Supremacy of the heart life; a plea for the regnancy of love

Dedication

To my distinguished and steadfast friend,

Dr. J. H. Garrison,

Editor of the Christian Evangelist, with whom, on two continents, I have been most intimately associated in word and work, and who, through many years, has been a worthy companion in the advocacy of Good, Right, and Truth, is this volume affectionately dedicated by The Author.

Contents

PAGE

I The Problem Stated .... 29

II The Personal Element in Evil . . 61

II

From the foregoing considerations we are now prepared to discuss somewhat in detail the personal element in the problem of evil, and consequently the origin of human suffering; for undoubtedly if we can trace the history of suffering back to its original source, this source will be found in evil, and evil will probably be found to be represented in a great personality denominated in the Scriptures, Ho Satanos, or Ho Diabolos.

Nor is there anything unphilosophical in this conclusion. We cannot conceive of either good or evil without associating it with will, and we cannot conceive of will without associating it with personality. In fact personality must be predicated in every problem where moral conditions are present, and moral conditions are always present in the problem of good and evil.

The great philosopher, Immanuel Kant, affirmed that “ There is nothing good but the good will,” and that this is good in itself, not with reference to any external fact. Now if this statement be true it is reasonable to conclude that there is nothing bad but the bad will, and as this bad will must be located in personality, we must look for the bad or evil where this will resides.

This fact at once introduces the doctrine of the existence of a personal devil. Doubtless the explanation of evil from this personal point of view has been 63 frequently greatly abused. But this, I think, cannot be received as satisfactory evidence against the truth that is involved. Nearly everything has been abused. Even Christianity has not escaped in this particular. Some of the grossest outrages on good society and the best interests of humanity have been committed in the name of the Christian religion. Is the Christian religion false on that account? And must we henceforth regard it as a myth of the Dark Ages, whose influence has always been most felt where ignorance and superstition most largely prevailed? If such is our method of reasoning, then we may as well, at once, give up all hope of reaching just conclusions with regard to anything, and content ourselves with repeating the sentiment of the poet,

“ Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.”

And yet those who argue against the doctrine of a personal Devil, because they can refer to periods in history when this doctrine was greatly abused, are guilty of precisely the same kind of logical fallacy as in the case we have supposed against Christianity. The truth is, this question cannot be settled by any such methods of reasoning. It is not a question as to how the doctrine has influenced the world, either for good or evil, but it is a question of fact, and must therefore be determined, like all questions of this kind, by proper and legitimate testimony. What, then, is the testimony on this subject?

The existence of evil, though accounted for in various ways, is a fact so self-evident and so constantly present in human history as never to have been desired. Origen regarded it as only the negation of good; Leibnitz, as threefold, — metaphysical, physical and moral ; Kant, as twofold, — absolute and relative ; that is, opposed to the absolutely or the relatively good.

But, whatever may be the explanation, it is always conceded that evil exists, that it is a terrible fact in human history, and that it can not be eliminated from that history by any explanation that may be given. But there is a question still behind this, that has occupied the most thoughtful consideration of the wisest philosophers and theologians of all ages. I refer to the origin or source of evil.

In explanation of this, the two theories, most dominant among mankind prior to the Christian era, were the Dualistic and Pantheistic theories, and these have had their respective advocates ever since, even among Christian philosophers.

The Dualistic theory is of great antiquity, and is of Oriental origin, though it is not certain with whom it first originated. It is found to-day as a prominent element in at least two of the oldest and most widely spread religions of the East; namely, Parseeism and Buddhism.

According to this theory, “ good and evil are two distinct essences, produced by two original principles, one of good, and one of evil — from whose agency all the good and evil existing in the world have respectively flowed.” This theory assumes two distinct forms:

1. Parseeism. In the religion of the ancient Persians it is affirmed that the universe was created by two rival powers, Ormuz and Ahriman — that is, light and darkness — the latter of which, though in no particular subordinate to the former, is somewhat inferior, and is destined finally to be overcome. This view has had a wide influence on the religions of the world, and is one of the prominent doctrines of the Zend Avesta.

