Return to Home Page

I. The rule in the investigation of truth. Successful application in natural science. Why should not equal success attend its application to other truths? The method for establishing uniformity of opinion. The rule applied in the investigation of the Devil. The Book of creation affords no knowledge of the Devil. The importance of a knowledge of the Devil. Great number of passages where the word "devil" occurs in the Common Version, in which it is not in the original. No two words can mean the same thing. The true meaning of the word diabolos. Proofs from the Common Version of this meaning. The substitution of the true meaning for the untrue much more useful and instructive.

II. Man possesses a three-fold nature. The opposition between the institutions of society and the commands of Christ. Submission of self. Means to obtain this submission. False-accusation state of mind. Passages illustrative. Parable of the tares. Parable of the sower of the seed. The misintroduction of the Devil into the Old Testament.

III. The term "Satan." Who Satan is must be learned from revelation (i.e. the Bible). Satan applied to express "adversary." No badness of meaning essentially connected with the word satan The satan in the Book of Job an idolator. Peter, the apostle, a "satan."

IV. "Satan" indicates any state or condition adverse. Adverse to health - adverse in circumstances-adverse in state of mind. The "Satan" in the Revelations.

V. Jesus is never said, in the original Scriptures, to have cast out "devils." God, the author of language, must know its right use. The universal extension of the Greek language. 'Daimon' as understood by the Greeks, the Romans, the Jews - a "departed human 'spirit'." Natural gods of the heathens. The Cerriti and the Larvati. 'BeeIzebub'. Paul's speech at Athens. Demons believe. The worship of demons. Paul's answer to the expediency, sham charity men of his day.

VI. Possessions indicated by certain signs. Madness an indication. The Pythia. Unusually bodily contortions. The Gadarene and Gergesene demoniacs were madmen. Lunatics. Epileptics.

THE DEVIL

CHAPTER I.

Return to Contents Page

  SOUND thinking, that is, cultivated and well-directed common sense, applied to the discovery of truth, either natural or revealed, has followed the rule, That nothing ought to be believed as true, unless its truth can be demonstrated by an appeal to the facts recorded in the book of Creation, or to those revealed in the book of Revelation.

Rigid adherence, of late years, by the naturalists to this rule, in reference to the subject of natural, creation-written truths, has been the cause of immense progress in natural science: and is it not, without any improper presumption, to be inferred that a similar rigid adherence to this rule in matters relating to the spiritual, Bible-written truths, will be attended with equal progress?

It is a lamentable fact that, in the matter of rigid adherence to this rule of truth investigation and truth demonstration, "the children" who study the things of the natural order are far in advance of, "are wiser in their generation than the children" who study the things of the spiritual order.

It is from this cause that such diversities of opinions prevail among professed followers of Christ; an evil, not to be remedied, as the Romanists would remedy it, by squeezing all men's minds into one universal square, impudently called "the mind of the church"; or, as Milton describes the patent uniforming process, "starching them into the stiffness of uniformity by tradition." {Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing}. This is not the method; but the only method is, to establish as binding upon all inquirers after truth the rule already recorded, that nothing in spiritual matters ought to be believed as true, unless its truth can be demonstrated by an appeal to the original scriptures, and this to the satisfaction of every well constituted, truth loving mind.

This rule, once generally recognised and practically carried out, will make all of one mind, will establish a uniformity of opinion, founded on the conviction, and not on the suspension, of the understanding.

Men of science are of one mind in regard to chemical, mechanical, and mathematical facts; this oneness having been arrived at by rigidly adhering to the prescribed rule in studying the book of Creation. What, then, is there in spiritual subjects to prevent men, pursuing Revelation-recorded truths, arriving at a similar oneness of mind in regard to those truths recorded by the same divine wisdom, and guided by the same God of order as dictated the other book of instruction?

Taking this rule as the guide, and holding the principles, that, Revelation being a truth discovery its truths were for discovery, and that these truths are to he discovered with a certainty as great as that connected with the Creation truths, it is proposed to consider the subject of

THE DEVIL

As a consequence of being guided by his rule, it will be essential to throw behind us, and, as far as possible, to banish from our thoughts, all the various notions that have been instilled into our minds regarding the existence of a personal immortal Devil by means of stories, pictures, and even by that delightful writer, Bunyan, *( Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress) and by that stupendous-minded poet, Milton. ( Milton's Paradise Lost and Regained). The descriptions, however beautiful, and the notions thence derived, however strong, must be to us, as inquirers after truth, as though they were not.

Knowing, however, how strong early impressed notions are, how constantly they intrude themselves, whenever the subjects with which they were originally introduced into the mind are brought before the view, we require to remain continually on the intellectual watch-tower, lest when we, in relation to the influence of mental associations, are asleep, they may enter in and divert our minds from the good old way of the law and the testimony.

From the book of Creation nothing can be learned of the existence of the Devil of popular belief. Formerly, the miseries in the world might and did lead some to imagine and to believe in the existence of some powerful malignant spirit. The Magi taught the existence of a good and of an evil spirit, between which existed an irreconcilable enmity: an opinion constantly detectable in the Egyptian and Grecian mythologies. But now it is known that all misery arises from the violation of tho laws of the Creator, obedience to which is productive, necessarily productive, of happiness: and that all evil will cease when God's laws, physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual, are discovered and obeyed.

The importance of an accurate knowledge respecting the popular devil must be apparent, when it is remembered that his agencies and operations are regarded as extensive as is the outspreading of the human family; as singularly powerful, amounting almost to an omnipotent dominion; as producing multitudes of crimes in connection with the wicked, and excessive mental distress in connection with the good and the excellent. If, therefore, there is such a being, it must be highly advantageous to know about him; and if there is not such a being, it must be equally necessary, yea, more so, to be aware and thoroughly convinced of his non-existence, as thus the mind will be led to seek for other causes for the results which are supposed to be dependent upon his agencies, and, by their discovery, the discoverer will gain the power of getting rid of these results by removing their causes.

As, therefore, the book of Creation can afford no knowledge of a devil, the Scriptures must be the book where the natural history of the Devil must be learned.

The first step in the inquiry respecting the Devil of Scripture is, 'Are these words represented by the same word in the original Scriptures?' An examination demonstrates that this is not the case; that two radically distinct words are used: and that seventy-seven of the passages are represented by a word quite distinct from that which, in the remaining passages, is the representative of the word "devil" in the common translation, Allowing, for the present, that the word "devil" is the proper translation of the Greek word in these thirty-seven passages, it is quite certain that the word "devil" or "devils" cannot be the proper rendering of the Greek word occurring in the other passages; and, consequently, a rendering which does not discriminate between the two sets of passages must lead into error.

For it is a principle that all who study the Scriptures regarding them as the product, through human agency, of divine wisdom, must allow, that divine wisdom would never employ two distinct words if one correctly conveyed the meaning. All arguments, therefore, in relation to the Devil, as derived from the passages referred to, would be fallacious, because the Devil is not referred to therein.

These seventy-seven passages can therefore be dismissed for the present, while we consider the remaining passages in which a different word translated "devil" occurs, and from them must be learned what is taught concerning the Devil of Scripture.

The field of inquiry is thus limited: let care be taken in its examination. The passages are:

What, then, is the word rendered "devil" in these passages? It is "diabolos". What does this mean? It is derived from ‘diaballo", this itself being compounded or made up, of two words, "dia" -. "through", and "baIlo" - "to strike", "to pierce" (as with an arrow) : diaballo, therefore, signifies "to pierce through": and as, when a man's character is attacked by the false charges of another, his character is pierced through, this word diaballo means also "to calumniate," which is "to pierce through with the darts of calumny." And, as the idea of this calumny implies that the accusations are false, the term diabolos means "false-accuser," "a calumniator." The proper meaning of the word diabolos, is, therefore, "false-accuser", "calumniator"; the improper meaning is "devil" - this improper interpretation having been first given by the translators of the Scriptures into Greek; a rendering Leigh* remarks, "nowhere else sampled (i.e., so used) in any Greek author." The derivation of this word thus proves that false-accuser, calumniator, is the correct translation. *(Leigh’s Critica Sacra, article "diabolos").

*****************************************************************************************

Additional evidence that "false-accuser" is the correct translation of "diabolos" is afforded in the occasional use of the proper meaning of the word in the common translation. A few passages may be noted. Paul, in writing to Timothy respecting the wives of deacons, observes, "Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things," 1 Timothy iii. 11. The phrase, "not slanderers," is, in the original, me diaboloi, not devils-that is, if the proper meaning of the word diabolos is "devil." The translators here were obliged to translate the word rightly: for the same subserviency of mind that caused them to obey the audacious mandate of King James to translate the word ecclesia, "church," and not assembly or congestion, which is its proper meaning, would operate in making them avoid giving offence to the fair sex, which they would have done had they rendered the word diaboloi, "devils." Their gallantry, perhaps it was, made them do right. This, then, is passage the first where the proper meaning has been given.

