Now while the mother derived her glory in the first instance
from the divine character attributed to the child in her arms,
the mother in the long-run practically eclipsed the son. At
first, in all likelihood, there would be no thought whatever of
ascribing divinity to the mother. There was an express promise
that necessarily led mankind to expect that, at some time or
other, the Son of God, in amazing condescension, should appear in
this world as the Son of man. But there was no promise whatever,
or the least shadow of a promise, to lead any one to anticipate
that a woman should ever be invested with attributes that should
raise her to a level with Divinity. It is in the last degree
improbably, therefore, that when the mother was first exhibited
with the child in her arms, it should be intended to give divine
honours to her. She was doubtless used chiefly as a pedestal for
the upholding of the divine Son, and holding him forth to the
adoration of mankind; and glory enough it would be counted for
her, alone of all the daughters of Eve, to have given birth to
the promised seed, the world's only hope. But while this, no
doubt, was the design, it is a plain principle in all idolatries
that that which most appeals to the senses must make the most
powerful impression. Now the Son, even in his new incarnation,
when Nimrod was believed to have reappeared in a fairer form, was
exhibited merely as a child, without any very particular
attraction; while the mother in whose arms he was, was set off
with all the art of painting and sculpture, as invested with much
of that extraordinary beauty which in reality belonged to her.
The beauty of Semiramis is said on one occasion to have quelled a
rising rebellion among her subjects on her sudden appearance
among them; and it is recorded that the memory of the admiration
excited in their minds by her appearance on that occasion was
perpetuated by a statue erected in Babylon, representing her in
the guise in which she had fascinated them so much. * This
Babylonian queen was not merely in character coincident with the
Aphrodite of Greece and the Venus of Rome, but was, in point of
fact, the historical original of that goddess that by the ancient
world was regarded as the very embodiment of everything
attractive in female form, and the perfection of female beauty;
for Sanchuniathon assures us that Aphrodite or Venus was
identical with Astarte, * and Astarte being interpreted, * is
none other than "The woman that made towers or
encompassing walls"--i.e., Semiramis. The Roman Venus,
as is well known, was the Cyprian Venus, and the Venus of Cyprus
is historically proved to have been derived from Babylon. (See
Chap. IV. Sect. III.) Now, what in these circumstances might have
been expected actually took place. If the child was to be adored,
much more the mother. The mother, in point of fact, became the
favourite object of worship. * To justify this worship, the
mother was raised to divinity as well as her son, and she was
looked upon as destined to complete that bruising of the
serpent's head, which it was easy, if such a thing was needed, to
find abundant and plausible reasons for alleging that Ninus or
Nimrod, the great Son, in his mortal life had only begun.
The Roman Church maintains that it was not so much the seed of
the woman, as the woman herself, that was to bruise the head of
the serpent. In defiance of all grammar, she renders the Divine
denunciation against the serpent thus: "She shall bruise
thy head, and thou shalt bruise her heel." The same was
held by the ancient Babylonians, and symbolically represented in
their temples. In the uppermost storey of the tower of Babel, or
temple of Belus, Diodorus Siculus tells us there stood three
images of the great divinities of Babylon; and one of these was
of a woman grasping a serpent's head. * Among the Greeks the same
thing was symbolised; for Diana, whose real character was
originally the same as that of the great Babylonian goddess, *
was represented as bearing in one of her hands a serpent deprived
of its head. * As time wore away, and the facts of Simiramis's
history became obscured, her son's birth was boldly declared to
be miraculous: and therefore she was called "Alma
Mater," * "the Virgin Mother." That the birth
of the Great Deliverer was to be miraculous, was widely known
long before the Christian era. For centuries, some say for
thousands of years before that event, the Buddhist priests had a
tradition that a Virgin was to bring forth a child to bless the
world. * That this tradition came from no Popish or Christian
source, is evident from the surprise felt and expressed by the
Jesuit missionaries, when they first entered Thibet and China,