2. Hylism. This taught that matter is an original principle of evil, co-existent from eternity with God, and was regarded as either feminine and passive, — as in the Chinese cosmogony, — or as neuter, — a kind of formless mass, as among the Greeks.

This is really the root of modern Materialism. Starting with this physical idea of evil, it is not strange that many have carried the doctrine to its logical consequences. The grossest Materialism is its legitimate offspring.

The Pantheistic theory does not treat evil as something essentially different from good, but regards good and evil as only varying manifestations of the original principle. This is the basis of Brahminism, the religion of India, and has appeared, in a modified form in several places since the Christian era. In the seventeenth century it appeared in the philosophy of Spinoza, and in the nineteenth in the philosophy of Schelling.

As a system, Pantheism denies not only the existence of a personal Devil, but also of a personal God. It makes God the soul of the world, and is therefore distinguished, on the one hand, from Materialism, according to which God and nature are immediately identical; and, on the other hand, from Theism, which ascribes creation to a personal God. It is easy to see how such a philosophy as this would at once repudiate the doctrine of a personal Devil; and it is easy to see, furthermore, why it should be selected as the most promising battleground on which to successfully meet this doctrine.

This Pantheistic theory is just now assuming considerable importance, especially in several of the countries of Europe. For the last fifty years it has been very popular in Germany, though there is at this time growing up a very decided reaction against it.

The decline of Rationalism in the universities is, of course, followed by a corresponding change of opinion on this subject; for Rationalism is really the offspring of the Pantheistic philosophy. This theory, to a certain class of minds, has some very special attractions. It is claimed for it that it is both historical and reasonable. It is historical, because the primitive races of mankind knew nothing of evil as an essentially different thing from good; and that, as men become more and more enlightened, they will, in the same ratio, adopt the primitive idea. Whether these high claims can be sustained or not will be determined after we have stated the Bible view of the subject.

It is generally believed by Bible students that the Holy Scriptures clearly teach the following:

1. That all evil, if not caused, is propagated and fearfully used by a malignant spirit hostile to God, and called the Devil, or Satan. (See 1 John iii, 8.)

2. That God, therefore, is Himself the author of evil only in the sense that, being able to prevent it, he has permitted it to exist. (See Isaiah xlv, 7; I Kings xxii, 22.)

3. That, though permitted by God to exist, Satan is still under control, and made subservient to the Divine purpose. (See Proverbs xvi, 4.)

4. That God will ultimately overrule the machinations of Satan to his own glory, when all evil will be seen by us to have been in complete accordance with perfect order and supreme rectitude. (See Romans ix, 22, 23.)

We have here what may be regarded as a complete summary of what many believe to be the Bible teaching as to the origin of evil, and its relations to God and humanity; and this Bible teaching, is thought to be of primary importance in coming to any just conclusions about the matter; for, just as soon as we rule the Bible testimony out, we are completely at sea, without the possibility of reaching any safe landing place. It becomes us, therefore, to study with the most profound reverence and critical attention, what the Bible says upon the subject. We ask, therefore, the reader’s earnest attention to the doctrine of the Devil, as we find it in the Word of God, without any regard as to the general notion as to what that word teaches.

Passing over the Jewish Scriptures for the present, we find in the New Testament the word Diabolos, or Devil, thirty-eight times. Of these, thirty-four are preceded by the definite article the , and without doubt, refer to the great Adversary, to whom we have attributed the origin of evil. Of the remaining four cases, one is where Jesus calls one of the twelve a devil, not the Devil; and the other three are where Paul applies the term to men and women, such as do not restrain their tongues. Thus it will be seen that we have Ho Diabolos thirty-four times ; diabolos , without the article, applied to Judas, a false accuser and slanderer, once; and three times to designate slanderers, false accusers; etc. (i Timothy iii, n; 2 Timothy iii, 3; Titus ii, 3.) Hence, we have in the New Testament the word Devil, as a proper name, thirty-four times, and always applied to Ho Satanos , the great Adversary of human souls.