Paul, in writing to Titus, uses the same expression: "The aged women, likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false-accusers," Titus ii 3. The phrase rendered "not false-accusers" is me diabolous, "not devils" - if "devil" be the proper meaning of the word diabolos. The translators, however. have here again, by the undoubted application of the term to women, been obliged to translate the word properly, and have themselves thus afforded a second evidence that diabolos means" false-accuser."

A third passage, confirming this as the proper interpretation, is the following :- "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy. Without natural affection, truce-breakers, false-accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; *having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away," 
2 Timothy iii. 1-3.

Here the word, correctly rendered "false-accusers," is diaboloi, "devils" - that is, if "devils" is the proper interpretation - the interpretation given to it in thirty-five other passages in the common translation. But it is not the proper rendering: the proper translation has been, given in this passage, thus affording a third confirmatory evidence that "false-accuser" is the meaning of the word diabolos.

In all the passages thus quoted the word is applied to human beings, and not to any supernatural, invisible beings - a fact well worthy of being noted.

The question here occurs, if the phrase "false-accuser," or that of "slanderer," is the proper translation in these passages, why should not a similar rendering be given throughout the Scriptures? Why should the Translators, or, more correctly, the Revisers of the Scriptures, not have rendered the word uniformly throughout? The answers are left to be supplied by the common-sense of each inquirer.

It will be seen from the preceding remarks that false-accuser, slanderer, calumniator, is the primary meaning, and, it may be added, the proper meaning of this word diabolos, a meaning which has this advantage, that all can understand it; a statement which cannot be made in reference to the word "devil"; for does any one, adopting the common notions, understand what the "Devil" is? Do any two people agree on his character, his existence, his attributes? Seeing, then, that there is a simple meaning, and seeing there is a mysterious meaning, can it be proper, can it be advantageous, to substitute a word which has no definite meaning for one which has a fixed, a practical meaning?

To proceed in the investigation. It may be inferred that, as all truth is harmonious, the introduction of the actual meaning of the word diabolos in those passages in which, in the common translation. it has been represented by the word "devil," will render the passages themselves much more intelligible and practically useful.

These passages may now be considered with this idea before the mind.

Jesus had been declaring some of those great truths which certain of those who followed him were "not able to hear," so that "from that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him," John. vi. 66. Their self-love ruling wrongly in their natures deceived them, and hence they falsely accused Christ of deceiving them, and so forsook him. Their departure afforded Christ an opportunity of asking the twelve, "---Will ye also go away?" Then Simon Peter answered him, "Lord to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son. of the living God," John. vi. 67, 68, 69. To this rejoinder of Simon was the distressing information imparted by the Lord: "Have 1 not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" John. vi. 70. The language is plain in its application. The Saviour is speaking to twelve men, and one of these men, he stated, is a devil? No; he does not so say.

The Common Version makes him thus to speak, but the real expression which Jesus used was, "Have not 1 chosen you twelve, and one of you is a diabolos," a false-accuser. This is what he says; and illustrative of the point of view in which the disciple referred to is a false-accuser, the form is pointed out in which the character was made manifest: "for he" (Judas) "it was who should betray him," John. vi. 70 - pierce him through by false accusation. That diabolos in this passage means "false-accuser," and not "devil," is further evident from this, that if it means "devil," then Judas was a devil: for it is said, "He spake of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon," John. vi. 71; and Judas being a man, a devil must therefore be a man. This conclusion, which at once would overturn the common idea of the devil - that he is a supernatural being - - cannot be got rid of except by doing justice to the word diabolos, and rendering it by the word, properly expressive of its meaning, namely, "false-accuser."

The next step in the betrayal of the Christ still further demonstrates that "false-accuser" is the proper meaning of the word diabolos, and that therefore the introduction of the word "devil" into the passage detailing such step, is incorrect: "And supper being ended-the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him," John. xiii. 2. This passage, many think, argues strongly in favour of a literal "devil," because, it is said, that "the devil having now put into," or entered, "the heart of Judas." But it it is quite clear that this cannot be literally true, for no "Devil" could put anything into the heart of a person; and, it is further evident that if a "devil" is to be regarded as a distinct being, Judas was a "devil," for Jesus called him so; and how could one "devil" enter into another "devil"? and, what is more difficult still, into the heart of that other "devil"; which must have been the case if Judas, already a "devil" ("one of you is a devil") , had a "devil" enter his heart.                                                                                       p11

But if it is understood that the word "devil;" represents not only a human being who falsely accuses, but the state of mind whence false accusations arise: that, in other words, it represents a ruling, active, selfish, accusing state of mind, which, entering a man - that is, gaining rule in, or possession of, his mind - creates in the man those mental states by which the man, as a false-accuser, manifests himself, the matter becomes quite clear, and all contradictions cease. The narrative then informs us that Judas, who, ere the betrayal, was a false accuser, at last became so much the servant of the self-love principle, the accusing his master principle, as to be subject to its dictations, and to become a slave in carrying out its behests.

Vicious plans, confirmed vicious habits, are not produced in a moment. The selfish desire works a long time before it comes to its development. A vicious state of mind works insensibly oftentimes before the vice enters the heart of the man - that is, before it is so influential as to break forth into positive acts. Such was the case with Judas. He had long been in a state of mind in which he falsely accused his master: mark how he grumbled respecting the ointment used for the anointing of the Christ ("---for he kept the bag") : but before this state took the form of betrayal, of positive act, various barriers had to be overcome. These were overcome, and then the false-accusation-state-of-mind, diabolos, entered and possessed him.

Another passage in which the word diabolos occurs, and is translated, but improperly so, "devil," is the following, from Acts xiii, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.:-

What does the whole narrative prove? That Elymas, not content with his sorceries, falsely represented to Sergius Paulus the doctrines which Paul preached, and which Sergius Paulus had believed. What followed this false accusation of Paul? Paul, the account states, set his eyes upon the false-accuser, and said, "0 full of all subtilty, and of all mischief, child of calumny, enemy of all righteousness." There is no authority in the original for the word "the" which, in the Common Version, precedes the word "devil," so that if "devil" were the proper translation, the passage ought to be "child of a devil." But "devil" has no business in the passage at all: Paul charges Elymas with calumny, and personifies him as a "child of calumny," just as we say of a wicked person, he is a "child" of vice."

This exact sense of the word diabolos, namely, as embracing the utterer of false-accusation, develops the force of another passage in which Jesus, after being falsely-accused by the Jews, charges them:-

John. viii. 44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye do" -that is, you adopt the character of a false-accuser in calumniating me: ye, as such, are the children of this state of mind. You, in mind, are led away by the accursed disposition of falsely-accusing: ye are the children mentally of the false-accuser, and being so, your mental perceptions manifest their parentage. And the destructive character of this falsely-accusing state of mind, of this slaying by calumny all that is excellent, of this giving false views of the character of God, is exhibited by the passage in question;  John. viii. 44 - "He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because truth is not in him: when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it."  So that when the mind is in this state, truth is not present: it is banished: the mind generates lies: it murders truth. This selfish state slays the man, defacing the likeness-to-God state: and this, from the very first, when it gained the mastery.                                                                           p12

Another passage in the Common Version in which the phrase "the devil" occurs would be beautifully expressive, truly natural, if rendered according to the proper interpretation, "false-accuser." Paul is recommending the Ephesians to perform all the social duties in such a way as to give no cause of complaint to any one, riot even the most captious; to those anxiously looking for opportunities to charge them with offences: Ephesians iv. 27-"Neither give place to the false accuser" (tou diabolou) - that is, give no opportunity to any one who would be glad to charge you with offences against the law. And that Paul refers to a human, and not to an invisible, enemy, is proved by the context, where offences are referred to that are objects of notice by the civil magistrate before whom the false-accuser, but not the "devil," would be happy to have the opportunity of taking the believer: "Let him that stole steal no more; but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth."

Another passage in which the word diabolos in the Common Version, rendered "the devil," would, if rendered "false accuser," exhibit the sense in its beautiful simplicity, is, 
"And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These things saith the first and the last, which was dead and is alive; 1 know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty (but thou art rich) , and the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. Fear none of those thinks which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried: and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life," Revelation ii. 8, 9, 10.

It is quite certain that the "devil," an invisible agent, could not cast them (that is, human bodies) into prison, but a diabolos, a false-accuser, by branding them with charges before a civil magistrate, might obtain their committal: and that such a false-accuser, or such false-accusers, are human beings, is proved by the preceding verse, wherein they are described as "Jews," and are not, but are "the Synagogue, or the assembly, of "the adversary" (tou Satanas - the Translators have left out the tou "thee," which is before "Satan," which latter means "adversary"). The passage, therefore, will appear in its clearness when the word diabolos is rendered according to its simple meaning. "Fear none of these things, which thou shalt suffer: behold, the false-accuser shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried."

The tou diabolou occurs in two other passages, in which it is rendered in the Common Version "devil," where, if rendered false-accuser, the sense would at once become apparent. Paul is describing the qualifications of a Christian bishop: one he particularly details, 1 Tim. iii. 6 - "Not a novice;" and the reason is given, "lest being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil." The condemnation of the devil of orthodox belief would never be associated with the lifting up with pride; such lifting up would, according to the common idea of the Devil, be pleasing to the Devil. If it be said that the condemnation is that into which "the Devil" fell, the answer is, that condemnation must first be proved.

