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.