and not only found a mother and a child worshipped as at home,
but that mother worshipped under a character exactly
corresponding with that of their own Madonna, "Virgo
Deipara," "the Virgin mother of God," * and
that, too, in regions where they could not find the least trace
of either the name or history of our Lord Jesus Christ having
ever been known. * The primeval promise that the "seed
of the woman should bruise the serpent's head," naturally
suggested the idea of a miraculous birth. Priestcraft and human
presumption set themselves wickedly to anticipate the fulfilment
of that promise; and the Babylonian queen seems to have been the
first to whom that honour was given. The highest titles were
accordingly bestowed upon her. She was called the "queen
of heaven." (Jeremiah xliv. 17, 18, 19, 25.) * In Egypt
she was styled Athor--i.e., "the Habitation of
God," * to signify that in her dwelt all the
"fulness of the Godhead." To point out the great
goddess-mother, in a Pantheistic sense, as at once the Infinite
and Almighty one, and the Virgin mother, this inscription was
engraven upon one of her temples in Egypt: "I am all
that has been, or that is, or that shall be. No mortal has
removed my veil. The fruit which I have brought forth is the
Sun." * In Greece she had the name of Hestia, and
amongst the Romans, Vesta, which is just a modification of the
same name--a name which, though it has been commonly understood
in a different sense, really meant "The
Dwelling-place." * As the Dwelling-place of Deity, thus
is Hestia or Vesta addressed in the Orphic Hymns:-
"Daughter of Saturn, venerable dame,
Who dwell'st amid great fire's eternal flame,
In thee the gods have fix'd their DWELLING-PLACE,
Strong stable basis of the mortal race." *
Even when Vesta is identified with fire, this same character
of Vesta as "The Dwelling-place" still
distinctly appears. Thus Philolaus, speaking of a fire in the
middle of the centre of the world, calls it "The Vesta
of the universe, The HOUSE of Jupiter, The mother of the
gods." * In Babylon, the title of the goddess-mother as
the Dwelling-place of God was Sacca, * or in the emphatic form,
Sacta, that is, "The Tabernacle." * Hence, at
this day, the great goddesses in India, as wielding all the power
of the god whom they represent, are called "Sacti,"
or the "Tabernacle." Now in her, as the
Tabernacle or Temple of God, not only all power, but all grace
and goodness were believed to dwell. Every quality of gentleness
and mercy was regarded as centered in her; and when death had
closed her career, while she was fabled to have been deified and
changed into a pigeon, * to express the celestial benignity of
her nature, she was called by the name of "D'Iune,"
* or "The Dove," or without the article, "Juno,"--the
name of the Roman "queen of heaven," which has
the very same meaning; and under the form of a dove as well as
her own, she was worshipped by the Babylonians. The dove, the
chosen symbol of this deified queen, is commonly represented with
an olive branch in her mouth , as she herself in her human form
also is seen bearing the olive branch in her hand; * and from
this form of representing her, it is highly probably that she has
derived the name by which she is commonly known, for "Z'emir-amit"
means "The branch-bearer." * When the
goddess was thus represented as the Dove with the olive branch,
there can be no doubt that the symbol had partly reference to the
story of the flood; but there was much more in the symbol than a
mere memorial of that great event. "A branch," as
had been already proved, was the symbol of the deified son, and
when the deified mother was represented as a Dove, what could the
meaning of this representation be but just to identify her with
the Spirit of all grace, that brooded, dove-like, over the deep
at the creation; for in the sculptures at Nineveh, as we have
seen, the wings and tail of the dove represented the third member
of the idolatrous Assyrian trinity. * In confirmation of this
view, it must be stated that the Assyrian "Juno," or
"The Virgin Venus," * as she was called, was
identified with the air. Thus Julius Firmicus says:--"The
Assyrians and part of the Africans wish the air to have the
supremacy of the elements, for they have consecrated this same
[element] under the name of Juno, or the Virgin Venus." Why
was air thus identified with Juno, whose symbol was that of the
third person of the Assyrian trinity? Why, but because in Chaldee
the same word which signifies the air signifies also the "Holy
Ghost." The knowledge of this entirely accounts for the
statement of Proclus, that "Juno imports the generation
of soul." * Whence could the soul--the spirit of
man--be supposed to have its origin, but from the Spirit of God.