The words are krima tou diabolou; the term krima means "legal judgment", hence our word "crime", which is applied to an offence of which the civil magistrate takes note. Paul therefore means, that being lifted up with pride, the novice might act in such a manner as to, render himself amenable to the critically exercised judgment of the false-accuser. That Paul refers to no invisible being, but to men, by whom the bishop is surrounded, is proved by the following passage: 1 Tim. iii. 7 ---'Moreover he must have a good report of them that are without" (i.e., men of the world) , "lest he fall into reproach and into the snare of the false-accuser"; rendered "devil" in the Common Version.

The same idea of a human "false-accuser" is conveyed in other passages where the word "devil" is improperly given in the Common Version. Thus, Peter writes (I Peter v. 8) . "Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the devil, as a roaring.lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." This passage is very commonly quoted to prove the existence and the power of the Devil; but that the phrase diabolos refers to a human false-accuser is settled by the phrase definitive of an preceding it, namely, "adversary." The word for adversary is 'antidikos', which means an opponent at law. Peter, therefore, is referring to the necessity of believers so shaping their conduct as members of society, that the opponent will have no opportunity of charging them with any violation of the law of moral duty (for ‘dike’, a part of the word ‘antidikos’, means "moral rectitude") before the civil magistrate. How much more simple would this passage be if rendered, as it ought to have been, "Be sober, be vigilant, because your opponent, the false-accuser, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour."                                       p13

A somewhat similar application of the term diabolos is found in James iv. 7, where we read: "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." James teaches submission on the one hand and resistance on the other: to God, submission of mind; to the utterer of false-accusation (or, it may be, to the falsely-accusing state of mind possessing one's self for the time being) resistance, when "the diabolos will flee."

Another passage in which the word diabolos occurs, and is translated "devil," is the following: - "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the Lord rebuke thee," Jude 9. The proper meaning of the word diabolos here is "false-accuser"; and, that Michael, the chief messenger, and also the false-accuser, were individual human beings, will be shown in the remarks to be made hereafter on the word "Satan."  (See Chapter III)

In the Revelations are three passages in. which the word diabolos occurs and is, in the Common Version, translated "devil," but in which it refers to a false-accuser, and not to an invisible supernatural agent. The demonstration of this view will require the force of the word Satan to be understood; and, therefore, these three passages will be dealt with when "Satan" is examined.

The last passage now to be referred to in which diabolos, rendered "devil" in the Common Version, means, and ought to have been rendered, "false-accuser," is that where Paul, addressing the Ephesians, says --"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil," Eph. vi. 11. A previous warning of the Ephesians by Paul against the false-accuser has been already noticed; and in this passage he notices the means by which they can successfully resist all the cunning methods (methodeias) of the false-accuser. The means are the "whole Armour of God." And the necessity of the whole, and not a part, of the armour, is evidenced by the number of enemies with which the false-accuser of the believer is leagued: "For," adds he (verse 12), "we wrestle not against flesh and blood" - that is, against our own selfish desires and our natural feelings - "but against principaIities" (archas - i.e. ‘civil rulers’), "against powers" (exousias - i.e., ‘authorities’), "against the rulers of the darkness of this world" i.e., against those who rule merely, and by means of, the dark ignorance of the age (aion) , and who, therefore, hate the religion of Christ, which is light.

Not only against these has the disciple, who follows the commands of Christ, to fight, as Paul says, but, in his profession and practice of the truth, he has to fight against foes more deadly - the abominable superstitions and priestcraft systems, which cunning knaves have introduced into matters relating to heaven, even into Christianity itself, "against spiritual wickedness in high places," or, as it may be translated, "against the spiritual things of the wickedness in the heavenly matters."

It is true that many may prefer the peculiar unmeaningness and mystery of the passages as rendered in the Common Version; and they may find such obscurity useful in enabling them to apply the phrases to some mystifying beings in "the world of spirits."

*A thief cries, "Stop thief?" - so the ecclesiastics, knowing that as long as the people think that this spiritual wickedness in high places means something going on in a world which none can see, think they can assert what they like as to this wickedness; and, in addition, they know that the people will be thus diverted from examining what is going on in this world which they can see, and will thus be prevented from discovering, by comparing with the original Scriptures, the gross and blasphemous pretensions and wickedness of these ecclesiastics in reference to the traditions and commandments of men with which they have sought to defile the minds of believers." ( *Howitt’s History of Priestcraft. Tracts for the Times).                                                                p14

Paul, in this memorable passage, informs all believers that, if they do their duty, they have to fight, with Bible weapons, against the improper activities (for there are proper activities) of their natural feelings; against the institutions of the civil rulers, when they are opposed to the love of the neighbour and to obedience to Christ, as they often are; against those authorities in law and in opinion that are counter to the glorious truths made known by Deity; against those who live on the ignorance of mankind, making use of the darkness to set people against people; and, finally, against those enemies - the worst of all - who, by virtue of what they term "apostolic succession," have, in matters relating to the Supreme, and to man in relation thereto, introduced a system of arrogant pretensions respecting their exclusive rights, and who, besides indulging in solemn mummeries in their half-pagan ceremonials, and priestly jugglery in their creed manufacture, have produced cunningly-devised fables which make those truths which are, as Cowper writes, "Legible by the light they give," so obscure, that men have been obliged to go to these spiritual lawyers for an interpretation of the Divine Code; and a prosperous trade have they driven upon their assumed right of interpretation of the Divine Code; and a prosperous trade have they driven upon their assumed right of interpretation.

CHAPTER II

Return to Contents Page

The institutions of society are, in general, appeals to man's nature; they patronise self; they give nutriment to self; they draw forth the abundant and destructive fruits of self. The religion of Christ, on the other hand, appeals to man's moral and religious nature; it cultivates universality of feeling and the love-neighbour principle; it draws forth the fruits of kindness, of mercy, of justice, and of true humility God-ward. The distinction between the institutions of society and the requirements of the truth is forcibly depicted by the great teacher:  

This falsely-accusing of God's principles is the source of fear - all fear arising from false notions of God. The mind that falsely accuses God by ascribing to Him the same revengeful disposition that itself feels, creates fear in reference to the future. Hence the glorious mission of Christ, who came to establish the truth that those who believe in and follow him are sons of God, and, as such, shall inherit the kingdom prepared for them. The *writer to the Hebrews appreciated this glorious dilspeller of fear, as when lie writes: "And again, 1 will put trust in him. And again, behold I and the children which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise shared the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death-that is, the devil; And deliver them who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews ii. 13-15). Or, as properly rendered, "make inoperative him having the strength of death-that is, the false-accuser" - the state of mind which leads man falsely to accuse God: and the result of this state of mind, this falsely-accusing state, being done away (Christ having been raised, and thereby having demonstrated the completion of his work) , is to "deliver them who, through fear of death," from this false accusation of God, "were all their lifetime liable to (this evil) servitude" (Heb. ii. 15).

Another passage in which "devil" occurs in the Common Version, is in the parable of the sower of the seed: "A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed some fell by the wayside; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it ... Now, the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the wayside are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved" (Luke viii. 5, 11-12).

The word s'gnirim, rendered "devils," occurs in the following passage: - "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded, saying, What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp, and bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord, blood shall be imputed unto that man; he bath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people: to the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the Lord unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation unto the priest, and offer them for peace-offerings unto the Lord. And the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord. And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them. throughout their generations" (Lev. xvii. 1-7).

The other two passages in which the term "devils" occurs have the word ‘sheedim.’ The word is derived from ‘sheed’, which means "to pour forth." It mean also "breasts;" because they pour forth nourishment. "As a noun masculine plural it was the name given by the Hebrews to the idols worshipped by the inhabitant of Canaan" - (Parkhurst). The Egyptian god, Isis, was one of these sheedim, and was called multimamia or many-breasted; because [the idol was] clustered over with breasts. Sud also was "tho great goddess Diana," on which was inscribed "all various nature, mother of all things." The Israelites, whenever prosperity attended them, forgot the source, and worshipped the gods of their neighbours. "But Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness: then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked him to anger. They sacrificed unto devils, not to God: to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not'

But not only was it evil to worship these false gods, but the worship itself was brutalising. "It is said of the Mexicans of America that, before the arrival of the Spaniards, children were offered up at the first appearance of green corn; when the corn was a foot above the ground, and again when it was two feet high." In reference to some such brutal worship the Psalmist observes, "They angered him also at the waters of strife, so that it went ill with Moses for their sakes: because they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips. They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the Lord commanded them; but were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. Yea, they sacrificed their sons and daughters unto devils.... unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. Thus they were defiled with their own works, :And went a whoring with their own inventions" (Ps. cvi. 32-37).

CHAPTER III.

Return to Contents Page

To ascertain who or what is represented by this term renders it necessary to pursue the same course as that adopted in the discovery of the who or the what represented by the word "Devil" - namely, to examine all the passages in which the word occurs in the Book of Revelation [here the writer means the whole Bible]: since, in the Book of Creation, the personage of Satan is not detectable any more than is the Devil.

