, they attempt to justify them, nay, even to commend them, applauding her for so far overcoming the feelings of humanity, through love for the true Church and its honored doctrines, that she could sacrifice her own son, who stood in the way of her aiding in the establishment of image-worship.*

* “An execrable crime,” says Baronius, “had she not been prompted to it by zeal for justice. On that consideration she even deserved to be commended for what she did. In more ancient times, the hands of parents were armed, by God’s command, against their children worshiping strange gods, and they who killed them were commended by Moses.””

From that day to the present idolatry has been one of Rome’s chief characteristics. It is now so intimately interwoven with her forms of worship as to defy all opposition. Most probably it will hold its place until the prophecy of John finds fulfillment, “Babylon, the great, is fallen, is fallen.”

Nor are their images confined to churches and chapels. They are also set up by the road-side. In Popish countries, and especially in Italy, these images, fit successors of the old Roman gods that presided over the highways, are frequently to be met with. As the traveler passes, he uncovers his head, and reverently bows, or, time permitting, turns aside to kneel before the idol and implore a blessing. Did ever heathenism more unblushingly offer insult to common sense?

As our space will not permit an extended reference to the monstrous falsehoods, intrigues, and deceptions by which the priesthood succeeded in securing for these images the devout homage of the multitude, and the treasury of the Church the rich gifts so much coveted, we must content ourselves with calling attention to one or two specimens. In the “Master Key to Popery,” by Anthony Gavin, we have an historical account of the “ Virgin of Pillar,” an image religiously worshiped in Saragossa, Spain. The Apostle St. James, the account informs us, with seven new converts, came to preach the Gospel in Saragossa. While sleeping upon the brink of a river, an army of angels came down from heaven with an image on a pillar, which they placed on the ground, saying, “This image of Our Queen shall be the defense of this city. By her help it shall be reduced to your Master’s sway. As she is to protect you, you must build a decent chapel for her.” The order was obeyed. A chapel was built, which became the richest in Spain.*

* For “Our Lady of Pillar”? a chaplain was provided, whose business it was to dress the image every morning. Through him, the Virgin Lady once addressed a solemn admonition to the people of Saragossa, accusing them of illiberality, want of devotion, and the basest ingratitude, and expressing her determination to resign her government to Lucifer, unless the people should come for the space of fifteen days, every day with gifts, tears, and penitence, to appease her wrath and secure a return of her favor. They were exhorted to come with prodigal hands and true hearts, lest the Prince of Darkness should be appointed to reign over them. They were also assured that from this sentence there was no appeal, not even to the tribunal of the Most High, This device, enriching the Church, nearly beggared the inhabitants of the threatened city.

The crucifix of St. Salvador, when there is great need of rain and the barometer indicates a speedy change, is sometimes carried through the streets, while the accompanying priests sing the litany and repeat prayers, imploring rain. This well-timed ceremony is almost invariably followed, within a few days, by rain. All exclaim, “A miracle wrought by our Holy Crucifix.” Not to multiply instances, we have the authority of Pope Gregory for affirming that wonders and miracles wrought by images are by no means rare. In an epistle addressed to the Empress Constantina, who had requested from him the head of St. Paul, for the purpose of enshrining it in the church which she was erecting in his honor, the successor of St. Peter says: “Great sadness has possessed me, because you have enjoined upon me those things which I neither can, nor dare do; for the bodies of the holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, are so resplendent with miracles and terrific prodigies in their own churches, that no one can approach them without awe, even for the purpose of adoring them. The superior of the place having found some bones that were not at all connected with that tomb; and having presumed to disturb them and remove them to some other place, he was visited by certain frightful apparitions and died suddenly. . . . Be it known to you that it is the custom of the Romans, when they give any relics, not to venture to touch any portion of the body; only they put into a box a piece of linen, which is placed near the holy body; then it is withdrawn and shut up with due veneration in the church which is to be dedicated, and as many prodigies are wrought by it as if the bodies themselves had been carried thither. . . . . But that your religious desire may not be wholly frustrated, I will hasten to send you some parts of those chains which St. Paul wore on his neck and hands, if indeed I shall succeed in getting off any filings from them.”