The word Satan occurs thirty-seven times in the New Testament, and only twice without the article, in both of which cases it is applied to Peter, as an adversary.

Thus we reach the inevitable conclusion that the New Testament recognises a malignant personality, hostile to God and bent on the ruin of man. To deny this conclusion is to set at naught the plainest meaning of the Greek language, which, with singular exactness, puts the personality of Satan beyond the possibility of successful controversy.

The fact that we have ascribed evil to a malignant spirit called, in the Bible, Satan, at once suggests the inquiry as to his origin. He comes definitely into human history in the Garden of Eden. He there plays the part of a tempter in leading Adam and Eve away from the Divine commandment. But what was his antecedent history? How came he an evil spirit, in open rebellion against the government of God? It is more than probable we can not answer these questions with entire satisfaction. But this should not in any way weaken our faith in the present existence of such a being. We can not satisfactorily explain the origin of very many of the most obvious facts of history; but our ignorance as to the origin of these does not break down our faith in their existence. With all the boasted advance of natural science very few things can yet be traced to their origin, and that origin thoroughly understood. Rationalists often make themselves exceedingly silly, and stultify their own theories, by rejecting the revelation of God, because there are some things in that revelation which they cannot satisfactorily account for.

I state all this, because I wish it distinctly understood that the existence of a personal Devil is in no way dependent on whether we can or can not explain the origin of such a being. It is quite enough to know that such a being had an existence contemporaneous with the first man, and that through his instrumentality sin was introduced into human history. That sin is in existence can not be denied, and no philosophy can, a priori, contradict its history; neither can any philosophy deny it, a posteriori; and it is just as difficult to account for this as for the origin of Satan. In fact, it is easier to account for the history of sin, on the hypothesis I have suggested, than on any other.

Nevertheless, there are places in the Scriptures that give us at least a suggestion as to the origin of Satan. That he was an angel of high rank, there can be little doubt; and that he fell from this position and became the wicked, malignant spirit he now is, is also just as certain. But precisely how he fell, what influences operated upon him to produce his fall, and how far this fall affected the spiritual world, as it then existed, are questions that may never be determined with absolute certainty by the light which we now possess. We read of “ angels that kept not their first estate,” that were “ cast down to hell ” ; and as Satan was evidently a leader among these, it is probable that in his rebellion against God he carried with him a portion of the angel world. Some have thought that pride was the moving cause in his rebellion. This may have been so. Thirst for power has always been a ruling motive with great intelligences. It may have been that Satan’s ambition was the prime cause of his final overthrow as one of the angels.

But, as before remarked, we are not so much concerned with these questions as we are with the actual existence of Satan to-day as the representative and instigator of evil. And it is in this light that I ask the reader to consider him ; for it is in this light that the Bible reveals him, “ going up and down the earth seeking whom he may devour,” and it is just this fact of his personal existence that we have so clearly indicated in the Greek of the New Testament Scriptures. Ho Diabolos stands out as a distinct and definite personality, and no sentimental sophistry will likely ever overthrow this conclusion.

Unfortunately for us, we have another word in the New Testament which is almost uniformly translated Devil. I refer to the word Daimoon. This word with its families, occurs seventy-nine times in the New Testament, and is always translated devil or devils in the common version with a single exception, found in Acts xvii, where it is translated “ gods.” This fact is certainly very significant, and suggests at once the origin of much of the confusion in the public mind on this subject. Clearly, no well-defined conception of the Devil can be had from the New Testament unless we properly discriminate between Diabolos and Daimoon. This is just what the common version does not do, and, hence, the ignorance of the people in reference to this important matter. But if we will constantly keep before our minds the following points, we will be enabled to arrive at very satisfactory conclusions :

1. Diabolos, translated devil, and Daimonion, which ought always to be translated demon, are, in their New Testament use, never confounded. The one is never in any case substituted for the other, notwithstanding they occur, when taken together, ninety-four times in the New Testament.