On examining the word satan in the Hebrew Scriptures, its occurrence is found to be much more frequent in the original than in the Common Version. It occurs in fourteen distinct passages in which it is, in the Common Version, translated "adversary" or "adversaries": also once "to resist", (Zech. iii. 1), and once "to withstand" (Numb. xx. 32), so that, taking the number of times, nineteen in which it is not translated (for sathan or satan is the Hebrew word untranslated) , and comparing these with the number, namely fourteen, in which the word is translated, and consequently the meaning of the word is given, the latter, presenting a true meaning, almost equal in number those in which the Hebrew word, but with no meaning, is found. And when the fact is considered that, of the nineteen in which the untranslated word satan occurs, fourteen are found in the book of Job, it can be seen that these passages in which the word is translated and exhibited in its true meaning are nine more than those in which it is put in its untranslated form, namely, "Satan."

 This Tatnai therefore requests that the records may be searched to ascertain it such degree existed. The decree was found, and the permission was granted, notwithstanding Tatnai's opposition, to go on with the temple. Thus realizing, "Take away the filthy garments from him," Joshua; "So they set a fair mitre on his head, and clothed him with garments."                                                       p23

Here Tatnai is represented as "the devil," because he falsely accused the Jews and insinuated intentions to the ruling monarch quite contrary to their real intention. "The body of Moses" is merely the Jewish church, and the disputation regarding that body is the disputation regarding the building of the temple for the Mosaic system of worship, and thus this passage in Jude, which has been the cause of much perplexity, becomes easily intelligible, referring as it does to the vision of Zechariah; for in that vision we find that, like as in the argument of Jude against the railing accusers, Michael, the chief messenger, did not rebuke ‘Satan’, but said, "The Lord rebuke thee," so it was in the historical case of contention between Joshua and Talnai.

Another passage in which "Satan" is used, but in which a human adversary is, without doubt, referred to, is, "And Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel," 1 Chron. xxi. 1. David numbered Israel, not for the mere sake of ascertaining the number of the people, but for the purpose of pride: for the purpose of seeing his strength, thereby virtually forgetting the God of his strength. This was a. state adverse to his happiness, and the individual who suggested it was a Satan, that stood up against Israel, whom David ruled over: and that he was an adversary is proved by the result that the conduct of David on this occasion caused a pestilence to be inflicted on his people.

The primary idea connected with ‘satan’ being "adversary", the term may apply to adverse circumstances. In such sense the word occurs in the following passage: 

"And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; 1 know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty (but thou art rich) , and 1 know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not [anything], but a synagogue of Satan." Rev. ii. 8-9.

Paul, for the believers' consolation, points out the way to get rid of these obstacles,     # "these black bodies that form an eclipse between God and men's souls,"#  namely, obedience to the laws laid down by Christ: "For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet 1 would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil," Romans xvi. 19.

Paul understood well the nature of this deliverance, for he was told it by the Saviour himself, when, overpowered by the vision which he saw on the road to Damascus, and. hearing a voice call, he said, "Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet; for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in which 1 will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom now 1 send thee, to, open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me," Acts xxvi. 15-18.

. From these passages it is perfectly clear that "Satan" is not an individual being; because, how could he be a dragon, a serpent, a devil, and a satan? How could one distinct being be four distinct beings? It will not do to assert, as some dogmatically do, that he assumed. all these forms. This is merely begging the question. It cannot be literally that "Satan" can be a dragon and an old serpent too. He must he one or the other, not both. As he is said to be all, the meaning in which he is all must be sought. How "satan" can be and is the devil has been already explained: "Satan", an adversary, manifests himself in that character as a false-accuser, diabolos. Satan, as an adversary, has his strength in the sensual part of a man's nature, which "the old serpent" represents. "The dragon", too, is a wasteful, destroying agent, so is the sensual principle in man: hence the application of these terms to the selfish principle in man's nature personified.

But in the third of these occurrences a striking and most interesting fact is brought into prominence, viz., that it is for a time only that Satan is imprisoned: "And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison; and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle; the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved loved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured theme And the devil (diabolos) , that deceived them, was cast in the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever," (Rev. xx. 7-10). 

Thus it is revealed that the self-love of man will be brought under rule for a given time: diabolos, and satan will be imprisoned. Later, will the imprisoned gain his freedom: he will deceive the nations; and, at length, after the system of Self has been again tried and found wanting, Christ and his truth will triumph, and the adversary, the Diabolos, and his works be destroyed (Heb. ii. 14; 1 John iii. 8; 1, Cor. xv. 54).

What, then, is that which the Divine Mind intended, to convey to us by the use of the words ‘daimon’, ‘daimonion’, and ‘daimonizomai’? It may he noticed here that the Greek language in which the New Testament is written was, at the time of our Saviour and of his apostles, the fashionable language of the day, "being very generally spoken in all the cultivated parts of the world, not only by the Gentiles, but by the Jews also who were dispersed among them, and even by the inhabitants of Judea" (Farmer on the Demoniacs, p. 26) - an extension of the language so great that Cicero himself confesses, that notwithstanding Rome had extended her power over almost the whole earth, the Greek language had spread further than the Latin - (See his Orat., pro Archia Poeta). The word ‘daimon’ is a word which existed in that language from a very early period; and, as so existing, the true meaning of the word must and can be obtained from the writings of the Greek authors that have come down to us; just in the same manner as we should try to discover the true meaning of any English word by ascertaining its use by the best extant English writers.

In what sense, then, was the word ‘daimon’ used by the Greek writers? A most extended inquiry by Mr. Farmer has established that the Greek writers used this word to express human "spirits" of departed people. Many such "spirits" of departed human beings the ancients deified and worshipped: and hence the word ‘daimon’ meant to the Greeks, and those who used their language, human departed "spirits" raised to the rank of gods and deities. "Homer calleth all his gods, ‘daimones’, and Hesiod the worthies of the golden age." (Leigh's Critica Sacra, article ‘Daimon’). Hesiod maintains, indeed, that whenever a good man dies he becomes a demon: and Plato praises him for the sentiment.

The heathens had two classes of gods: the world, together with all its constituent. parts and principles, and the demons. "They conceived the world to be pervaded and animated by a vital and intelligent substance; they regarded it as a divinity which contained, framed, and governed all things. " (Farmer on Miracles, p. 107.) Cicero expressly asserts - "There is nothing more perfect than the world - it is wise, and, on this account, a god."* He further adds, "that, although a Stoic, he acknowledges that this world is wise, has a mind, which has fabricated both itself and the world, and regulates, moves, and rules all things."  Balbus, the Stoic maintains that "the world is a god, and the habitation of the gods." These were designated as the natural gods. Besides these, the heathens maintained that certain "spirits" existed which held a middle rank between the gods and men on earth; and, because they were regarded as carrying on all intercourse between the gods and men, as conveying the addresses of men to the gods, and distributing the benefits of the gods to men, they were called (from 'daio', "to distribute"), ‘daimones’. The opinion further prevailed that the celestial gods did not themselves interpose in human affairs, but committed the whole management to these ‘daimones’ and on this account these demons became the great object of religious hope, of fear, of dependence, and of worship.

New Testament writers really wrote, Instead of what the "Received Text makes them seem to have written, there is but one occurrence of the term ‘daimon’ in scripture, Matthew using it in ch. viii 31. In Mark v. 12, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles and Westcott & Hort read "they" Instead of "demons," while in Luke vill. 29, Rev. xvi. 14, and xviii. 2, ‘daimonion’ takes the place of ‘daimon’.

A further consideration affording very strong evidence that these "demons" meant the "spirits of departed men" is that the parentage and, consequently, the human origin of almost all the heathen deities were known and recorded. Philo Biblyus, the translator of Sanchoniathen's History of the Gods, expressly asserts
"That the Phoenicians and Egyptians, from whom other people derived this custom, reckoned those amongst the greatest gods who had been benefactors to the human race, and that, to them, they erected pillars and statues, and dedicated sacred festivals.' (Apud Euseb. Prxp. Evangelica, lib. 1, c. ix., p. 32).  
Diodorus Siculus states, "That there were two classes of gods, the one eternal and immortal, the other such as were born on the earth and arrived at the titles and honours of divinity on account of the blessings. they bestowed on rnankind." (Lib. i. and v). 
This writer describes Saturn, Jupiter, Apollo, and others (the primary gods of Paganism) as illustrious men. 
Plato remarks, "All those who die valiantly in war are of Hesiod's golden generation, and become demons; and we ought for ever to worship and adore their sepulchres, as the sepulchres of demons." Plato de Republica, c. v. 468, tom. ii., editio Serrani.

  This transference of warlike heroes into gods, and the worship of them, many regard as belonging peculiarly and solely to paganism: but have we not the same things in our day? Do we not see statues erected in our streets to those chargeable with legal murder which are raised for the mental worship of our children? - the Wellingtons, the Nelsons, and hosts of others. And with what is the cathedral of our metropolis filled? Is it with the ministers of peace, with the Fenelons, the Oberlins, the Whitfields, the Watts, the Arkwrights, the Townshends, the Benthams, the Adam Smiths, the Raikes's? No! The interior of Saint Paul's presents, as Mr. Peter Stuart, of Liverpool, after a visit he paid recently to that splendid edifice, remarked, "an assembly of gladiators." Add to the look of imitative admiration a mental worship (bestowed by the young on these gladiators), some regular ceremonies, and then there would be no difference between the worship of Hercules and Mars of old, and of the Wellingtons and the Nelsons now!