In accordance with this character of Juno as the incarnation of
the Divine Spirit, the source of life, and also as the goddess of
the air, thus is she invoked in the "Orphic
Hymns":-
"O royal Juno, of majestic mien,
Aerial formed, divine, Jove's blessed queen,
Throned in the bosom of cerulean air,
The race of mortals is thy constant care;
The cooling gales, thy power alone inspires,
Which nourish life, which every life desires;
Mother of showers and winds, from thee alone
Producing all things, mortal life is known;
All natures show thy temperament divine,
And universal sway alone is thine,
With sounding blasts of wind, the swelling sea
And rolling rivers roar when shook by thee." *
Thus, then, the deified queen, when in all respects regarded
as a veritable woman, was at the same time adored as the
incarnation of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of peace and love. In
the temple of Hierapolis in Syria, there was a famous statue of
the goddess Juno, to which crowds from all quarters flocked to
worship. The image of the goddess was richly habited, on her head
was a golden dove, and she was called by a name peculiar to the
country, "Semeion." * What is the meaning of
Semeion? It is evidently "The Habitation;" *
and the "golden dove" on her head shows
plainly who it was that was supposed to dwell in her-even the
Spirit of God. When such transcendent dignity was bestowed on
her, when such winning characters were attributed to her, and
when, over and above all, her images presented her to the eyes of
men as Venus Urania, "the heavenly Venus," the
queen of beauty, who assured her worshippers of salvation, while
giving loose reins to every unholy passion, and every depraved
and sensual appetite--no wonder that everywhere she was
enthusiastically adored. Under the name of the "Mother
of the gods," the goddess queen of Babylon became an
object of almost universal worship. "The Mother of the
gods," says Clericus," was worshipped by the
Persians, the Syrians, and all the kings of Europe and Asia, with
the most profound religious veneration." * Tacitus
gives evidence that the Babylonian goddess was worshipped in the
heart of Germany, * and Caesar, when he invaded Britain, found
that the priests of this same goddess, known by the name of
Druids, had been there before him. * Herodotus, from personal
knowledge, testifies, that in Egypt this "queen of
heaven" was "the greatest and most worshipped
of all the divinities." * Wherever her worship was
introduced, it is amazing what fascinating power it exerted.
Truly, the nations might be said to be "made drunk"
with the wine of her fornications. So deeply, in particular,
did the Jews in the days of Jeremiah drink of her wine cup, so
bewitched were they with her idolatrous worship, that even after
Jerusalem had been burnt, and the land desolated for this very
thing, they could not be prevailed on to give it up. While
dwelling in Egypt as forlorn exiles, instead of being witnesses
for God against the heathenism around them, they were as much
devoted to this form of idolatry as the Egyptians themselves.
Jeremiah was sent of God to denounce wrath against them, if they
continued to worship the queen of heaven; but his warnings were
in vain. "Then," saith the prophet, "all
the men which knew that their wives had burnt incense unto other
gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even
all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros,
answered Jeremiah, saying, As for the word that thou hast spoken
unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee;
but we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our
own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour
out drink-offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our
fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and
in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals,
and were well, and saw no evil" (Jer. xliv. 15-17).
Thus did the Jews, God's own peculiar people, emulate the
Egyptians in their devotion to the queen of heaven.
The worship of the goddess-mother with the child in her arms
continued to be observed in Egypt till Christianity entered. If
the Gospel had come in power among the mass of the people, the
worship of this goddess-queen would have been overthrown. With
the generality it came only in name. Instead, therefore, of the
Babylonian goddess being cast out, in too many cases her name
only was changed. She was called the Virgin Mary, and, with her
child, was worshipped with the same idolatrous feeling by
professing Christians, as formerly by open and avowed Pagans. The
consequence was, that when, in A.D. 325, the Nicene Council was
summoned to condemn the heresy of Arius, who denied the true
divinity of Christ, that heresy indeed was condemned, but not
without the help of men who gave distinct indications of a desire
to put the creature on a level with the Creator, to set the
Virgin-mother wide by side with her Son. At the Council of Nice,
says the author of "Nimrod," "The Melchite
section"--that is, the representatives of the so-called
Christianity of Egypt--"held that there were three
persons in the Trinity--the Father, the Virgin Mary, and Messiah
their Son." * In reference to this astounding fact,
elicited by the Nicene Council, Father Newman speaks exultingly
of these discussions as tending to the glorification of Mary.