2. Daimonion is as constantly indefinite as Diabolos is definite. Devil is always preceded by the definite article “ the ” ; Daimoon never, except when some particular one is named in reference to a special case.

3. Diabolos, or the Devil, is never, in the Bible, said to take possession of anyone.

4. Demons are constantly represented as malignant and unclean spirits, and to their influence is ascribed “ dumbness,” “deafness,” “palsy,” “epilepsy,” etc.

5. Paul teaches that the things, which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and as we know that the Gentiles did sacrifice to hero-gods, we conclude that these hero-gods were demons, or the spirits of dead men.

That the New Testament is not peculiar in these respects we need only refer to the Demonology of the world. All nations have more or less recognised the New Testament doctrine of demons. The words Dai - moon and Daimonion are used by both profane and sacred writers as synonymous, and by the first class of writers, with considerable latitude of meaning. While we may not be able to determine with definite certainty what these demons are, the following facts will be sufficient for all practical purposes:

1. The demons of the Gentiles were of two kinds. The one were the souls of dead men. The souls of good men, upon their departure from the body, were called heroes, after which they were raised to the dignity of demons, and then to that of gods. (Plut., De Defect. Orac.) It was also believed that the souls of bad men became evil demons. Hence, Daimonion often occurs in ancient authors as a term of reproach. The other kind of demons never inhabited human bodies, and were therefore of more noble origin.

2. These demons occupied a middle ground between gods and mortals. Plato says : “ Every demon is a middle being between God and mortals and then explains what he means by a middle being as follows :

“ God is not approached immediately by man, but all commerce and intercourse between gods and men are performed by the mediation of demons.” Hence, “ demons are reporters, and carriers from men to the gods, and again from the gods to men, of the supplications and prayers of the one, and of the injunctions and rewards of devotion from the other.” (Plato, Sympos.)

3. Josephus uses the word demon always in a bad sense. He distinctly declares, “ That demons are no other than the spirits of the wicked, that enter into men and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them.” He makes no reference to the other view as held by heathen writers.

4. Turning now to the New Testament again, and examining such passages as Matt, viii, 16 ; x, 1 ; xii, 43-45; Mark ix, 20; Luke x, 20; Mark i, 24; Luke iv, 34; James ii, 19; ii, 14; Matt, viii, 28-32; Mark ix, 26; Eph. vi, 12; we find whatever else these demons may have been, they were spirits, and had intelligence and will, but, as to personality, they were never confounded with the prince of demons, Ho Diabolos.

The question of demonology is not only clearly set forth in the New Testament, but it soon became a prominent factor in the history of the Church. Dr. Adolph Harnack, in his admirable treatise on “ The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries,” devotes considerable space in discussing the influence of demonology upon the early development of Christianity. In reading what he says one is surprised at the faith of these early Christians in the power of demons to produce disorder in the world. Two writers have given us circumstantial details con- * cerning the prevalence of the belief in demons during their times. I refer to Tatian and Tertullian, the latter of whom gives a long account of how the Exorcists were instrumental in casting out demons from Pagans, and in this way were able to advance the cause of Christianity.

Perhaps the most interesting discussion on this subject is that between Celsus and Origen, since these men occupied the highest position with respect to culture. Celsus charged that Christians are jugglers, or sorcerers, or both ; Christ was also a master of demoniac arts. Origen devoted considerable space in controverting the very serious charges that had been made. He appealed to the unquestionable fact that all of Christ’s works were intended to benefit men and did actually do this. This was not true with magicians. Nevertheless, Origen practically admitted the prevalence of faith in demonology among the Christians.