To return from this digression on modern hero worship, it is apparent that among the Greeks the term ‘daimon’ expressed a "departed human 'spirit.’" ‘Deified’ The Greeks held further that these ‘daimones,’ or "departed human ‘spirits,' " had the power of taking possession of other human beings, and that they could be expelled from these beings so possessed. Hence Lucian, writing respecting an exorcist, one who so dispossessed the possessed, remarks: ‘ekselaunei ton diamona’ = "he expelled the demon" (Lucian's Philospeudes, p. 338, vol. ii., edit. Amstelodami ). Lucian affords, in a dialogue in the works from which the above is a quotation, the view entertained in his day regarding demons. Four parties are introduced in the dialogue: three, Ion, Eucrates, and Diognotus, being believers in demons, and the fourth, Tychiades, who is not a believer therein. Ion, after he had given an account of the person who cast out demons, adds that he himself had seen one (that is, a demon) so ejected, "Many others as well as you," said Eucrates, "have met with demons (daimosin) . I have a thousand times seen such things.'' 
In proof of this assertion, he assures the company that he and his family had often seen the statue of Pelichus descending from his pedestal, and walking round the house - (pp: 338.339). In the sequel of the dialogue, Eucrates, who had been defending the doctrine of apparitions, says, "We have been endeavouring to persuade Tychiades (who sustains the character of an unbeliever in these points) that there are demons (daimons tinas einai) , and that the phantasms and souls of the dead wander upon the earth, and appear to whom they please," (p. 346).  
To confirm this sentiment, Diognotus, the Pythagorean, bids Tychiades go to Corinth, where he might see the very house from which he himself expelled the demon (daimona) that disturbed it, which was the ghost of a dead man, (p. 348). Hippocrates expressly states that the Greeks referred possession to the gods and the heroes, all of whom were human spirits. He wrote an essay on epilepsy, which was called ‘hiereus nosos’, "the sacred disease," because the people believed what the priests taught,(*) that epileptics were possessed: and the priests, the magicians, and the imposters derived a considerable revenue from attempting to cure this disease by expiations and charms. The essay was written to expose this delusion of his countrymen, he attempting to prove that this disease was neither more divine nor sacred than any other.

The Latins also entertained the idea that "departed human 'spirits"' sometimes possessed the living. Those so possessed among them were called the Cerriti and the Larvati; the Cerriti from the goddess Ceres, Who was supposed to possess them; the Larvati from the Lares, gods, who were supposed to be the possessing, the departed.§ And Crito, a learned writer, wrote: "the larvati are demoniacs Cicero testifies -’They whom the Greeks consider daimones, we, 1 consider [call] lares.t Littleton, in his valuable dictionary defines the larvae as the souls of the dead, which they elsewhere called shades.’"** And Arnobius relates that Varro asserts that the larvae are lares, being, as it were, certain genii and the souls of the departed.§ And again Crito, a learned writer, thus writes: "the larvati are demoniacs; and larvae, by which they are possessed, are human ghost"s (De Crito, vol. i., p. 238).  

Strabo, who flourished in the time of the Emperor Augustus, calls the goddess Feronia (who was born in Italy) a demon; and says that those who were possessed with this demon walked barefoot over burning coals: and Philostratus, who was contemporary with our Saviour, relates "that a demon, who possessed a young man, confessed himself to be the ghost of a person slain in battle" (Strabo, lib. v., p. 364).

Opinions, similar to those held by the Greeks and the Latins, were entertained by the Jews. Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, asserts that those called ‘daimonia’ are the "spirits" of wicked men who enter the living, and kill those who receive no help (De Bell. Jud., lib. vii., 2, 6, § 3). Very early in the history of the Jews they had become acquainted with the gods of the heathen, and showed a lamentable proneness to adopt the principles and the practices of their superstitious and idolatrous neighbours. The philosophy of the east was greatly studied and admired by the Jews, and they came to regard persons possessed as possessed by the same "spirit" as those which their neighbours regarded as the possessing. So strongly was this opinion rooted in their minds, and so generally diffused among the people, that when the Saviour casts out ‘daimonia’, the Pharisees observed, "He casteth out ‘daimonia’ by BeeIzebub, the Prince of ‘daimonia’" (Matt. ix. 34), a statement at which no astonishment was expressed; which, had not the knowledge of the doctrine of possessions by "departed human spirits" been general among the Jews, would have excited astonishment.

Who, then, was this BeeIzebub, the prince, not of devils, as the Common Version renders the word, but of demons? We read in the Old Testament that one of the kings of Israel, namely, Ahaziah, "sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, inquire of BeeIzebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover of this disease?" (2 Kings i. 2). This BeeIzebub was esteemed a god - that is, a daimon: that is, a deified human "spirit," which "spirit" the Jews, like other nations, believed to possess people. The meaning of the word ‘zebub’ or ‘zebul’ is a fly, the god which the Ekronites worshipped. History informs us that those who lived in hot climates, and where the soil is moist (which was the case with the Ekronites, who bordered on the sea), were exceedingly infested with flies. These insects were thought to cause contagious distempers. Pliny makes mention of a people, who stopped a pestilence which these insects occasioned, by sacrificing to the flyhunting god. (Pliny. Nat. Hist. lib. x. c., 28 § 40). Influenced by this prejudice, Ahaziah, instead of applying to the true God, Yahweh, applied to this god of Ekron for deliverance, or for a knowledge of his state in reference to the disease, which he most likely considered to depend upon the influence of these flies; and that, on this ground, BeeIzebub could inform him of the result. (Beelzebub was, most likely, Jupiter, who is described by the Greeks as ‘muiodes’, the god of flies, and the ‘inuiagros’, the fly hunter). The fact of Ahaziah applying to BeeIzebub shows at what an early period the Jews were acquainted with the demonology of the surrounding heathen nations, and how they had adopted the notions regarding the power of these demons: a fact which explains the use of the phrase daimonion so frequently in the gospels. The existence of these daimones, as possessing and influencing human beings, was recognised so fully among the Jews, that Josephus, already quoted, who was nearly contemporary with the apostles, dwells much upon the expulsion of demons: he gives an instance of successful expulsion when tried by a Jew in the presence of Vespasian: and further declares, no doubt with the view of elevating the great monarch of the Jews, Solomon, that God instructed Solomon in the anti-demoniac art.

**Professor Campbell's Preliminary Dissertations, p. 202,4to edit., vol. 1,

CHAPTER VI.

Return to Contents Page

 The phrase, here rendered, "possessed with a spirit of divination," a spirit of divination," is ‘echousa pneuma Puthonos’ - that is, "having a spirit of Python" or "Apollo:" one supposed to be influenced by the god Apollo. The history of this damsel shows that her conduct, in continually following Paul and his companion, was contrary to the usual decorum manifested by her sex. And this deviation was a sign of her being influenced by something not usual; we would say madness: the ancients called it "a possession." She followed Paul many days, continually crying, "These are the servants of the most high God." She exhibited, in other words, a kind of insane fury or excitement. And that this exhibition was common to persons supposed to be possessed is evident from the following description of Pythia, the priestess of Apollo at Delphi: 

Virgil gives a still more vivid description of the excitement of the priestess or ‘sybil’. The Trojan Eneas wishes to consult the oracle respecting his future proceedings. With this view he approaches the cave (after having made the usual offerings-paid priests in all ages requires these)

A sort of insane fury was manifested by those supposed to be possessed, and such manifestation was regarded by the Greek as indicative of possession. it was so among the Latins. The Cerriti and the Larvati, already referred to, were supposed by the Latins to be possessed by the goddess Ceres and by the Lares. In the sacred ceremonies of Ceres, Calepinus records, they were seized with fury. "And, in the same manner," adds he, "as we say a Bacchanal from Bacchus, we say a Cerealian from Ceres."

Pliny, the celebrated Latin naturalist, describes some persons as being agitated by the nocturnal gods, and by the Fauni. These Fauni were the supposed ‘gods of the fields.’

INSANITY, of which this fury is a beginning, was another indication of possession. Cicero, in regard to the absurdity of this that a person being insane should be regarded as "possessed," inquires, "What authority truly can that fury which you call divine have, when it happens that the things which a wise man cannot see, an insane man can see: and he who may have lost his human senses. has attained to divine"* thus demonstrating that the insane were regarded as "possessed".

This argument, so clear to an unbiased hearer, but so obscure to their biased minds, made them reply, "Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a possession (‘daimonion echei’) ." Jesus answered, "I have not a possession, (‘daimonion ouk echei’), "but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. And 1 seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. Verily, verily, 1 say unto you, If a man keep my saying he shall never see death,"
  Jno. viii. 49-51. This last statement astonished the Jews still more, and they exclaimed, "Now we know that thou hast a devil (‘daimonion’). Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying he shall never taste of death," Jno. viii. 52.

