XXX

OF IDOLATRY

AFTER HAVING read all that has been written upon idolatry, there is nothing that communicates a precise idea of it. It seems that Locke was the first who taught men to define the words they uttered, and not talk at random. The term that answers to idolatry is not to be found in any ancient language; it is an expression of the Greeks of the last ages, which was never in use before the second century of our era. It signifies the adoration of images; it is a term of reproach, an injurious word; no people ever took upon themselves the title of idolaters; no government ever ordained that the people should adore an image, as the supreme God of nature. The ancient Chaldeans, the ancient Arabians, the ancient Persians, had, for a long time, neither images nor temples. How could those who venerated in the sun, the stars, and fire, the emblems of the divinity, be called idolaters? they revered what they saw. But surely revering the sun and the stars is not adoring a moulded image, made by a workman; this is following an erroneous doctrine, but this is not idolatry.

Suppose that the Egyptians really adored the dog Anubis, and the bull Apis: that they were fools enough to consider them not as animals consecrated to the divinity, and as an emblem of the good, which their Isheth and their Isis, did unto man, but really believed that a celestial ray animated the consecrated ox and dog; it is evident this was not adoring a statue. A beast is not an idol.

Men had, doubtless, objects of devotion before they had sculptors; and it is clear that those men who were so ancient could not be called idolaters. It remains then to know, if those who afterwards placed statues in the temples, and who made these statues be revered, called themselves adorers of statues, and their people the adorers of statues. This certainly is not to be found in any monument of antiquity.

But without taking upon themselves the title of idolaters, were they really so in fact? Was it ordained that they should believe that the brazen statue, which represented the fantastical figures of Bel and Babylon, was the master, the God, the creator of the world? was the figure of Jupiter, Jupiter himself? is not this (if it be allowed to compare the customs of our holy religion with the customs of antiquity) like saying that we adore the figure of the eternal father with a long beard, the figure of a woman and a child, the figure of a dove? these are emblematical ornaments in our temples. We adore them so little, that as soon as these statues, when of wood, begin to rot, we turn them into fuel: they are nothing more than advertisements dedicated to the eyes and the imagination. The Turks, and those of the reformed church, think that the Catholics are idolaters; but the Catholics incessantly protest against this injurious accusation.

It is impossible really to adore a statue, or to believe that any statue can be the supreme God. There was but one Jupiter, but there are a thousand statues of him. Now, this Jupiter, who was thought to dart his lightning, was supposed to inhabit the clouds, or mount Olympus, or the planet which bears his name. His emblems did not dart lightning, and were neither in a planet, in the clouds, nor upon mount Olympus. All prayers were dedicated to the immortal Gods, and assuredly the statues were not immortal.

Cheats, no doubt, made it be believed, and the superstitious did believe, that statues had spoken. How often have our ignorant people had the same credulity? But these absurdities were never, amongst any people, the religion of the state. Some stupid old woman may not have distinguished the statue from the god; this is no reason for maintaining that the government thought like this old woman. The magistrates were willing that the representation of the gods they adored should be revered, and that the attention of the people should be fixed by these visible signs. This is precisely the same thing that is done by half Europe. We have figures that represent God the father, under the form of an old man, and we know very well that God is not an old man. We have the images of several saints, whom we revere, and we know very well that these saints are not God the Father.

In the same manner, if I may be allowed to say it, the ancients did not confound the demi-gods, the gods, and the master of the gods. If the ancients were idolaters for having statues in their temples, one half of Christendom are also idolaters; and, if they are not, the ancient nations were not so either.

In a word, there is not in all antiquity a single poet, a single philosopher, a single man of any rank, who has said that stone, marble, brass, or wood, should be adored. There are innumerable testimonies to the contrary; idolatrous nations are then like sorcerers; they are spoken of, but they never existed.

A commentator has concluded that the statue of Priapus was really adored, because Horace, in making this scarecrow speak, puts these words into his mouth, “I was formerly a log; the workman, doubtful whether he should make a god or a joint-stool, resolved to make a god of it, etc.” The commentator quotes the prophet Baruch, to prove, that in the time of Horace, the figure of Priapus was looked upon as a real divinity. He does not perceive that Horace makes a joke both of the pretended god and the statue. It might happen that one of his servants, observing this enormous figure, thought that there was something divine in it; but surely all those wooden Priapuses, with which the gardens were filled to scare birds, were not looked upon as the creators of the world.

It is said that Moses, notwithstanding the divine law which forbade the making of the representation of men or animals, erected a brazen serpent, which was an imitation of the silver serpent carried by the Egyptian priests in procession; but though this serpent was made to cure the bites of real serpents, it was not, however, adored. Solomon placed two cherubims in the temple; but these cherubims were not looked upon as gods. If then, in the temple of the Jews, and in our temples, statues have been respected without idolatry, why should other nations be so much reproached? We should either absolve them, or they should accuse us.