"Thus," says he, "the controversy opened
a question which it did not settle. It discovered a new sphere,
if we may so speak, in the realms of light, to which the Church
had not yet assigned its inhabitant. Thus, there was a wonder in
Heaven; a throne was seen far above all created powers,
mediatorial, intercessory, a title archetypal, a crown bright as
the morning star, a glory issuing from the eternal throne, robes
pure as the heavens, and a sceptre over all. And who was the
predestined heir of that majesty? Who was that wisdom, and what
was her name, the mother of fair love, and fear, and holy hope,
exalted like a palm-tree in Engaddi, and a rose-plant in Jericho,
created from the beginning before the world, in God's counsels,
and in Jerusalem was her power? The vision is found in the
Apocalypse 'a Woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her
feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.'" *
"The votaries of Mary," adds he, "do not
exceed the true faith, unless the blasphemers of her Son came up
to it. The Church of Rome is not idolatrous, unless Arianism is
orthodoxy." * This is the very poetry of blasphemy.
It contains an argument too; but what does that argument
amount to? It just amounts to this, that if Christ be admitted to
be truly and properly God, and worthy of Divine honours, His
mother, from whom He derived merely His humanity, must be
admitted to be the same, must be raised far above the level of
all creatures, and be worshipped as a partaker of the Godhead.
The divinity of Christ is made to stand or fall with the divinity
of His mother. Such is Popery in the nineteenth century; yea,
such is Popery in England. It was known already that Popery
abroad was bold and unblushing in its blasphemies; that in Lisbon
a church was to be seen with these words engraven on its front, "To
the virgin goddess of Loretto, the Italian race, devoted to her
DIVINITY, have dedicated this temple." * But when till
now was such language ever heard in Britain before? This,
however, is just the exact reproduction of the doctrine of
ancient Babylon in regard to the great goddess-mother. The
Madonna of Rome, then, is just the Madonna of Babylon. The
"Queen of Heaven" in the one system is the same as
the "Queen of Heaven" in the other. The
goddess worshipped in Babylon and Egypt as the Tabernacle or
Habitation of God, is identical with her who, under the name of
Mary, is called by Rome "the HOUSE consecrated to
God," "the awful Dwelling-place," * "the
Mansion of God," * the "Tabernacle of the Holy
Ghost," * the "Temple of the Trinity." * Some
may possibly be inclined to defend such language, by saying that
the Scripture makes every believer to be a temple of the Holy
Ghost, and, therefore, what harm can there be in speaking of the
Virgin Mary, who was unquestionably a saint of God, under that
name, or names of a similar import? Now, no doubt it is true that
Paul says (1 Cor. iii. 16), "Know ye not that ye are the
temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" It
is not only true, but it is a great truth, and a blessed one--a
truth that enhances every comfort when enjoyed, and takes the
sting out of every trouble when it comes, that every genuine
Christian has less or more experience of what is contained in
these words of the same apostle (2 Cor. vi. 16), "Ye are
the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in
them and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be
my people." It must also be admitted, and gladly
admitted, that this implies the indwelling of all the Persons of
the glorious Godhead; for the Lord Jesus hath said (John xiv.