The Saviour on another occasion had been describing himself as "the good shepherd," as "the door" of the sheep, as having sheep of "another fold" (this touched, it is likely, their Jewish pride) , "laying down his life for the sheep," and further, what, no doubt, startled them, that though he did lay down his life, it was of his own free will: and that, further, the laying down was a matter quite within his own power. The effect was as might be expected: "There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. And many of them said, he hath a devil (‘daimonion’) , and is mad; why hear ye him? Others said, these are not the words of him that bath a devil (‘daimonion’) . Can a devil (‘daimonion’) open the eyes of the blind?" Jno. x. 19-21.

On another occasion Jesus had astonished them by his knowledge, and yet they were unwilling to give credit to him, although they professed such a reverence for Moses, who spoke of him. He thus reproves them, "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet no one of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, thou hast a devil (‘daimonion’), who goeth About to kill thee?" Jno. vii. 19-20. They inferred that he was insane, because they lid nor know their own intention to kill him.

Jesus was so much the subject of attention. on account of the wonderful cur he performed that numbers gathered about him; "And the multitude cometh together again," and that in such a constant succession, "so that they could no so much as eat bread," Mark iii. 20-21. His kinsman (for so the word is) - wishing it may be to take advantage of Jesus' popularity, and thereby to gain notice through him with the people, or, it may be, influenced by a kindly motive of preventing their kinsman injuring himself, when they heard, "went out to lay hold of him! for they said, He is beside himself" - that is, poor creatures, they thought man would never go without his dinner unless he were mad.

But mental obliquity, or insanity, as regards reasoning, was not the only evidence of being "possessed". Any striking deviation from the usual order of life wits referred to the same cause. Such an exhibition was presented to Christ on entering the country of the Gadarenes: 
"And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man which had devils (‘daimonia’) long time, and wore no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, what have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not," Luke viii. 27-28. 
The wearing no clothes, the abiding in no house, the residence in tombs, were sufficiently striking deviations from the usual routine of every-day life to cause the people to refer such exhibitions at once to the fact that the party was possessed. Jesus freed the man from his insanity. The circumstance became known: 
"Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils (‘daimonia’) were departed, sitting at the. feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind; and they were afraid," Luke viii. 35. "Clothed, and in his right mind" they found him: a point of observation which demonstrates that they did not before regard him as in his right mind.

The belief in the influence of "possessions" had became so extended in the time of the Saviour, that the Jews referred their bodily diseases to such "possessions". It has already been noticed that Ahaziah sent to consult BeeIzebub, the chief of the supposed possessing agents, respecting a bodily disease.

Dumbness was referred to "possession". "As they went, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed" (‘daimonizomenon’). Here it is worthy of remark that the translators have rendered this word ‘daimonizomenon’ correctly, namely, "possessed". "And when the Devil (‘ton daimonion’, the possession) was come out, the dumb spake," Matt. ix. 33. Here, then, is a bodily infirmity distinctly referred, not to the "devil," but to. the ‘daimonion’, the "possession."

  Here again, it will be observed, that the phrase "made whole," (‘iathe’), is used in reference to the possession and the being freed therefrom.

Return to Contents Page

In the previous Chapter the subject of temptation was considered. It was shown that the word peirasmos, translated "temptation," and peirazo, translated "to tempt," are derived from peiras, to make a passage through; the word peira meaning "a passing through." "a passing through." It was further shown that as, in making a passage through anything, some difficulty is experienced, the word peiiao means "to try," and viewed mentally in reference to the passing of the mind through observation to gain experience, it means "to experience." It was shown also, that peirasmos means, strictly speaking, "a trial," and peirazo, "to try;" and that these two words are, in the Common Version, sometimes translated "trial," "try." The passages quoted were demonstrated to have greater clearness when these words, instead of being translated "temptation" and "tempt," were translated "trial" and "try"; in fact, it was proved that "trial" and "try" are the proper renderings of these words. These remarks were made as preparatory to the inquiry into the, so-called, temptation of our Lord On the present occasion the source of trial, miscalled "temptation," is to be considered as absolutely necessary to know, in order to understand the nature of the Saviour's trial, more particularly as he is said to have been tried according to all like things with us.

1 Thes. ii. 17 This word is applied by Paul to the desire to see his brethren in Christ: "But we, brethren, being taken from you for a short time in presence, not in heart, endeavoured the more abundantly to see your face with great desire." 
The phrase for "great desire" is polle epithumei = much "lust."

Phil. i. 23 -It is applied by Paul to represent the wish he had to be: released from prison: "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain, But if 1 live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my, labour: yet what 1, shall choose 1 wot not. For 1 am in a strait betwixt the two, having a desire to depart ** (eis to analusai = "for release"), and to be with Christ: *which is far better, and ('de' - a small particle which does not mean "nevertheless")"to abide in the flesh is more needful for you."  
The words for "a desire" are ten epithumian = the"lust."

Peter thus applies this same word to the intense wish of message-bearers to look into these matters.

Luke xvii. 20-22 --The Saviour, knowing that though the disciples did riot value as they ought the privilege of his being with them (the value of which they would not know till he was departed), tells them, in the following account, that they would desire to see one of the days of the son of Man: "And when. he was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh riot with neither shall they say, lo here! or lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. And he said unto the disciples, ‘The day will come when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and ye shall not see it." The word for "desire" is epithumesete.

Luke xxii. 15 -But what still more positively establishes that the word epithumia does riot of itself imply any bad sense -and that therefore "lust," as long as a bad sense is attached to it, is not the term properly expressive of the the use of this word by our Saviour on another most memorable occasion. It was at the last supper and its attendant events. "And they went and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down and the twelve apostles with the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them with desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not eat any more thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. This "desire" is epithumia: this I have "desired" is epithumesa.

Col. iii. 5 -That there is nothing bad in desire (epithumia) is proved further by the fact, that when badness is associated with desire, a word is superadded to indicate such addition. Paul, in writing to the Colossians, directs - "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry." All these, called members, are activities of desire inconsistent with the law of love to our neighbour, the term for "concupiscence" is epithumia, but it has an adjective, kaken, "bad:" an addition which would not have been needed if epithumia meant "lust," that is, "a badly-regulated desire."

Tit. ii. 12 - In Paul's letter to Titus an addition is made:
"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation bath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness, and worldly lusts. we should live soberly, righteously and godly ill this present world."
Here the word epithumias occurs: it is rendered "lusts" but the world "worldly" (kosmikos) is added to designate the inferiority of those desires.

1 Pet. ii, 11 - Peter, in his first letter, defines these desires (lepithurnion) as (sarkikon) "lusts'' All these additions demonstrate, it is repeated, that desires are not bad in themselves but are bad only when the objects on which they outgo, or the means by which they are gratified, are improper.

1 Cor. x, 6 -As a further proof, Paul writes of "lusting after evil things." Referring to the destruction inflicted upon the Jews in the wilderness on account of their wickedness, he remarks, "Now these things were our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things, as they lusted." The words epithumetas and epithumesan occur here: but there is the addition to damnify the desire "after evil things." If epithumia were "to have evil desire," and as such bad in itself, the addition of "after evil things" would have been quite unnecessary,

Gal. v. 16, 17 - To add, if it be needed, additional evidence that the word epithumia is not necessarily bad in its meaning, the following quotation from Paul's letter to the Galatians is apposite.
"This I say then, Walk in the spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against tire flesh: and these, are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." Here it will be seen that the word epithumei is applied to the activity of the spirit, which is holy, against the flesh, as well as to the activity of the flesh against the spirit; so that if the term epithumia means "lust," and "lust" is bad, then it most follow that the "lusteth" is as bad in the one as in the other. But as this word has not necessarily a bad meaning, no such inference need be drawn: and it is said in truth that the flesh, that is, the animal nature of man, has desires contrary to the spiritual nature, and the spiritual nature has desires contrary to the animal nature. And it is true "that they that are Christ's crucified the flesh," which is not, as some foolishly talk, destroyed, which would be to unman and unwoman mankind, but they nailed to the higher principles of the truth (the "to love mercy," the "to do justly," the "to walk humbly with God" principles) , the activities of the lower desires of man's nature, namely, the affections and the desires.

To have a desire is therefore no sin: but to allow that desire to lead away from the higher duties, to entice us to violate the law of love to our neighbour or to our God, is sinful. Happy is the man who has been tried in all points, and without sin. We shall see him soon; the man, Christ Jesus.

OUR Lord's trial, taking the word peirasmos to mean trial and not temptation, is recorded in the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and not in the testimony of John. In Matthew and Luke the description is full; in Mark the narrative is very brief. In Matthew and in Luke three distinct classes of trials are enumerated; in Mark no individual trial is specified. The best plan, therefore, will be to gather the general description by joining all the various facts recorded by the three.

Jesus, after being baptized of John in Jordan, received the Holy Spirit without measure.

 Such is the general account, gathered from the three histories.