So, dear Empress Constantina, be it known to you, that Rome will not part with the hen that lays the golden egg, nor even allow you, much less the infidel world, to examine the nest. These holy bodies are surrounded by a more sacred divinity than doth hedge a king. Death is the penalty of approaching them unhidden by the infallible Pope. He will sell you relics —linen rags and iron filings—which will work as great wonders as the head you so much covet. No doubt of it!!!

Notwithstanding the distinction made by Romanists between absolute and relative, proper and improper worship, between latria, dulia, and hyperdulia, there can be no doubt they offer to these images an idolatrous homage. Devised evidently for the sole purpose of warding off the charge so frequently brought against them, of offering to pictures, images and relics that adoration due to Deity alone, this hair-splitting distinction has no influence in modifying the worship of the vast mass of Rome’s devotees. The images are the real objects worshipped.

One of the ablest expounders of Papal doctrines says :— “From God, as its source, the worship with which we honor relics, originates, and to God, as its end, it ultimately and terminatively reverts.” Assuredly the worship which originates with God, and returns ultimately to God, must be that true and proper homage due to him alone.

In proof that Papists offer adoration to images, we refer to the custom of serenading, on Christmas morning, all the statues of the Holy Virgin in the streets of Rome. The reason assigned for this grand musical entertainment is that the Virgin is a great lover and an excellent judge of good music.

A recent visitor to the church erected about the house where it is said Blessed Mary was born, saw miserable women, very personifications of gross superstition, dragging themselves on their knees around the venerated building, counting beads, kissing the marble foundations, repeating prayers before the idol, and ordering masses to be said for the benefit of themselves and friends. Disgusting beggars, trafficking in superstition, clamorously promise to supplicate the idol on behalf of those who favor them with alms. Dealers in the implements of devotion hawk their sacred wares, rosaries, pictures, medals, and casts of the Madonna.

Certainly no one except an idolater will deny that real homage is offered when the worshiper, bowing before an image, hymns its praises, and to it offers his prayers. Papists indeed say, “We do not worship the image, but the personage represented, not the statue, but the Virgin, not the cross, but the Saviour suspended thereon.” Gregory III, in writing to the Emperor Leo, says:—“You say we adore stones, walls, and boards. It is not so, my Lord; but these symbols make us recollect the persons whose names they bear, and exalt our grovelling minds.” Intelligent Pagans have ever rendered precisely the same excuse.* They who knelt before the shrine of Jupiter, claimed that they were worshipping the invisible and spiritual by means of the visible and material. Those in India who now worship the images of Gaudama, do the same. Are we then to believe that there are not, never have been, and never can be, persons so degraded as to be properly denominated idolaters? Have all who employed images been capable of fully appreciating this sentimental distinction? Has not even superstitious ignorance worshipped the seen and forgotten the unseen? Admitting that in the Papal Church only the less gross idolatry exists, is this justifiable? Is it not condemned in Scripture? The prohibition reads:— “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing.” There has been given us, in the person of Jesus Christ, a visible image of the invisible God. Bowing before him, and crying, “My Lord and my God,” we worship the seen, God in human form, “the likeness of the Futher,” “the express image of his person,” and yet are not idolaters. Having so far accomodated himself to the constitution of our nature, he allows no other object to come between himself and the penitent heart.

* Plutarch, in explaining the worship of Egypt’s two most famous deities, Osiris and Isis, holds the following language :—‘ Philosophers honor the image of God wherever they find it, even in inanimate beings, and consequently more in those which have life. We are therefore to approve, not the worshipers of these animals, but those who, by their means, ascend to the Deity; they are to be considered as so many mirrors, which nature holds forth, and in which the Supreme Being displays himself in a wonderful manner; or as so many instruments, which he makes use of to manifest outwardly his incomprehensible wisdom. Should men, therefore, for the embellishing of statues, amass together all the gold and precious stones in the world, the worship must not be referred to the statues, for the Deity does not exist in colors artfully disposed, nor in frail matter destitute of sense and motion.”

