And assertions, and those assertions were then new and inadmissible. since truth must continue unchanged through all times, those assertions, though somewhat older at present, are now equally inadmissible. I feel it to be altogether out of the question, that I should introduce full proofs of my various positions; but yet it is proper that I should, at least, allude to a few of the testimonies which are so abundant, and at hand. Origen, in his Homily 8, on Exodus, in expounding the meaning of the phrase "graven thing," or "graven image," which the Septuagint, long before Christianity, translated in Exodus xx. by the word adolov, gives the distinction which I previously laid down between image and idol: the first being copied from a prototype; the second being the representation of that which does not exist, and is, therefore, "a falsehood," "a lie," "a lying thing," "a deceit," and so forth, as it is frequently called by sacred writers. Theodoret gives the same distinction in Quæs. 38, upon the same passage. Tertullian states that adolov is a diminutive of ados, "forma," or appearance, to show, by the use of the diminutive, there was no expression of the prototype; for those diminutives were used either to denote extraordinary affection, or such imperfection as created contempt, (lib. de idolatria.) Hence, Lucian also calls the shades of the dead adola, phantasmatic delusions, unreal mockeries: thus St. Augustine informs us, in Psalm cxxxv., that, what the Greeks called eidoλa, the Latins called simulacra, which word is derived, not from similis, "like," but from simulare, "to pretend;" whence St. Jerome, in cap. vii. Oseae, states that simulacrum is opposed to God, as falsehood is to truth, because it represents "a false god." I omit several others that lie before me, and proceed to exhibit the same distinction from the Scriptures. St. Paul, in Col. i. 15, styles the incarnate Son "the image of the invisible God,” not ειδολον, but εικον του θεου του αορατου; and in Hebrew i. 3, "the express image of his person," not adoλov, but character; no one would translate this by idolum, but every scholar would give imago. In Exodus xx. 4, the translators who made the Septuagint gives us adolov "idolum," an idol; and then oμoloμa, which is by some rendered "similitudo," likeness, by others "simulacrum," the meaning of which we have seen above: in Leviticus xix. 4, repeating the precept, Moses tells the Israelites not to follow adoλos, idols, and immediately adjoins "nor gods made by fusion," or "molten gods." In Numbers xxiii. 21, your version gives us, not the translation of the Hebrew, according to St. Jerome, nor that of the Septuagint, but that of the Samaritan, with which the Syriac and Arabic nearly correspond, but to which the Chaldaic paraphrase would appear to be opposed. If there be no distinction between idols and images, I believe it would be very hard to reconcile those various readings; but if we only admit this distinction, the reconciliation is at once effected. St. Jerome tells us that the meaning of the Hebrew is such as we translate it. "There is no idol in Jacob; neither is there an image-god to be seen in Israel.” You translate it. "He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob: neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel."' Both translations agree in the next phrase. "The Lord his God is with him," and so forth. Now, according to our translation, this was a declaration that Israel could not be cursed by Balaam, because, not only there was not an idol to be found in their camp, nor an image-god: but the Lord God of Israel was to be found therein. The Chaldaic paraphrase strengthens this, for it makes Balaam say, "I see that there are no servers of idols, nor any workers of falsehood in Israel." Yet in fact at this very time, there were in the camp, the images of the Cherubim, over the ark, or mercy seat; but they were not idols, because they were not made to be adored or served with divine homage; neither were they "image-gods," although they were images: and the Lord God, whom Balaam declared to be present, dwelt between those very images (Exod. xxv. 22; xl. 34, 38); and they had prototypes, after the pattern of which they were made, (Exod. xxv. 9, 40; xxvi. 30, and so forth,). From the view already taken, as well as from an inspection of Exodus xxv. 18, and so forth, as also of I or III Kings vi. 23 to 36, it will be perceived that an image could lawfully be made, and not only without iniquity, but even in obedience to divine command, and therefore religiously; but an idol could never be made without iniquity: and the word which signified an idol, thus became synonymous with the iniquity of idolatry: the word which signified an "image-god" also signified perverseness, so that I do not object to your translation as wanting in literal correctness, provided the words be, as they ought to be, understood to mean, this special iniquity and this particular perverseness, -as he who made an "image-god," is very properly said by the Chaldaic paraphrase to be "a worker of falsehood." Thus the Samaritan has the words "iniquity," and "prevarication," the Arabic "fraud," for idol, and "deceit," for image-god, and in this it agrees fully with the Syriac. If then we view "iniquity" to mean idol, and "perverseness" image-god, the translations at once are reconciled: and though there were images in the camp, yet there were not idols or image-gods therein. My object in making those references, which might be easily multiplied, was to show that an idol or image god was always designated in the old Scriptures, not merely by the phrase which would signify an image, such as that of the cherub; but by a word or phrase that signified an empty or vain, or deceitful representation; or "iniquity," as idolatry is called in Osee vi. 8, "work of iniquity," and hence in the New Testament, St. Paul (I. Cor. viii. 4) writes, "we know that an idol adolov, is nothing in the world," that is, "an idol is a vain, lying