Nor should we regard it as a strange thing that the early Christians entertained the belief ascribed to them. Even in modern times it is probable that very few people are entirely free from a belief in demonology. In any case it is certain that many modern Christians are what we call superstitious, and are therefore under the conviction that they are influenced by some evil occult forces which they ascribe to the supernatural.

But it is perhaps not necessary to add anything further with respect to this particular matter. In view of what has been stated I think we can now affirm, with considerable emphasis, that the New Testament distinction between the Devil and demons is well established, and is fatal to the whole Pantheistic philosophy concerning the origin of evil. While the doctrine of demons, as it is understood by Pantheists, may not be inconsistent with the historical notions of our modern evolutionists, the fact of a personal Devil, wholly distinct from demons, remains yet unexplained, and can not be explained, so far as I can see, on either the Dualistic or Pantheistic theories.

That the Bible Devil has personality, is shown not only from the considerations already presented, but also from the following facts :

(1). He has a mind ascribed to him. The fact that he designs clearly implies the possession of a mind. Hence, when we read of his moving David to number Israel (2 Samuel xxiv:i) ; putting into the hearts of Ananias and Sapphira to lie to the Holy Ghost (Acts v, 3) ; desiring to sift Peter as wheat (Luke xxii, 31) ; tempting Christ (Mark i, 13) ; and deceiving the whole world (Rev. xii, 9) ; we cannot doubt, for a moment, that all this implies mind, and that too of unusual strength.

2. He is said to exercise dominion. He is denominated “ the god of this world, the prince of the power of the air ” (Eph, ii, 2) ; also, “ the Devil and his angels ” (Matt, xxv, 41) ; and he is said to work in the children of disobedience ( Eph. ii, 2).

3. He is known by several names. Besides the names Devil and Satan he is called “ The Adversary,” “Apollyon,” “ Beelzebub,” “ Belial,” “ Dragon,” “ Serpent,” and “ Lucifer.” The following titles are also assigned to him in the New Testament: “ The angel of the bottomless pit” (Rev. ix, 11); “ The prince of devils” (Matt, xii, 24) ; “The prince of this world” (2 Cor. iv, 4) ; “ The accuser of our brethren ” (Rev. xiirio; “The tempter” — Ho peiradsoon — (Matt, iv: 3); “The deceiver” — Ho piano on — (Rev. xii :g).

4. There are works ascribed to him. We read of “ the working of Satan ” (2 Thess. ii, 9) ; and “ the works of the Devil” (1 John iii, 8).

5. He is likewise represented as possessing character. We are told that he is a deceiver. (Rev. xii, 9), and a murderer (John viii, 44). He is also described as “the wicked one ” (1 John iii, 12) ; as a liar (John viii, 44) ; and the tempter (Matt, iv, 3).

6. He is declared to exercise the faculty of will. Paul speaks of persons caught in “the snare of the Devil, who are taken captive at his will ” (2 Tim. i, 26) ; and this faculty is clearly implied in many other passages.

7. And finally, a fate is assigned to him. He is, with all his angels, delivered into chains of darkness, reserved unto judgment (2 Peter ii, 4) ; and “ everlasting fire ” is prepared for him (Matt, xxv, 41).

It will be seen, from this induction of references in the Scriptures, that attributes, character, names, actions, and the fate of a person, are all ascribed to the Devil.

The sacred writers use all the forms of personal agency in setting forth the character and conduct of Satan. They describe him as having power and dominion, messengers and followers. He exercises those qualities of mind which can only be predicated of personality. He tempts and resists, is held accountable and charged with guilt. Finally, there is to be a day of reckoning for him. He is to be judged, and to receive punishment.