23), "If a man love me, he will keep my words; and my
Father will love him, and WE will come unto him, and make our
abode with him." But while admitting all this, on
examination it will be found that the Popish and the Scriptural
ideas conveyed by these expressions, however apparently similar,
are essentially different. When it is said that a believer is "a
temple of God," or a temple of the Holy Ghost, the
meaning is (Eph. iii. 17) that "Christ dwells in the
heart by faith." But when Rome says that Mary is "The
Temple" or "Tabernacle of God," the
meaning is the exact Pagan meaning of the term--viz., that the
union between her and the Godhead is a union akin to the
hypostatical union between the divine and human nature of Christ.
The human nature of Christ is the "Tabernacle of
God," inasmuch as the Divine nature has veiled its
glory in such a way, by assuming our nature, that we can come
near without overwhelming dread to the Holy God. To this glorious
truth John refers when he says (John i. 14), "The Word
was made flesh, and dwelt (literally tabernacled) among us, and
we beheld Hid glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth." In this sense,
Christ, the God-man, is the only "Tabernacle of
God." Now, it is precisely in this sense that Rome
calls Mary the "Tabernacle of God," or of the
"Holy Ghost." Thus speaks the author of a Popish
work devoted to the exaltation of the Virgin, in which all the
peculiar titles and prerogatives of Christ are given to Mary: "Behold
the tabernacle of God, the mansion of God, the habitation, the
city of God is with men, and in men and for men, for their
salvation, and exaltation, and eternal glorification.... Is it
most clear that this is true of the holy church? and in like
manner also equally true of the most holy sacrament of the Lord's
body? Is it (true) of every one of us in as far as we are truly
Christians? Undoubtedly; but we have to contemplate this mystery
(as existing) in a peculiar manner in the most holy Mother of our
Lord." * Then the author, after endeavouring to show
that "Mary is rightly considered as the Tabernacle of
God with men," and that in a peculiar sense, a sense
different from that in which all Christians are the "temple
of God," thus proceeds with express reference to her in
this character of the Tabernacle: "Great truly is the
benefit, singular is the privilege, that the Tabernacle of God
should be with men, IN WHICH men may safely come near to God
become man." * Here the whole mediatorial glory of
Christ, as the God-man in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily, is given to Mary, or at least is shared with her.
The above extracts are taken from a work published upwards of two
hundred years ago. Has the Papacy improved wince then? Has it
repented of its blasphemies? No, the very reverse. The quotation
already given from Father Newman proves this; but there is still
stronger proof. In a recently published work, the same
blasphemous idea is even more clearly unfolded. While Mary is
called "The HOUSE consecrated to God," and the
"TEMPLE of the Trinity," the following
versicle and response will show in what sense she is regarded as
the temple of the Holy Ghost: "V. Ipse [deus] creavit
illam in Spiritu Sancto. R. Et EFFUDIT ILLAM inter omnia opera
sua. V. Domina, exaudi." etc., which is thus
translated: "V. The Lord himself created HER in the Holy
Ghost, and POURED HER out among all his works. V.O Lady,
hear," etc. * This astounding language manifestly
implies that Mary is identified with the Holy Ghost, when it
speaks of her "being poured out" on "all
the works of God;" and that, as we have seen, was just
the very way in which the Woman, regarded as the
"Tabernacle" or House of God by the Pagans, was looked
upon. Where is such language used in regard to the Virgin? Not in
Spain; not in Austria; not in the dark places of Continental
Europe; but in London, the seat and centre of the world's
enlightenment.
The names of blasphemy bestowed by the Papacy on Mary have not
one shadow of foundation in the Bible, but are all to be found in
the Babylonian idolatry. Yea, the very features and complexions
of the Roman and Babylonian Madonnas are the same. Till recent
times, when Raphael somewhat departed from the beaten track,
there was nothing either Jewish or even Italian in the Romish
Madonnas. Had these pictures or images of the Virgin Mother been
intended to represent the mother of our Lord, naturally then
would have been cast either in the one would or the other. But it
was not so. In a land of dark-eyed beauties, with raven locks,
the Madonna was always represented with blue eyes and golden
hair, a complexion entirely different from the Jewish complexion,
which naturally would have been supposed to belong to the mother
of our Lord, but which precisely agrees with that which all
antiquity attributes to the goddess queen of Babylon. In almost
all lands the great goddess has been described with golden or
yellow hair, showing that there must have been one grand
prototype, to which they were all made to correspond. "Flava
ceres," the "yellow-haired Ceres," might
not have been accounted of any weight in this argument if she had
stood alone, for it might have been supposed in that case that
the epithet "yellow-haired" was borrowed from
the corn that was supposed to be under her guardian care. But
many other goddesses have the very same epithet applied to them.