Among Rome’s numerous idolatries, none certainly is more conspicuous, none more ardently advocated, none less inexcusable than the adoration offered to the Virgin. Her mere titles, as found in that ever-famous book, “The Glories of Mary,” and in her litany, a solemn supplicatory prayer, would fill more than a page of our present volume. She is denominated Queen of heaven, of earth, of mercy, of angels, of patriarchs, of prophets, of apostles, of martyrs, of confessors, of virgins, and of all saints; Mother of God, of penitents, and especially of obdurate and abandoned sinners; Ravisher of heart, finder of grace, hope of salvation, defense of the faithful, helper of sinners; our only advocate, our refuge, our protection, our health, our life, our hope, our soul, our heart, our mistress, our lady, our loving mother; secure salvation, Redeemer of the world, Virgin of virgins, Mother undefiled, unviolated, most pure, most chaste, most amiable, most admirable, most prudent, most venerable, most powerful, most merciful, most faithful; mirror of justice, seat of wisdom, cause of joy, spiritual vessel, vessel of honor, mystical rose, tower of David, house of gold, ark of the covenant, gate of heaven, morning star, comfort of the afflicted, etc., etc.

Liguori, since enrolled as a saint, mainly as the reward of his untiring efforts to supplant love of the Creator by love of the creature, boldly and unqualifiedly asserts that Mary co-operated in the original work of redemption :—

“When God saw the great desire of Mary to devote herself to the salvation of men, he ordained that by the sacrifice and offering of the life of this same Jesus, she might co-operate with him in the work of our salvation, and thus become mother of our souls.” (P. 43, American Ed.)

“God could indeed, as St. Anselm asserts, create the world from nothing; but when it was lost by sin, he could not redeem it without the co-operation of Mary.” (P. 186.)

He also asserts that Mary is the only fountain of life and salvation. “God has ordained that all graces should come to us through the hands of Mary.” (P. 15.) And how is this proved? In true Catholic style, by authority. St. Augustine mentions Mary’s name and affirms, “ All the tongues of men would not be sufficient to praise her as she deserves.” St. Bonaventure declares, “those who are devoted to publishing ‘The Glories of Mary’ are secure of paradise.” Did these fathers ever make these assertions? And if they did, is assertion proof? These two questions remorselessly pressed would leave all Liguori’s fine-spun arguments floating together distractedly in an ocean of balderdash. And here is a second kind of proof, Rome’s clinching argument, a miracle.— each section of the book has one, besides the eighty-nine additional. In the revelation of St. Bridget, we are told that Bishop Emingo, being accustomed to begin his sermons with the praises of Mary, the Virgin one day appeared to St. Bridget, and said: “Tell that bishop I will be his mother, and he shall die a good death.” He died like a saint. Now, therefore, all you Catholics bow the knee and repeat one of St. Liguori’s prayers to the Virgin. You have a fine selection from which to choose, well nigh a hundred. But the chief proof here, as elsewhere, is assertion. Here are a few specimens :—

“The kingdom of God consisting of justice and mercy, the Lord has divided it: he has reserved the kingdom of justice for himself, and he has granted the kingdom of mercy to Mary, ordaining that all the mercies which are dispensed to men should pass through the hands of Mary, and should be bestowed according to her good pleasure.” (Pp. 27, 28.)

“St, Bernard asks: ‘Why does the Church name Mary Queen of Mercy?? And answers: ‘Because we believe that she opens the depths of the mercy of God, to whom she will, when she will, and as she will; so that not even the vilest sinner is lost if Mary protects him?” (P. 31.)

“In Mary we shall find every hope…. In a word, we shall find in Mary life and eternal salvation.” (Pp. 178, 174.)

