upon

the

or appealing to a fact that they ifpute, because established rity of the Old Teftament. Thou eft that there is one God, and fo far oft well: but this faith alone is not ent; for the demons alfo believe and Je. In reasoning with Jews, or with h converts, what was more natural to employ a principle allowed by felves, and contained in their own tures? It is the more reasonable to ofe that the text in question is bord from these writings, as the immey fucceeding arguments, from the of Abraham and of Rahab, are cery drawn from thence. If the foreg obfervations are juft, this paffage is ar proof that by demons in the New ament, we are fometimes to underThat the ancient Jews understood the forecited e from Job, fo far as St. James employs it, in me sense that he did (as well as in what seems to be the true fenfe,) appears from the Chaldee hrase, which may be thus literally rendered : he giants that tremble, &c.

ftand

bear no

meaning

prophecy

of St. John *, `The rest of the men, which were not killed by thefe plagues, yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they fhould not worship demons, and idols of gold and filver. This paffage refers to the idolatries practised in the Roman church, which confifts in the worship of departed faints and fenfelefs idols, not of devils, as this word is now understood.-6. In the fequel of the Revelation of St. John, he had a prophetic vifion of the spirits of demons working miracles, which, as was obferved above t, fome refer to the miracles pretended to be wrought by departed

faints, and in fupport of their worship. Or, according to the genius of this prophecy, the fpirits of demons working miracles may be a fymbol or figurative reprefentation of the deceit and fraud practifed

by men of the temper and spirit of de

*Rev, ix, 20,
Rev. xvi, 14.

· Τὰ δαιμόνια.
+ P. 46.

mons,

in supporting their claims to a mi→
Once more, 7. The

ous power.
defolation of Babylon is thus de-
ed in this book, It is become the habi-
The demons who

= of demons.
thought to haunt defolate places,
fuch as were believed to poffefs
tind', and confequently were hu-
pirits. From this distinct examina-
of all the occafions on which demons
in the New Teftament, we may, I
me, fafely conclude, that it never
s the devil and his angels there;
of all in the writings of St. Paul.
che contrary, there is as much evi-
e as the nature of the cafe admits,
both he and the other apoftles by
ns meaned the ghofts of dead men';
they use the word, as the ancients
sometimes in a good, at other times
pad fenfe. If there be any exception
e meaning here affigned it, it must

ev, xviii. 2. With regard to the proper mean-
this paffage, fee below, fect. iii. article 2.
Matt. xii. 43.

be

This leads us to confider, whether the occafion on which it is used here, obliges us to understand St. Paul as fpeaking of devils, though he doth not (nor do any of the other apostles) use it in any fuch sense at any other time. other time. Let us then examine

the subject of his discourse, and the scope of his argument, which, it will be allowed, is a good method of determining his true meaning. It is a point too obvious to admit of any difpute, that the apostle is here defcribing the heathen. gods, fuch of them as were the objects of popular worship. By demons, therefore, he could not mean devils: for these fpirits were not known, much less worfhipped, by the Heathens. Confequently it is not true, that they partook of the table of devils, or that they drank the cup of devils. Nor doth St. Paul ever charge them with this crime. In the beginning of his

e to the Romans, he particularly fpethe vile objects of their devotion, ould not, one would imagine, omit, at occafion, the mention of one unbly viler than all the reft, had he n that the devil was included amongst

The objects of established worship heathen world were deified men omen. Such they are allowed to en by thofe Chriftians, who, to t a favourite hypothefis, do at give a very different account of The very names they bore thew to be fuch; and as fuch they are nted in the theology of the Genhemselves". By all the ancient

mus nihil effe nifi nomina mortuorum. an. De Spectaculis. See Grotius on I Cor. nd x. 20.

Cert. on Mir. p. 184. It may not be imo obferve farther, that it was St. Paul's dethe place before us, to defcribe the view Le Gentiles themselves had of their own As if he had said, "Though we know that nothing, yet they regard them as real dei

pro