Europa, whom Jupiter carried away in the form of a bull, is
called "The yellow-haired Europa." * Minerva
is called by Homer "the blue-eyed Minerva," *
and by Ovid "the yellow-haired;" * the
huntress Diana, who is commonly identified with the moon, is
addressed by Anacreon as "the yellow-haired daughter of
Jupiter," * a title which the pale face of the silver
moon could surely never have suggested. Dione, the mother of
Venus, is described by Theocritus as "yellow-haired."
* Venus herself is frequently called "Aurea Venus,"
the "golden Venus." * The Indian goddess
Lakshmi, the "Mother of the Universe," is
described as of "a golden complexion." *
Ariadne, the wife of Bacchus, was called "the
yellow-haired Ariadne." * Thus does Dryden refer to her
golden or yellow hair:-
"Where the rude waves in Dian's harbour play,
The fair forsaken Ariadne lay;
There, sick with grief and frantic with despair,
Her dress she rent, and tore her golden hair." *
The Gorgon Medusa before her transformation, while celebrated
for her beauty, was equally celebrated for her golden hair:--
"Medusa once had charms: to gain her love
A rival crowd of anxious lovers strove.
They who have seen her, own they ne'er did trace
More moving features in a sweeter face;
But above all, her length of hair they own
In golden ringlets waved, and graceful shone." *
The mermaid that figured so much in the romantic tales of the
north, which was evidently borrowed from the story of Atergatis,
the fish goddess of Syria, who was called the mother of
Semiramis, and was sometimes identified with Semiramis herself, *
was described with hair of the same kind. "The
Ellewoman," such is the Scandinavian name for the
mermaid, "is fair," says the introduction to
the "Danish Tales" of Hans Andersen, "and
gold-haired, and plays most sweetly on a stringed
instrument." * "She is frequently seen sitting on the
surface of the waters, and combing her long golden hair with a
golden comb." * Even when Athor, the Venus of Egypt,
was represented as a cow, doubtless to indicate the complexion of
the goddess that cow represented, the cow's head and neck were
gilded. * When, therefore, it is known that the most famed
pictures of the Virgin Mother in Italy represented her as of a
fair complexion and with golden hair, and when over all Ireland
the Virgin is almost invariably represented at this day in the
very same manner, who can resist the conclusion that she must
have been thus represented, only because she had been copied from
the same prototype as the Pagan divinities?
Nor is this agreement in complexion only, but also in
features. Jewish features are everywhere marked, and have a
character peculiarly their own. But the original Madonna's have
nothing at all of Jewish form or feature; but are declared by
those who have personally compared both, * entirely to agree in
this respect, as well as in complexion, with the Babylonian
Madonnas found by Sir Robert Ker Porter among the ruins of
Babylon.
There is yet another remarkable characteristic of these
pictures worthy of notice, and that is the nimbus or peculiar
circle of light that frequently encompasses the head of the Roman
Madonna. With this circle the heads of the so-called figures of
Christ are also frequently surrounded. Whence could such a device
have originated? In the case of our Lord, if His head had been
merely surrounded with rays, there might have been some pretence
for saying that that was borrowed from the Evangelic narrative,
where it is stated, that on the holy mount His face became
resplendent with light. But where, in the whole compass of
Scripture, do we ever read that His head was surrounded with a
disk, or a circle of light? But what will be searched for in vain
in the Word of God, is found in the artistic representations of
the great gods and goddesses of Babylon. The disk, and
particularly the circle, where the will-known symbols of the
Sun-divinity, and figured largely in the symbolism of the East.
