said to have worshipped the cannibals of New Zealand, because they had no more conception of the one than of the other. However much it may be in the spirit of theological controvertists, to use amplifications irreconcilable with truth and justice, in order to render an adversary odious; this manner is not in the spirit of the sacred penmen. Some appearances of the polemic temper there are in most versions of the New Testament, which will be found to spring entirely from translators. The popular doc. trine has indeed been adopted by Milton, and greatly embellished in his incomparable poem. But it is not from the fictions of poets that we must draw the principles of religion. 18. I MUST likewise own that, when, in the passage to the Corinthians under examination, we render Sayuovia demons, we still express the sentiment more harshly than it is in the original, because the word was commonly then used in a good sense, not, as we Christians use it at present, invariably in a bad sense. One way, however, of restoring it to its proper import, is to preserve sacredly the distinction, which holy writ so plainly authorizes, and never to confound terms as synonymous, which are there never confounded. 19. THE above observations may serve also to illustrate a noted passage in the Apocalypse": The 30 Rev. ix. 20. rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues, yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, Sayuovia, and idols of gold and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood, which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk. It is equally manifest here, as in the former example, that the word rendered devils, ought to have been demons; nor is it less manifest, that every being who is not the one true God, however much conceived to be superior to us, whether good or bad, hero or heroine, demigod or demigoddess, angel or departed spirit, saint or sinner, real or imaginary, is in the class comprized under the name demons. And the worship of them is as much demonolatry (if you will admit the word) as the worship of Jupiter, Mars, and Minerva. This may serve to show, of how much consequence it is to attend, with accuracy, to the differences to be found in the application of words. It is only thereby that we can learn their exact import, and be qualified to judge, both of the subject, and of the completion, of scriptural prophecies. As to the worship of the devil το διαβολο, 78 diaẞ028, nothing can be clearer than that, in Scripture, no pagans are charged with it; and as to the worship twv dauovov, beings subordinate to the supreme, it may be considered how far we can, with justice, say that the pagans are peculiarly chargeable. It will deserve to be remarked, by the way, that the only difference between demonolatry and idolatry appears to be, that the first regards the object of worship, the second the mode. The for mer is a violation of the first commandment, the latter of the second. The connection, however, is so intimate between them, that they have rarely, if ever, been found separate. § 20. THERE are only two other passages wherein the word dayuovia occurs in the New Testament, in both which there is some difficulty. One is, where Paul warns Timothy " of those who would make a defection from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, didαoxa2iais Saoviv, doctrines of demons. It is hard to say, whether, by this phrase, we are to understand doctrines suggested by demons, or doctrines concerning demons. The form of expression will support either meaning. If the first, the word demons is taken in a bad sense, for ghosts, or other spirits of a malignant character, the common acceptation of the word in the Gospels, where an agency on human beings is ascribed to them. The connection of the words, doctrines of demons, with seducing spirits, immediately preceding, gives some plausi bility to this interpretation. If the second, there is reason to think, that it is used more extensively, for all those beings, inferior to God, who are made objects of adoration. In this case, the words foretel either a total apostacy from the faith of the Gospel, to heathen demonology, commonly called mythology, or a defection from the purity of its doctrine, by ad 31 1 Tim. iv. 1. mitting an unnatural mixture of heathenish absurdities. That this is his meaning, is rendered not improbable, by its being connected with other corruptions of the Christian doctrine, also introduced some ages after the times of the Apostles, and implied in the words, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, &c. But with respect to this question, I do not pretend to decide. 21. THE other passage is in the Epistle of James 32. The whole verse in the common version runs thus: Thou believest that there is one God; thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble: ra daquovia, the demons. That the Apostle here. means the spirits of wicked men deceased, which (in Jewish use, as we learn from Josephus) were commonly styled demons, there is no reason to question. The only points of which their belief is asserted, are the being and the unity of the Godhead. The epithet dauovudng is accordingly used in a bad sense in this Epistle 3, where that wisdom which produceth envy and contention, is styled earthly, sensual, devilish, dayuovudns, demonian. § 22. THE only other words in the New Testament, connected with Sayur, are deσidayor and δεισιδαιμονια. Each occurs only once. The former is rendered, by our translators, superstitious, the latter superstition. Neither of them is found in the 32 James, ii. 19. 33 iii. 15. 34 Septuagint, or the Apocrypha, or in any part of the New Testament, except the Acts of the Apostles. We may readily believe, that the Jews, in speaking of their own religion, would avoid the use of terms bearing so manifest an allusion to a species of worship which it condemns. The only place where the term deσidayur occurs, is Paul's speech in the Areopagus at Athens. It is applied by him to the Athenians, who where pagans. Avopes Avaini, says he, Ανδρες Αθηναιοι, κατα παντα ως δεισιδαιμονεςερος υμας θεωρω ; in the common version, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. The English expression is, in my opinion, much harsher than the Greek. As the word no where else occurs in the sacred writings, our only rule for ascertaining its import is the classical application. Besides, the Apostle, being a native of a Grecian city, well knew in what sense his hearers would understand the term. If, then, he spoke to be understood, we must suppose that he employed his words according to their current value in the place. Now, it is plain that, in the classical use, devidauor has not a bad meaning, unless there be something in the context that leads us to an unfavourable interpretation. Auel de Seiodaiμov ; He was always a religious man, says Xenophon of Agesilaus, when he is plainly commending him. Favorinus explains the word by o evσɛßns, pous; and gives evλaßeia as the common import of 34 Acts, xvii. 22. |