It may be now useful to point out the differences in the statements. In reference to the being led into the wilderness. Luke represents that Jesus was "led," egeto; Matthew "led up," ancethe; Mark "driven," ekballei: terms expressive of a strong impulse, constraining him to depart from the haunts of the children of men, to be as Mark adds, with "the wild beasts," these being representative of the animal feelings in man's nature.

Many think that the three great trials that our Lord experienced were the only ones that he had: but it is evident, from the account given by Mark, that he was tried the whole of the forty days: "And he was there in the wilderness forty days tempted by Satan" and the statement of Mark is confirmed by the statement of Luke: "Being forty days tempted of the devil."

It is worthy of remark that, the one who tries is called by Mark "Satan;" .. by Matthew and by Luke "the devil."

Matthew and Luke both agree in representing that the first trial took place after he had fasted forty days, and when he was hungry: Matthew, in our translation states --- "he was afterward an hungered"; Luke, "he afterward hungered."

The Greek words are exactly the same in both and therefore putting aside the bad English of the translation of Matthew, they both can be rendered, "he afterward hungered."

The second temptation, as recorded by Matthew, is the temptation of being carried up to the temple: this is recorded as the third by Luke. Matthew says Then (tote) the devil taketh (paralambanei) him to the holy city: Luke writes, "And he brought (egagen) him to Jerusalem." Matthew adds, "and setteth," histesin: Luke "set" him (hestesin) on a pinnacle of the temple." In reference to temptation, the third by Matthew the second by Luke, there is some difference.. Luke describes the mountain as high (hupselon). Matthew describes it as exceeding high (hupselon lian) . Matthew adds, that "he showed him the kingdoms and the glory of them." Luke refers to the kingdoms only. Luke adds the time that the devil took to show them "in a moment of time." Matthew represents the devil as promising to give all these things to Christ. Luke, "to give all this power (it ought to be authority, exousian) , and the glory of them:" and Luke adds an assertion of the devil: "for that (hoti) is delivered (paradedotai) unto me; and to whomsoever I will, I give it." Matthew gives Jesus's answer, "Get thee hence (hupage), Satan"; Luke, "Get thee behind me (opiso mou)". At the conclusion of the trials Matthew represents that --- "the devil leaveth (aphiesin) him." Luke, `"departed from him" (apeste) . Luke adds, "for a season "- (achri kairou) this departure took place. Mark states, in reference to the whole industry, "and the angels ministered unto him": Matthew, "and behold angels came and ministered unto him."

This analysis of the various accounts of the trials of our Lord has been given, because all the particulars are necessary to enable the mind to ascertain the meaning of the divine writer.

The question now comes, "How are these trials to be understood?" The common opinion is, that these descriptions are records of literal events. Is this opinion justified by the narratives? How are we to decide this? Is there any rule by which a question of this kind can be settled? There is! It is this: That no passage of Scripture admits of a literal interpretation, unless all the parts of the same admit fairly, and in accordance with common-sense, of such literal interpretation. It is upon this principle that the Protestant rejects the Papistical interpretation of the statement of our Lord, ---"This is my body"; --- "this is my blood"; because the phrases do not admit, in all particulars, of a literal interpretation.

Applying this principle to the recorded trial of our Lord, let us see whether literal interpretation can be admitted. That our Saviour might be led, led up, or driven, into the literal wilderness may be admitted, although this admits of some objection; but let this pass. It is there that, it is supposed, a being came to him in person, appearing before him in visible form, speaking to him with an audible voice, removing him also corporeally from place to place, and presenting himself in his real character: this being is called "Satan," also "the devil." This person, or being, is represented as trying our Lord by certain suggestions. The circumstances connected with these suggestions will be hereafter noticed: the attention may, for the present, be confined to the personal appearance of the devil to Christ.

  It appears by the description given of the temple by Josephus and from some from other Jewish writers, that it was so encompassed by walls, and, so guarded, that all access to it was impracticable but by such persons, and under. such conditions, as the law allowed. Now, by law, no foreigner could pass the first enclosure or court under pain of death; the Jewish people could not pass the second; the priests alone could enter the third. The temple itself was within this court, from which Christ was excluded, not being a Jewish priest. As, to the devil, those who know under what different disguises he imposed upon Christ can with equal certainly inform us by what stratagems he might advance forward to the temple. Christ, however in whom there no guile, could not have been permitted to follow. With regard to the temple itself, properly so called, on the top of it there were spikes, with sharp points to prevent so much as a bird from resting upon it. The wings of the temple stretched out on either side at the eastern front of it, which was by far the most magnificent, and commanded a view of the entire body of worshippers. These wings were twenty cubits higher than the temple; the height of the temple being one hundred cubits, and the height of the "pinnacle" (pterugion) one hundred and twenty cubits, at the top of which, the narrative (according to the common interpretation) affirms the devil did set our Saviour. That the word ptertugion denotes the wing (not the pinnacle) of the temple, that most valuable expositor, Dr. Lightfoot, long since observed (Works, vol. ii., p. 130). And his opinion was adopted by the learned Dr. Prideux (Farmer on the Nature and Design of Christ's Temptation,5th edit., 20, 21- Connect. vol. i., p. 200), and lately by Dr. Benson (Life of Christ, p. 35). It is impossible, therefore, that Christ could have reached the pinnacle of the temple, except the devil carried him through the air in his arms, which it is too ridiculous, too blasphemous, too atheistical, for any Christian man to credit. From these facts it is quite certain that the second trial of our Saviour is not to be understood literally.

The third trial may now be noticed. 

This is the statement. Is it literally true? It cannot be. Where is the mountain from which any man can see one thousandth part of the earth, the mere solid earth? There is none: and therefore the statement is at once seen to be literally untrue. God showed Moses from Mount Nebo the land of Canaan, narrow indeed; but for the devil to be able to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world would have been a miracle so stupendous as to surpass the miracle performed by the Almighty. If a man were placed in the sun, and could see the world thence, he could see but one half of the world at a time.

Dr. Macknight, to get rid of the difficulty, translates the word to mean the kingdom of Judea, or rather the land of Judea; but there was no mountain from which Christ could see the whole of the land of Judea: for the land of promise, in its largest signification, reached from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, east and west, and from Egypt, on the south, to beyond Sidon northwards, a tract of country that no mountain commands, and no eye could take in (Macknight, p. 67). That this limitation to the kingdom of Judea, however, is not proper, is proved by the phrase, "All the kingdoms of the world," [oikouincile = inhabited (earth)]: a phrase demonstrating that all the various parts of the world, where rule existed, are referred to. From what mountain could such kingdoms be seen, embracing both hemispheres?

But that the literal interpretation cannot be the correct one, it is stated that the devil showed Jesus the glory of them. The glory of a kingdom consists of its institutions, its wealth, its power, its intellectual character, and a multitude of matters which could be seen only in close position: the very height of the mountain, necessary to see the territorial kingdom, would exclude the power of seeing the glory of the kingdom.

To meet this difficulty, some persons have laboured to prove that the showing was merely a description. But then why take Jesus to a high mountain, if it was merely to be by a description? Here they desert the literal interpretation and fly to a figurative one. But this will not do. One or the other must be adopted: and that the literal cannot be recognised as the proper one needs no more argument.

FULL particulars of the trials of the Lord Jesus in the wilderness were brought to notice in the last Chapter: and the query occurred: "Are these trials to be regarded as outward occurrences that look place literally, as many believe, or are they to be regarded as figurative representations?"

In connection with this query, it was stated that no passage of Scripture can be interpreted one part literally and one part "spiritually"; that is, if it is to be literally understood throughout; if it is to be "spiritually" understood, it must be "spiritually" understood throughout. A query arose out of these views, namely: "Is there any rule by which we can be guided in deciding whether any passage is to be literally or figuratively understood?" The answer was given in the affiimative, and the rule was stated to be, "That no passage of Scripture admits of a literal interpretation unless all the parts of the same admit fairly, and in accordance with common-sense, of such literal interpretation."

It was shown in conjunction with this rule that the gross absurdities, the palpable contradictions, the positive unsuitableness to the character of Christ of many of the facts recorded, if the account be taken literally, are such as completely negative to the possibility of its recognition as a literal statement by any simple-minded and intelligent believer.

The inquiry is therefore now to be made, ‘Can the same rule which, being applied, proves that the narrative cannot be regarded as literal history, be applied to justify the adoption of the view that the account is figurative?’ To answer the question and to demonstrate the affirmative, will occupy this Chapter.

The narrative presents us with the fact that the Lord Jesus had just been anointed by Holy Spirit,

This was the work he had to perform. To fit him for this work he was "led," "led up,"    "driven" into the wilderness by Holy Spirit, in order that there he might contemplate      carefully all the various duties, scan all the mighty difficulties which, in the performance of the office for which he was anointed, he would be called upon to perform and to      teach. He went, before beginning to build that house which was to be the temple of the living God, to count the costs of the building. He went, before entering on the warfare   he had to wage, into the calculation how he should be able to compete with the foes     with whom he must strive.                                                                                           

Any prudent commercial man, before entering upon any speculation, carefully weighs in his counting-house, where he shuts himself up, all the points connected with the speculation about to be entered upon. A certain philosopher, it is recorded, before admitting any among his disciples, required that they should be tested by keeping silence for years. Every sane man carefully reflects on any course he purposes to pursue before he fixes upon the pursuit of that course.