representation of what has not existence in the world." And again, the Apostle proceeds, "and that there is none other God but one. 5. For though there be these that are called gods, whether in heaven, or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many.) 6. But to us there is but one God," and so forth. That is "idols lead to polytheism, or the worship of many gods, but we have only one God." I shall close this discussion by a reference to the meaning of the words generally used in the old Scripture, for those objects of pagan worship, and of Jewish prevarication. Bahalim, "masters or lords," Elilim, "imaginary beings," Schedim, or Schoudim, "wicked or destructive beings, or iniquitous," Tsijjim, or Scharhirim, "monsters, or ugly animals, or wild ferocious beasts." Again in our version, Psalm xcv. 5, we read, " "For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.' The contrast is here drawn between the beings who were actually worshipped if you will, "through the images," and the Creator, who was neglected by the Gentiles, or I shall take your own version of the same passage, Psalm xcvi. 5: "For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the Lord made the heavens.'' Your version confines the Pagan worship to the idols themselves; ours shows that it was carried through the idols or images, to devils; but it is plain, that take it which way you will, the Gentiles did not adore the Creator but the creatures, whether the devils or the images, matters little; it was idolatry. Our doctrine and practice then are, that divine honour is to be paid only to the one God, the Creator and supreme Lord of the heavens and the earth, to the "Lord of the heavenly host" and not to the "host of heaven." Under ordinary circumstances, what I have written would be more than enough, but as there appears to be a disposition to force us into the ranks of idolaters, whether we will or not; and, as many very strange assertions are made respecting the belief and practice of the ancients, probably it would be as well to resume the subject in my next. I am, gentlemen, Your obedient, humble servant, B. C. LETTER IX. Forthwith from every squadron and each band And powers that erst in heaven, sat on thrones, Nor had they yet among the sons of Eve Got them new names; till, wandering o'er the earth, Then were they known to men by various names, To the Editors: MILTON'S Paradise Lost, Book I. CHARLESTON, S. C., June 27, 1829. Gentlemen:-In my last, I have exhibited an outline of the idolatrous worship of the pagans; in it, you have seen stated, that they paid no worship to the Creator of the world, the eternal and invisible God, but that they worshipped imaginary beings, under strange figures fashioned according to fancy; or they worshipped creatures, whether they believed them to reside in images or not; those creatures were in many instances devils, who sought to arrogate to themselves the homage due to the Creator, and in opposition to him. Upon the principle which I have taken as my guide, it is proper that I should satisfy my readers, that those assertions have not been gratuitously made, though I shall not enter into full evidence for their support. If I can prove that it was not "the eternal God," "the Creator" whom they adored as "their supreme God," I shall have established my first position. Your correspondent very wisely keeps clear of committing himself upon this point. Nay, he even appears to me to be fully aware of the correctness of my assertion, and to coincide with me therein, for in his essay 2, paragraph 23, he admits a wide distinction in favour of "Christian worshippers of the one only God," and "those who with no knowledge or belief of the one Jehovah" worshipped "fictitious deities," and also between them and the Indian who "through his idols" "worshipped the unknown. God." Now they who neither knew nor believed anything of the one Jehovah could not worship him through an image, or without one. The supreme god worshipped by the idolatrous Greeks and Romans was Jupiter, or Jove, who certainly was not the eternal God, because he was the son of Saturn, who was himself the son of Cœlus, and so forth, neither was he the "Creator," because Coelus and Terra, or the Heavens and the Earth, which were his grandfather and grandmother, pre-existed to his father: what then are we to think of the information of those good writers, who gravely tell us that the mythology of Greece and Rome placed Jupiter, the supreme god, in the situation of our Jehovah, or "God the Creator," and Neptune, Pluto, and so forth, in the situation of our saints? Verily, the good simple men need to be taught. But if they have been taught, and if they do know those facts, and if they have during some years, laboured in teaching those same facts to children, what are we to think of the religious integrity of those holy asserters? Yea, of a truth then, is their religious integrity a noble phenomenon!! But, gentlemen, your curious correspondent might easily have referred to a better author than either of those mentioned by him, if his object was to make us well acquainted with the heathen mythology. Ovid wrote expressly upon the subject. "Ante mare et tellus, et quod tegit omnia, caelum, Unus erat toto Naturae vultus in orbe. Quem dixere Chaos."' "Before the seas, and this terrestrial ball And heaven, high canopy, that covers all, One was the face of Nature; if a face: A lifeless lump, unfashion'd unframed, Of jarring seeds; and justly Chaos named."' Thus Ovid gives us matter, or chaos in the first instance, before all things; he then proceeds to inform us of its subsequent distribution or arrangement. "Sic ubi dispositam, quisquis fuit ille Deorum, Had formed the whole, and made the parts agree." We have thus found his testimony in the first book of his Metamorphoses, for the pre-existence of chaos, or matter increated; and some one of the gods,-one whom they did not know, subsequently regulating the parts, of which this chaos was composed. |