Now, it seems to me that the most imaginative mind can scarcely escape the conclusion that the Bible gives to the great Adversary a very distinct and definite personality. I furthermore, believe that no scientific interpretation of the Bible can possibly reach any other conclusion. To assume that all the passages of Scripture referred to are to be understood metaphorically, is to practically deny the real existence of a spiritual universe. What do we know of God and of angels? Have we seen them at any time? Are we not wholly dependent upon their revealed attributes, characters, names, works and states for all the knowledge we have concerning them? Now, Satan is represented as possessing all these, and hence, it is just as legitimate to ascribe to him personality as to ascribe it to God, Christ or Gabriel. And then it should be remembered that nowhere in the Bible is his personality denied. There is not the slightest hint given, from the beginning of Genesis to the last of Revelation, that he is simply a metaphorical being — a sort of representation of the principle of evil, or only a theological scarecrow for the benefit of imaginative revivalists, or cross old women who wish to force obedience from their unruly children. True, the first representation we have of Satan is in the form of a serpent. But this in no way militates against the doctrine of his personality. What do we know of the forms of spiritual beings? Why is it incompatible with their natures to appear on this scene of action in any form they may choose? Pantheists may make light of the scene of Eden to their heart’s content, but, while it remains true that God himself has appeared in human form, we must ask to be excused, if we fail to see anything particularly absurd and unhistorical in the assumption that Satan actually appeared in the form of a serpent in his first conflict with the human race.

We are aware that Pantheistic philosophers are not very partial to personality, even when ascribed to God himself. In this respect, at least, they are consistent; for the same line of reasoning which will destroy the personality of the Devil will also destroy the Personality of God. And when we assume that Satan, hell, everlasting punishment, etc., are all only figures of speech, it does not take long to come to the conclusion that God, heaven, eternal life, etc., are likewise figures of speech. Thus we would reduce the whole Bible to a sort of fanciful poetry, and its most solemn and awful words to little more than the playthings of the imagination.

What sad havoc does this method of interpretation make of God’s Word! We have been accustomed to regard the Scriptures as teaching, upon their very surface, the existence of two great spiritual armies — God and His angels on one side and the Devil and his angels on the other — and that the mission of Christ to man was to destroy the works of the Devil, and bring salvation to a lost and ruined world. But if this Pantheistic method of interpretation be accepted, then there is great truth in the words of Strauss, when he says : “ If Christ is come to destroy the works of the Devil, he need not have come, if there is no Devil; if there is a Devil, but only as the personification of an evil principle, then we are satisfied with a Christ as an impersonal idea.” Furthermore, on the Pantheistic hypothesis, it is not longer necessary to recognise a supernatural redemption ; for, if we assert that we have no other strife except against “ flesh and blood,” and that sin only springs from man himself, without recognising a superhuman power of evil, then the tragic scene of Calvary was not only a most ridiculous farce, but becomes a stigma upon the character of God himself, in permitting his own Son to endure such painful agony, when there was no other purpose in view than a sort of exhibition of fortitude, as an example for the world. It may be that such wild interpretations of Scripture, as we have indicated, will lead superficial thinkers to make merry over the dogma of a personal Devil, but it will be a long while before thoughtful and serious people will see in this merriment an explanation of the conscious fact of sin, as well as its terrible consequences, as revealed in the Bible.

It has now become fashionable to say that the Devil of modern times was not known in the primitive age of the world; in fact, was not known, even in Jewish history, until after their return from their captivity in Babylon. Now, it is freely admitted that the Old Testament says very little about the Devil, and yet what it does say, fixes his personality beyond the possibility of a doubt. The scene in Eden has already been referred to. But this is not all. No one, I think, can read the trial of Job, and witness the machinations of the evil one, who not only appeared among the children of God, but who actually talked with Job face to face, without feeling that any interpretation which would exclude a personal Devil from this history would do such violence to language as to make all intelligible communication simply impossible. Then, there are other instances, such as tempting David to number Israel, that make it very evident that the Jews had at least some idea of Satan’s character, even before the Babylonish captivity.