This view will unfold the nature of the trials through which Christ passed; it will help to the understanding of the figurative meaning of the trials under consideration.

In regard to the first trial. The self-principle, the desire-principle in the Christ, when he felt hungry, suggested at once what was a truth, surely, "seeing thou art Son of God, command that these stones be made bread," Matt. iv. 3. That is, the self-principle, awakened by the natural and proper appetite suggested a means by which the appetite could be satisfied. and that in a way which demonstrate Christ to be the noble and exalted individual he was. Here then the self-principle sought to violate the compact, the condition; sought to bring a new element into the matter, which would have spoiled the whole. The self-principle wished to bring in the divine power to get out of a natural difficulty---this state of mind (a state in which God, as the promised provided for the wants of his children, would have been accused by the supposition that He, who has promised his aid, would not aid His Son) was the devil, or the false-accuser, that tried Christ. The self-principle, the epithumia, the desire-principle, was to get the bread in a way riot authorised: this was the desire: but in Christ it was not embraced; it did not conceive; it did not bring forth: he was tried in all points like as we are, but without sin. His answer was, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matt. iv. 4.

The first Adam was actuated by the desire of knowledge; that desire conceived and brought forth the eating of the forbidden tree---that is, the violation of the command of God. {Romans 5:12}

The second Adam, Jesus, was tried by the sensual principle, the adversary, and the seduction was through knowledge, acting through want in the first instance; through a truth in the second; and Christ's knowledge overpowered the adversary.

The second trial represents the progress of his mind in contemplating the means by which he must proceed in performing his mission in demonstrating himself to be the Christ. The natural self-love suggestion is this, Is there no plan by which 1 can at once effect my purpose: some decisive act which will at once settle the question, even to the most incredulous? This state directed his intellectual powers to search, and this falsely-accusing state immediately discovered a plan: a plan which, at first, appears quite suited to demonstrate that he was the Christ: "Seeing thou art Son of God, cast thyself down," Matt. iv. 6. This plan would have been seeking to attain the elevation promised to him by a course inconsistent with the principle regulating the struggle, namely, that he was to struggle as a man and not to use his divine power in matters in which his humanity was the element of the contest.

It is true that Jesus was promised to be king of Israel. What better means to astonish the people into an acknowledgment of his right, than to throw himself from the battlement of the temple and to escape unhurt, and this too, apparently sanctioned by the promise "He shall give his angels charge concerning thee and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone." Matt. iv. 6.

The devil is represented as promising to Christ the power and the of the kingdoms of the earth. Now the devil could not promise; but the self-love principle detected that that was the moving power in the kingdoms of the earth; in fact, to it the whole was delivered; so to whomsoever the self-love principle may outgo the party gets the power and the glory: and thus the whole passage is merely a figurative description of the result of the mental examination by Christ of the prevalent worldly system, of the suggestions which his self-love principle made on the first examination; and then, at the conclusion, he denounces obtaining the kingdom by any worship of the self-love principle, and adds, "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve," Matt. iv, 10.

.Christ, The second Adam went through the whole unscathed. The first Adam was tried in being induced to eat forbidden fruit; he was enticed, and sinned. The second Adam was tried by the suggestion to ‘make fruit’ in a forbidden way; he was not enticed, and did not sin.

The whole account of the trial of our Lord admits of an easy, clear, and conclusive explanation when viewed figuratively as a picture of the thoughts that passed through his mind in the survey of his great struggle.

Perhaps the only objection that will be urged against this view is that such view supposes that Christ had wicked thoughts. It supposes no such thing; it supposes that he had the thoughts of a man in contemplating human things; it supposes that he must have had these thoughts to have been tried on all points like as we are; and it supposes that, having examined all his thoughts, he discountenanced all those which, if carried out, would have been falsely-accusing God, and consequently sinful.

And, let it ever be remembered, that the victory was gained through the written word; Jesus fought his enemies in the mental battlefield with the (divine) weapon, the Scriptures.

IN the preceding Chapters we have endeavoured to demonstrate that there is no such being as the Devil, and have opened up the true meaning attached to the terms "devil," "satan," "demon," and have shown that these are applicable to conditions in which the primary idea represented in each has appended to it some particularity justifying the distinct appellation.

Little or nothing has been noticed in reference to the absurdity connected with the belief in a devil; the atheistical tendency of such belief; the utter contradiction of such belief to all true notions of God. These points have been particularly avoided and that principally on the ground that no sound and fair reasoner will ever attempt to show the absurdity of an opinion until he has demonstrated its untruth. Untrained and consequently vulgar minds always begin the examination of a question by showing its supposed dangerousness or absurdity, thus awakening the fears or; exciting the laughter-state of mind, both of which are sufficient so far to warp the mind as to prevent its fair course to a legitimate conclusion. Many will. no doubt, attack these expositions in the latter way; will denounce them as dangerous: and those who cannot or will not, or who are afraid or are not allowed to think, will settle the question to their own minds by uttering, with the peculiar conceit which always attends utterance under such circumstances, "Be not led away by strange doctrine."

Leaving such persons to their own complacency, reminding them, at the same time, of the remark of Lord Bacon, "There are two ways of getting peace, the one is by shutting the eyes, the other is by opening them," it will be well to exhibit the absurdities, the impossibilities, the atheism connected with the belief in the supposed being called the Devil.

Creation and revelation both teach that God is a God of order. The laws of the creation are the means by which He makes that order manifest. No part of the creation can exist but by the permission of God, and, in existing, must it be regulated by the laws He has appointed for the regulation of that existence. These laws discovered, constitute, in relation to man, truth, and become to man, when used, the source of all physical comfort and of all intellectual and of much moral and religious progress.

God's laws, whether in the world of creation or the world of revelation, are for the production of good; and as nothing can operate in opposition to the laws of God, all the operations of the universe must be for good.

The Devil (supposing him, for the sake of showing the absurdity of his existence, to exist) must, in acting, act through, and by means of, the laws of God: and since he acts - as all his advocates so allow - for the production of evil, he must actually, so to do, make God's laws, appointed by Him for good, turn to a quite different purpose, namely the production of evil; which is an absurdity, and is the first step to the dread groundwork of atheism. This recognises the Devil as more powerful than God; because, before a person can make a machine serve a purpose directly opposite to that for which it was made, be must have vanquished the original contriver in order to be able to turn that machine to a different purpose. The Devil has the power, according to the common view, of setting aside the laws of God. He can work "miracles" - for a "miracle" is, according to the common view, a subversion of a law of the Creator - and if so, then what becomes of "miracles" as a demonstration of Divine revelation?

In fact, almost all the ideas associated with the Devil are such as to make him equal with God.

Thus to the Devil is ascribed omnipotence; if not quite, almost. He is said to have power over the whole of mankind, except a certain few, who are freed from his control; he is said to have thousands of angels, who minister to his royal will and pleasure; he is engaged, it is said, in convulsing kingdoms. He can act on people through the air: he can afflict them with diseases: he can turn the laws of God to purposes for which God did not make them.

He has the character of omniscience. He knows the thoughts of every man, woman and child. He knows the exact moment when to whisper into the ear the seducing error, and he knows also the exact amount to introduce at a time. What is this but omniscience?

He has the character of omnipresence. He is said to be here, there, and everywhere. He is seducing a human being here, and another at the antipodes at the same moment. He enters the heart of the Laplander and of an African at the same precise time. He is constantly watching in every street, lane, alley, glen, not merely of this great kingdom, but of all the kingdoms of the world, at the same time and at the same moment: for, be it observed, we are told that he acts upon men when asleep as well as when awake!

Here then, is a being who, possessing the attributes which those who believe in his existence give to him, has Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, and yet these very people, so advocating his existence, proclaim themselves as the only Christians, and denounce all those who disbelieve in the Devil as infidels. These devil-holders are practical atheists; and they who do disbelieve in the Devil are far farther off from atheism than they who believe in such a being.

If there is a God, there cannot be a Devil.
There cannot be two Omnipresents, two Omnipotents, two Omniscients.

The two cannot co-exist. If the Devil is, and is such a being as he is represented to be, God must have created him. But can goodness create badness? Can mercy create cruelty Can virtue beget vice? Can fullness of happiness create envy? Call truth create error? Can rectitude create deceit? When these can, then God can create a devil.

But it is said that God permits the Devil to act, Then God rewards him. The common idea is, that the Devil was cast out of heaven for his rebellion, and God sends him to the earth to create a rebellion here! What a method to punish a. rebel! - to give him a wide, broad field upon which to carry on his hate. Talk of punishing the Devil by casting him from heaven to earth; it was a reward: the very thing, no doubt, had he existed, he would have wanted. Dismissed from heaven for disobeying God, he comes down to earth to teach men to disobey. If he is an enemy of God, God gives a field on which to show his enmity; if he has malice, here he has abundant opportunity to gratify his malevolent passion. It is absurd.