« FöregåendeFortsätt »
her "" the queen of the angels.” Now we read in the Bible, of Michael, the archangel, or prince of angels, but we do not read of the angels having a queen. We read also of a king in heaven, but not a word about a queen. I don't know where he got this idea of a queen of angels. He certainly did not get it out of the Holy Scriptures, and yet these Scriptures, I had always supposed, contain all that we know about the angels. I wish he would tell us from his retirement where he got the idea, for he speaks very positive about the angels having a queen. It is true, we do read in one place in the Bible of a queen of heaven, but the worship of her was so evidently idolatry, that I presume the Catholics will not quote it as authorizing the title they give and the honor they pay to the Virgin Mary. The account is found in Jeremiah, 44. If any one will read the chapter he will see what that prophet thought of those worshipers of the queen of heaven. Now, if the worship of a queen of heaven by the Jews was denounced as idolatry, and ruin came on them in consequence of it, is not a similar worship performed by Catholics as idolatrous, and as dangerous ?
But no matter what he calls her, he asks her to do what only God can do. He treats her precisely as if she were divine. Is it not so—and is not this idolatry? He ascribes divine perfections to her-omniscience, else how could she watch over the child; and omnipotence, else how could she ward off evil from him; and he speaks of her as the guide of souls to eternal life. The Psalmist considered it was the prerogative of God to do this. He says, 66 Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory." But the ex-king looks to Mary to conduct the young
duke to eternal life. What the Psalmist expects front God, the ex-king expects from Mary. Is not this putting a creature in the place of God, the Creator ? Every one must see that it is shocking idolatry, and that the man who uses such language is as truly an idolater as any devotee of Juggernaut.
I do really wonder that the Catholics continue to call their system Christianity. It is by a great misnomer it is so called. It is not the proper name for it at all. It should be called by some such name as Marianism, rather than Christianity. In Christianity the principal figure is Christ; but he is not the principal figure in the Catholic religion. Mary is. Therefore the religion should be called after her, Marianism, and not after Christ, Christianity. Catholics are not the disciples of Christ, but of Mary; she is their confidence and hope. Pope Gregory says she “is our greatest hope, yea, the entire ground of our hope.” Now, I think that the religion of such people ought to be called after the one who is their greatest hope; and I have suggested a name to the Catholics, which I advise them to adopt. Let their religion be called Marianism, and let them leave to us the name Christianity, since Christ “is our hope.”
Having proved his Holiness, and his most Christian Majesty, the two principal characters in the church of Rome, idolaters, I think I may as
20. Idolatry near Home.
It is wonderful what a propensity there is in fallen men to idolatry. How they do love to worship the creature rather than the Creator ! In a certain church, which need not be named, the blessed virgin, though a mere woman, receives ten, perhaps a hundred times as much religious honor as does the blessed Savior, though he be “the mighty God,” deserving of all homage, while she merits barely respectful remembrance. One that has much intercourse with Catholics would suppose the mother to be the Savior of the world, rather than the Son. They make her to be the principal advocate of sinners in heaven, “ If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father.” Who? St. John says, " Jesus Christ the righteous"—the Catholics say it is Mary! So they differ—we Protestants side with John.
I have lately met with an idolatrous temple, that is, a church or chapel avowedly erected in honor of a creature, and dedicated to a creature. Is not that a temple of idolatry? Can there be a more accurate definition of such a place? Well, I have seen one-and I have not been a voyage to India neither. Some think there is no idolatry nearer than India; and when they hear of an idol-temple they immediately think of Juggernaut. But it is a mistake. I have not been out of the United States of America, and yet I have seen a temple of idolatry. I will state the case, and let every one judge for himself. If I am under an erroneous impression I shall be glad to be corrected. The
case is this : On the Catholic chapel in Annapolis, Maryland, is this inscription, “IN HONOREM DEI PaRÆ VIRGINIS.” It is Latin. The English of it is, “In honor of the Virgin, the mother of God.” If I have not rightly translated it, some of those who worship in Latin can correct me.
Now, what does this mean? It seems to signify that the chapel was erected, and is continued in honor of, that is, for the worship of the Virgin Mary. The being in whose honor a chapel is erected is worshiped in it. If not, how is it in honor of him? The inscription signifies dedication to the Virgin Mary. Now, the being to whom a place of religious worship is dedicated is always the object of the worship there rendered. This is universally understood. Hence we dedicate our churches to the Triune God, for him we worship in them. They are erected in honor of him. No one mistakes the meaning of these inscriptions. When we read on the Unitarian church in Baltimore this inscription in Greek, “To the only God," we understand that the church is consecrated to the service of the only God, and it is precisely the same as if the inscription had been in the style of that at Annapolis, in honor of the only God. So when Paul found at Athens an altar with this inscription, “ To the unknown God,” he inferred immediately that worship was intended, for he says,
“ whom therefore ye ignorantly worship :" suppose the inscription had been “in honor of the unknown God," would not the apostle's inference have been the same? Nothing is more clear than that the inscription on which I am remarking, implies that the chapel in question is dedicated to the worship of the Virgin Mary; and she being a creature, this constitutes it a temple of idolatry, and those who worship in it idolaters !
Let no man say that the inscription implies no more than that the chapel is named after Mary. Some Protestants name their churches after saints, but the name is not given in any case in honor of the saint. St. Paul's in London was not built in honor of St. Paul. It is simply so denominated. But here we have a chapel in honor of the Virgin, and she is called Mother of God, apparently to justify the worship which the authors of the chapel intend her. If this were the only proof that Catholics worship the Virgin Mary, we might overlook it; but it is only one of many. No one thing is more susceptible of demonstration, less capable of denial, than that Roman Catholics render unto this creature that which is due to God alone, religious worship. See for proof, their own Rhemish Testament with the notes. Therefore they are idolaters. I am sorry to say it, because I am sorry there is any occasion for saying it. But the time has come to speak out. This religion is threatening America, and it should be known, it should be proclaimed in the ear of every Christian, and every patriot, that it is something worse than mere error. And something more to be dreaded far than tyranny, which also it is, and ever has been, and must be—it is IDOLATRY. It puts another, and a creature, in the place of God; or if it discards not him, it does what is as offensive to him, it associates other and inferior objects of worship with him-and this his jealousy will not suffer. Whatever this great people are to become, I do hope we shall never be a nation of idolaters-creature-worshipers. We had better be, what God forbid we ever should be,