“For this reason, too, she is called the gate of heaven by the Holy Church. . . . St. Bonaventure, moreover, says that Mary is called the gate of heaven, because no one can enter heaven if he does not pass through Mary, who is the door of it” (P.177.)

“Richard, of St. Laurence, says: ‘Our salvation is in the hands of Mary’…Cassian absolutely affirms that the salvation of the whole world depends upon the favor and protection of Mary.” (P. 190.)

“O how many, exclaims the Abbot of Celles, who merit to be condemned by the Divine justice, are saved by the mercy of Mary! for she is the treasure of God, and the treasurer of all graces; therefore it is, that our salvation is in her hands.” (P. 300.)

“Thou hast a merit that has no limits, and an entire power over all creatures. Thou art the mother of God, the mistress of the world, the Queen of heaven. Thou art the dispenser of all graces, the glory of the Holy Church.” (P. 673.) [The italics are ours.]

He assures his readers that Mary is omnipotent :—

“Do not say that thou canst not aid me, for I know that thou art omnipotent, and dost obtain whatsoever thou desirest from God.” (P. 78.)

“Says St. Peter Damian, ‘The Virgin has all power in heaven and on earth’” (P. 201.)

“Yes, Mary is omnipotent, adds Richard, of St. Laurence, since the Queen, by every law, must enjoy the same privileges as the King. . . . And St. Antoninus says: ‘God has placed the whole Church, not only under the patronage, but also under the dominion of Mary” (P. 203.)

Infallibility has also approved these assertions of her canonized saint :-—

“Not only Most Holy Mary is Queen of heaven and of the saints, but also of hell and of the devils; for she has bravely triumphed over them by her virtues. From the beginning of the world God predicted to the infernal serpent the victory and the empire which our Queen would obtain over him, when he announced to him that a woman would come into the world who should conquer him.” (P. 155.) “Mary, then, is this great and strong woman who has conquered the devil, and crushed his head by subduing his pride, as the Lord added, ‘She shall crush thy head… . The Blessed Virgin, by conquering the devil, brought us life and light.” (P. 156.)

“Very glorious, O Mary, and wonderful,’ exclaims St. Bonaventure, ‘is thy great name. Those who are mindful to utter it at the hour of death have nothing to fear from hell, for the devils at once abandon the soul when they hear the name of Mary’” (P. 163.)

Greater blasphemy still! Liguori affirms that God the Father is under obligation to Mary, and cheerfully obeys her command:

“St. Bernardine, of Sienna, does not hesitate to say that all obey the commands of Mary, even God himself.” (P. 202.)

“Rejoice, O Mary, that a son has fallen to thy lot as thy debtor, who gives to all and receives from none.” (P. 210.)

“She knows so well how to appease Divine justice with her tender and wise entreaties, that God himself blesses her for it, and, as it were, thanks her, that thus she restrains him from abandoning and punishing them as they deserve.” (P. 220.)

“Rejoice, O mother and handmaid of God! rejoice! rejoice! thou hast for a debtor him to whom all creatures owe their being. We are all debtors to God, but God is debtor to thee.” (P. 327.) [What blasphemy!!!]

We have scarcely heart to quote from the petitions offered to the Virgin. In “The Glories of Mary,” one prayer, intended as the beautiful blossom or perfected fruit of the finished argument, very appropriately closes each section. Besides these, there is an interesting collection from Rome’s most honored saints—in all over three score. In their books of devotion,—the number and names of which are exceedingly perplexing to a poor heretic,—no prayers are more frequent, none more ardent than those offered to the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God :—

“O Mother of my God, and my Lady Mary, as a poor wounded and loathsome wretch presents himself to a great queen, I present myself to thee, who art the Queen of heaven and earth. From the lofty throne on which thou are seated, do not disdain, I pray thee, to cast thine eyes upon me, a poor sinner,” etc. (“ Glories of Mary,” p. 37.)