With the circle or the disk the head of the Sun-divinity was
encompassed. The same was the case in Pagan Rome. Apollo, as the
child of the Sun, was often thus represented. The goddesses that
claimed kindred with the Sun were equally entitled to be adorned
with the nimbus or luminous circle. We give from Pompeii a
representation of Circe, "the daughter of the Sun" ,
with her head surrounded with a circle, in the very same way as
the head of the Roman Madonna is at this day surrounded. Let any
one compare the nimbus around the head of Circe, with that around
the head of the Popish Virgin, and he will see how exactly they
correspond. *
Now, could any one possible believe that all this coincidence
could be accidental. Of course, if the Madonna had ever so
exactly resembled the Virgin Mary, that would never have excused
idolatry. But when it is evident that the goddess enshrined in
the Papal Church for the supreme worship of its votaries, is the
very Babylonian queen who set up Nimrod, or Ninus "the
Son," as the rival of Christ, and who in her own person
was the incarnation of every kind of licentiousness, how dark a
character does that stamp on the Roman idolatry. What will it
avail to mitigate the heinous character of that idolatry, to say
that the child she holds forth to adoration is called by the name
of Jesus? When she was worshipped with her child in Babylon of
old, that child was called by a name as peculiar to Christ, as
distinctive of His glorious character, as the name of Jesus. He
was called "Zoro-ashta," "the seed of the
woman." But that did not hinder the hot anger of God
from being directed against those in the days of old who
worshipped that "image of jealousy, provoking to
jealousy." * Neither can the giving of the name of
Christ to the infant in the arms of the Romish Madonna, make it
less the "image of Jealousy," less offensive
to the Most High, less fitted to provoke His high displeasure,
when it is evident that that infant is worshipped as the child of
her who was adored as Queen of Heaven, with all the attributes of
divinity, and was at the same time the "Mother of
harlots and abominations of the earth." Image-worship
in every case the Lord abhors; but image-worship of such a kind
as this must be peculiarly abhorrent to His holy soul. Now, if
the facts I have adduced be true, is it wonderful that such
dreadful threatenings should be directed in the Word of God
against the Romish apostacy, and that the vials of this
tremendous wrath are destined to be outpoured upon its guilty
head? If these things be true (and gainsay them who can), who
will venture now to plead for Papal Rome, or to call her a
Christian Church? Is there one, who fears God, and who reads
these lines, who would not admit that Paganism alone could ever
have inspired such a doctrine as that avowed by the Melchites at
the Nicene Council, that the Holy Trinity consisted of "the
Father, the Virgin Mary, and the Messiah their Son"? *
Is there one who would not shrink with horror from such a
thought? What, then, would the reader say of a Church that
teaches its children to adore such a Trinity as that contained in
the following lines?--
"Heart of Jesus I adore thee;
Heart of Mary, I implore thee;
Heart of Joseph, pure and just;
IN THESE THREE HEARTS I PUT MY TRUST." *
If this is not Paganism, what is there that can be called by
such a name? Yet this is the Trinity which now the Roman
Catholics of Ireland from tender infancy are taught to adore.
This is the Trinity which, in the latest books of catechetical
instruction is presented as the grand object of devotion to the
adherents of the Papacy. The manual that contains this blasphemy
comes forth with the express "Imprimatur" of
"Paulus Cullen," Popish Archbishop of Dublin. Will any
one after this say that the Roman Catholic Church must still be
called Christian, because it holds the doctrine of the Trinity?
So did the Pagan Babylonians, so did the Egyptians, so do the
Hindoos at this hour, in the very same sense in which Rome does.
They all admitted A trinity, but did they worship THE Triune
Jehovah, the King Eternal, Immortal, and Invisible? And will any
one say with such evidence before him, that Rome does so? Away
then, with the deadly delusion that Rome is Christian! There
might once have been some palliation for entertaining such a
supposition; but every day the "Grand Mystery" is
revealing itself more and more in its true character. There is
not, and there cannot be, any safety for the souls of men in "Babylon."
"Come out of her, my people," is the loud and
express command of God. Those who disobey that command, do it at
their peril.