sent; and just as Roman Catholics justify their image worship, so do heathens, by the same kind of reasoning, justify their whole system of idolatry. No well-informed Greek or Roman believed that the images in the Parthenon at Athens, or the Pantheon at Rome, were the real gods and goddesses, but merely the images or representations of their real divinities. A native of India who was some time since in London, said in justification of their system of idolatry, as quoted by Dr. Mattison: "We have in our temples an image of Deity to look at, with large eyes, huge ears, great hands, and long feet. Not that we believe the very image to be the Deity, but we use it only to fix our attention, and to remind us that the being which it represents can see everything, hear everything," etc. Thus it is seen that Roman Catholics have images for the same purpose that heathens do, and worship them in the same manner precisely that heathens worship theirs ; and that they both justify their idolatry in the same manner; so that, in this respect, they both stand on the same footing. No one therefore can pretend, with the least show of reason, that the whole system of Roman Catholic image worship differs in any material respect from heathen idolatry which is found in China, Japan, India, and all other heathen lands to this day. Whatever Pagans do to their images, Roman Catholics do to theirs; for, as Jeremy Taylor says: "They consecrate them; they hope in them; they expect gifts and graces from them; they clothe and crown them; they erect altars and temples to them; they kiss them; they bow their head and knee before them; they light up tapers and lamps to them, which is a direct consumptive sacrifice; they do to their images as heathens do to theirs," etc. Is it any wonder that the Romish heirarchy who uphold and justify all this abominable system of baptized idolatry, should seek to blot out the second command of the Decalogue, which so positively and unqualifiedly forbids the making and bowing to images; or to prohibit the circulation of the Scriptures among the people lest they should learn to distrust the professed infallibility of the church in its teachings? Thomas Linacer, a learned and celebrated Roman Catholic ecclesiastic, having never read the New Testament in his life, in his latter days undertook to do so, but he soon threw the volume aside, exclaiming with an oath, that, "Either this is not the Gospel, or else we (Roman Catholics) are not Christians.”* This astonishing ignorance of the word of life in this dignatary of the Romish Church is not a solitary case by any means. Many such instances are well authenticated, that go to establish *D'Aubigne His. of Ref., v. i., p. 67. the fact beyond controversy, that the Bible, having fallen into disrepute because of its antagonism to Popery, was well nigh universally neglected and discarded by its priests and bishops. In no other way can we account for the above decision. While, however, his conclusion was a necessary one, unavoidable from the premises, his course of action was most unreasonable and reprehensible. He madly threw away the only infallible standard of faith and practice, to cling to a church whose customs, teachings and spirit were so glaringly at variance with its sacred precepts and doctrines, as to make it absolutely impossible to reconcile the one with the other. And it is plainly evident that Romanists are generally pursuing the same course to-day; honoring the church and her rites and ceremonies at the expense of the sacred Scriptures. CHAPTER XVI. The Paganism of Popery-The Celibacy of the Clergy Unscriptural and Pagan. AMONG the various anti-scriptural dogmas and practices of the Romish Church that may be directly traced to Pagan asceticism (the fruitful source of many of her abominations,) is that of the prohibition of her priests to marry under pain of excommunication. The more is the enforcement of this anti-christian tenent to be deplored, as it has largely contributed to the profligacy and libertinism of many of her clergy, to the great scandal of religion. Just previous to the commencement of the Reformation, and during the dark ages-the noon-day of Popery -the licentiousness of most of the priests, bishops, and even Popes, is well nigh incredible. "All the clergy," says an historian, "kept mistresses, and all the convents of the capital were houses of ill fame."* Another writer says: "The abodes of the clergy were dens of corruption." D'Aubigne quotes from an author of those times the following: "What humiliating scenes did the house of a pastor present! The wretched man supported the woman and the *D'Aubigne's His. of Ref., v. i., p. 64. Her children she had borne him with the tithes and offerings. His conscience was troubled. He blushed in the presence of the people, before his domestics, and before God. The mother, fearing to come to want if the priest should die, made provision against it beforehand, and robbed her own house. Her honor was lost. children were ever a living accusation against her. Despised by all, they plunged into quarrels and debauchery. Such was the family of a priest.* Eramus is quoted as saying: "In many places the priest paid the bishop a regular tax for the woman with whom he lived, and for each child he had by her. A German bishop said publicly one day, at a great entertainment, that in one year eleven thousand priests had presented themselves before him for that purpose." Another writer says: "In many places the people were delighted at seeing a priest keep a mistress, that the married women might be safe from his seductions." It is a well known fact that Rodrigo Borgia, who, having secured his elevation to the Popedom by the most unprincipled acts of bribery, and who is known as Pope Alexander VI., not only had his concubines, three of whom were a Roman lady and her two daughters, but who squandered the treasure of the Church to enrich his bastard children, and finally died a murderer. Nor His. Ref., Vol. 1, p. 62. |