Sidor som bilder


rity “rejoiceth in the truth.” The charge can be uncharitable only by being untrue. It is too late in the day, I trust, for idolatry to find an apologist. But to the proof. Perhaps you suppose it is some obscure Pope of the night of times—the dark ages, that I am going to prove an idolater. No, it is a Pope of the nineteenth century—the present reigning Pope, Gregory XVI. He is the idolater; and here are his own words in proof of it. They are a part of the circular, or Ccyclical letter, sent forth by him on entering on his office, and addressed to all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops. The letter may be found in the Laity's Directory, 1833, and has been extensively published withcut any of its statements being contradicted. In it the Pope calls upon all the clergy to implore “that she, (the Virgin Mary,) who has been, through every great calamity, our Patroness and Protectress, may watch over us writing to you, and lead our mind by her heavenly influence, to those counsels which may prove most salutary to Christ's flock !" Is comment necessary ? Observe, he recognizes not God as having been their defence, but her as having been their protectress in past calamities, and directs the clergy to pray to her to continue her watch over them! As contrast is one of the principles on which ideas are associated, I was reminded in reading this, of the 121st Psalm, in which the writer speaks of the one keepeth Israel." It is not she, according to the Psalmist, but He, the Lord which made heaven and earth, that keepeth Israel. But, according to the Pope, it is the Virgin Mary that keeps Israel; and he speaks of her as exerting a heavenly influence on the mind. I always thought it was the exclusive prerogative of Je

66 that

[ocr errors]

hovah to have access to the mind, and to exert an immediate influence on it; and I cannot but think now that the Pope must err in this matter, though he speaks ex cathedra. I cannot believe he was exactly infallible when he wrote that letter. But

you have not heard the worst of it yet. In the same letter he


“ But that all may have cessful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary, who alone destroys heresies, who is our greatest hope, yea, THE ENTIRE GROUND OF OUR HOPE!” The underscoring is mine, but the words are the Pope’s. Now, just look at this. Did you ever hear any thing like it? Observe what Mary is said to be and to do; and what the clergy are exhorted to do. The Pope's religion cannot be the oldest, as they pretend. It is not the religion of the Psalms. In the 121sť Psalm the writer says: I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help. My help cometh from the Lord.” And in the 123d, “Unto thee lift I up mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens. Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress; so our eyes wait

upon the Lord our God, until that he have mercy upon us." But the Pope says: “ Let us raise our eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary.” There is the difference between the Pope and the Psalmist. Protestants in this case side with the Psalmist; and in this particular our religion is not only older than Luther, but older even than the Pope.

I would inquire of the reader whether these prayers which the Pope would have the whole church address to the Virgin Mary, are not precisely such as ate proper to be addressed to God, and which others do address to him ? Do they not ask of her just what ought to be asked of Him, and what he alone can give ? After asking such things as the Catholics are directed to ask of the Virgin Mary, what remains to be asked of God in prayer ? And is not this putting a creature in the place of God ? Indeed, is it not putting God quite out of the question? The eyes are raised in prayer to the Virgin, and they are listed no higher. There they fix. Is not this idolatry? And you see he is not satisfied himself with being an idolater, but he wants the entire clergy, and of course the whole Catholic church, to join him in his idolatry!

I wish the Pope had explained how the blessed Virgin destroys heresies. He says she does it, and she alone. I should think it rather belonged to “the Spirit of Truth” to destroy heresies, and to guide into all truth.” But no, says the Pope, the Spirit of Truth has nothing to do with it. It is all done by the blessed Virgin! She “ alone destroys heresies."

The Catholics complain that we call their Pope Antichrist. But I would appeal to any one to say if he is not Antichrist, who, overlooking Christ altogether, says of another, that she is our greatest hope, yea, the entire ground of our hope ?" Is not that against Christ? The Bible speaks of him as our hope," 1 Tim. 1:1; yea, of him as our only hope; for “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 3: 11. “ Neither is there salva. tion in any other.” Acts, 4 : 12. It would seem from this, that Christ is the ground of hope. But not so, says the Pope; the blessed Virgin is “the entire ground of our hope." By the way, I should not be surprised if

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

that hope should disappoint its possessor. Now, is not the Pope Antichrist? Well, if he is an idolater and Antichrist, ought he to be adhered to? What sort of a body must that be, which has such a head? I think I should not like to be a member of it. And I must confess that I am against such a person having any more power in our free, enlightened, and happy America, than he has already. Pray let us not, after having broken the chains of political thraldom, come in bondage to idolatry. Let us not, after having extricated our persons from the power of a king, subject our minds to the spiritual domination of a Pope.

19. Charles X. an Idolater.

Having proved his holiness the Pope an idolater, I proceed now to prove “his most Christian majesty" that was, the ex-king of France, an idolater ; which having done, I shall have gone a good way towards proving the whole Catholic church idolatrous, since, as you know, it is their boast that they all think alike, and that there are no such varieties of opinion among them as among us unfortunate Protestants; though, by the way, it is not so strange that they all think alike, when one thinks for all.

I proved Gregory an idolater out of his own mouth. I shall do the same in the case of Charles. On the occasion of the baptism (with oil, spittle, &c. an improvement on the simple water-system of the Bible)

[ocr errors]

of his young grand-son, the Duke of Bordeaux, this was his language: “Let us invoke for him the protection of the mother of God, the queen of the angels; let us implore her to watch over his days, and remove far from his cradle the misfortunes with which it has pleased Providence to afflict his relatives, and to conduct him by a less rugged path than I have had, to eternal felicity.” He was anxious that the little boy should have a protector, one to watch over him, and to remove his misfortunes, and to conduct him by an easy path to eternal life. For this purpose, one not educated a Catholic would have supposed that he would apply to the omniscient and almighty God. I do not know who can do those things besides God. But no. "His majesty" does no more apply to God, than did his holiness in a similar case. I suppose it would have been heresy if he had. They would have thought him going over to Protestantism. His holiness and his majesty both make application to the creature rather than to the Creator. Charles does not say,

"Let us invoke for him the protection of God," but of a woman, a woman indeed highly favored of the Lord, and of blessed memory, but still a woman.

He calls her, according to the custom of his church, “the mother of God.” I suppose you know that phrase is not in the Bible. And there is a good reason for it, the idea is not as old as the Bible. The Bible is an old book, almost as old as our religion. Roman Catholicism is comparatively young. I will not remark on the phrase, mother of God, seeing it is not in the Bible, and since it has often been remarked upon by others. But there is another thing the ex-king says of her, on which I will spend a word or two. He calls

« FöregåendeFortsätt »