“I venerate,O most pure Virgin Mary, thy most sacred heart. I, an unhappy sinner, come to thee with a heart filled with all uncleanness and wounds. O mother of mercy, do not, on this account, despise me, but let it excite thee to a greater compassion, and come to my help.” (P. 140.)

“O Mother of God! O Queen of angels! O hope of men, listen to him who invokes thee, and has recourse to thee. Behold me today prostrate at thy feet; I, a miserable slave of hell, consecrate myself to thee as thy servant forever, offering myself to serve and honor thee to the utmost of my power all the days of my life.” (P.153,)

“O Lady, I know that thou dost glory in being merciful as thou art great. I know that thou dost rejoice in being so rich, that thou mayest share thy riches with us sinners. I know that the more wretched are those who seek thee, the greater is thy desire to help and save them.” (P, 252.)

“O Mary! O my most dear mother, in what an abyss of evil I should find myself, if thou, with thy kind hand, hadst not so often preserved me! Yes, how many years should I already have been in hell, if thou, with thy powerful prayers, hadst not rescued me! My grievous sins were hurrying me there; divine justice had already condemned me; the raging demons were waiting to execute the sentence, but thou didst appear, O mother, not invoked nor asked by me, and hast saved me.” (P. 266.)

“Hearken, O most holy Virgin, to our prayers, and remember us, Dispense to us the gifts of thy riches, and the abundant graces with which thou art filled. All nations call thee blessed; the whole hierarchy of heaven blesses thee, and we, who are of the terrestrial hierarchy, also say to thee: Hail, full of grace.” (P. 329.)

“Holy Virgin, Mother of God, succor those who implore thy assistance… . To thee nothing is impossible, for thou canst raise even the despairing to the hope of salvation. . . . Thou dost love us with a love that no other love can surpass… . All the treasures of the mercy of God are in thy hands.” (P. 331.)

For want of space we pause. Scores of other passages, equally or even more revolting, lie open before us. If any one desires to see Romanism as it is, let him purchase a “Catholic Manual,” and “The Glories of Mary.” Thenceforth, semi-political papers, like The Freeman’s Journal and Catholic Register, and Jesuitical pamphlets, like the Catholic World, will charm in vain, charm they never so sweetly.

Did space permit, quotations innumerable, as blasphemous as those already adduced, could be given from “The Manual,” “The Key of Paradise,” “True Piety,” “The Christian’s Vade Mecum,” and the several other Catholic collections of prayers. One, from Dr. John Power’s “Catholic Manual,” must suffice :—“ Confiding in thy goodness and mercy, I cast myself at thy sacred feet, and do most humbly supplicate thee, O Mother of the Eternal Word, to adopt me as thy child.”

Bonaventure, a Roman saint (worshiped annually, July 14: see Catholic Almanac), has actually gone over most of the Psalms of David, striking out the words Lord, God, etc., and inserting, Blessed Virgin, Our Lady, Holy Mother, etc. Psalm 110:—“The Lord said unto Our Lady, sit thou on my right hand.” Psalm 25:—“ Unto thee, O Blessed Virgin, do I lift up my soul.” Psalm 31:—“In thee, O Lady, do I put my trust.”

Pope Pius IX., who considers the dogma of the Immaculate Conception the glory of his reign, in his Encyclical of November 1, 1870, condemning the usurpers of the States of the Church, addresses to all devout Catholics this earnest exhortation: “Going altogether to the foot of the throne of grace and mercy, let us engage the intercession of the Immaculate Virgin Mary, mother of God.”

If we may not apply the word idolatry to these abominations of Popery, then, certainly, we have no need of the word. The future Noah Webster may as well omit it from his dictionary. Comment, however, is certainly uncalled for. “And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.” “Idolaters shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

“These wise logicians (heretics) of the world
Can prove with reasoning clear
How he, in heaven, will welcome those
Who scorn his Mother here! . . .
And this is reason! this is light!—
A light that blinds the eyes,
And leads to the fire of endless night,
And the worm that never dies.”
The Catholic World, Jan. No., 1871, p. 532.

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: