, 1875-12-20

.eo to I,s.t.,i traye!crs tho erection Of cross
pn Tint +;ot Mas considered tho hest notice tn
anti that ttul he rerrcd OH lis hiEhnena. pnit
H. tin. II, t.-Enne dayY eo,nA wcrc ready to de-
atc that tIrr lInl Hcrn tho Dovil. n1rl TINT they
sTraric;l asY further ,ntc,yiows With him for hi.
f,n,n was r1 lidcuua. nnIl tl;a breath emced 70
ras cp.,sisicrc, = vory hi,sy ho1s. Alus5s. in
everything lle wns Hnpposrt to hnvo n h.ni. 1io
VAS narpose'! to holr Fnnst In inyentinR tho MI
u printing. Wo hnvo heari "f tho pinter's
lM,HsA fancicd supernatural keercr. Manor.
who invented logHrlthns N fart.itato calcnn-
li"na, had !avorito Newfoundland t1os, sh,c'l
waa tho constant companion ai s'is nlsster.
20 tho brain Of tho .1o4, ratl,rs thntt to ulo
stulies ut Ills mnrtcr. and co1lshlcresl Tho
,ioDo animal mono ottTr than tho hsanmei
form Of subtle Satan. HI II van That H5hie n'li'-
noscf TINT toy had tho evidence Of their ac.G6
10 tho presence aud personality of Sasan. N"w,
NO Tia nut Ing much eLrcrs III. all that Kind nf
evidence. nni nso Inclined 10 put II to sie credit
OF rupets.itons Imagination rather thnt to n'.y
walk or work OF tho Evil Unn. Tho Hatnn Of
Srrlptnte II M. supported to hare natural lnh1r
Int is ali jnyisbu spirit aA therefore fes with
nut the range IF tho fso Hensoh; II llo cx!ht at
MI proofs Of hia oxtstcneo mutEt bo sought oa
nnolhor hakis. hut ono mny nak. might not tho
word Bhtan he n generic word. to mean nny
alscfaaty, real ur imar,naty. without surprising
it to .ir-iyuatn nh Invisible rcrfOnal owl bprlt
1t IL true that tho word Saln ~ used to dennIe
l,utna,, nelyorsary 1t il emrlnyehn |. Samuel.
XIX: i, l. k,gH, Il II. 2j rs, all In N,ln,hrrs,
xxi "a: we hhyo tho angel VI Gol called
Satan IN tho pltnu!e telso ~ a'tvorsary: also til
the wcll-knoHn caso Of Peter: Get thco. etc.,
ing elanacrer Or aco,hor. 10 hpplicl to ,]uanB-
lol,n II: H.. III three oshor places IN the New
TcBtanlcnt-1. Timothy, III: IL; II. Tiuothy. ii'
Z Titus. il Git ta used 10 Indicate human be-
ins, Of objectionable reputation. Might it mt
thon lia that ta:an or devil ia ihat n generic
word for nuy adversary or Afanloter without de-
noting my being tu pa,ticular9 Might H. not TO
that.tla tdea Of persona! ftcvi! had It's me i,
the well-known tendency OF tho mind to rn'I tho
blame Of ollr misconduct on tho shoulders 1T
so,ucbody olse - All oSr'Iaa: !: For inslasce. NO
do wrong; we wank to fra,no n, apology for our
wrong doing, mud 10 va hut un the uspcdiont OF
conjuring u, sLe itlca ot m invisible wicked be-
ing who has ,emptud us, 1od lls astray, aud who
la to bamo for our fau'la nnd falIirgs. Tho
leyii. theu, iB no nla1c Than n pcssuna,.a whom
Our fancy has created NJ MI a"o'oSy for o,tr owu
wrnnE Euoll,g 80 Tint it rcou,es less llmtliating
10 Rny tho sorpcut beEUilcd mo than to own Mp
TINT wo ourselves wcrn ottitoly to blame. Sow.
that tho ilta Of Dovil aroBp in this way II ono
thing. tLat Bu>nc ID tako advantage OF tho idea
u Devil ~ au apology for their wrong.doiug is
another. THO Doyil has broad Hllouliers; Ito
1Iueds them. There are yaly low who don't
trace III tl,eir foes to hiB door, md charge him
witt, Mi. whon rcrhnpa le was not near tlsom Mt
nj, hut in rtgiou 1u1 fath,nls deep. Slanderer
M tho Dby IT, i,e Is often s'anaorcl hi1nseif. aud
ACCUSED Of mischief mud miutlemca1,ots for which
if ho had u falr trinI there is littlo
doubt hut TINT ho could proSe MI al'oi.
j hayo grent faith in tLp doctrine at
tho APOSTLE James Every man IL tempted
when In is drawn away Of hIu o%a lrst, ani cu-
ilcal, etc.
IN tnere poreonal Devilf We return to tho
question. liow Gil, wo prove tllAt tharo tH Z
We'll. ndn1itting tint there IL csi III the world,
it Ia not unreasonable, ray sonle, to trace that
evil up to u primitive personal cauHo. Heuco
VIC have tho syksom q! Hnroas.cr, tho oil Persian
la ufn r}i4
Creators Ur.nuyd, pure eterual hight VIII tho
source Of oil purfcction. Ahrlinan. onco light.
became datkencl by envy. mil WAS tho fathor of
owl and all bad beings. III fact. n tho dualism
Vt the EibLe about fallen nugeiK. This. Of
course, ia mich distorted and tAterwoyeu with
Attlnha fat1ces. Now, TO account for cv,l. Sumo
couclutle that tlcro 1uIss ho m authot Of evil,
rupting tho first innocent l'roEenitors Of mall
hInd. Dut then 70 further back : il Tho Durij, as
xo infer from Scripture, was himself onco puro
nnd slptfesa. wllat tempted hin and tho htsss
stas fall With Him tu tho comnsAlon OF evil
Was there m older Sntan it, Heaven, M angelic
femptcr 10 wl,u.e wiles tic wicket Bpirlts owo
their full Wo don't read ~, but aro rather I'D
to infer that nugels teramn devis without al
external temptor. Evil wns tlnir own Hpou-
laneoua growth, they becasno Bclf.corrnptai
Aud 1t may DO added, II AuGols bUca,nu corrupt
mud CIVIL without q tenptor. ~ thelo any roasun
Why our first ratcnts in Edop iufgnt not also
laye becoino corrupt without tic agency OF q
personal tempting serpent II it la necessary
10 hnye Dewitt IL, accunnt for tiia fail of mhu,
why Lot necessary to have au older Devil also TO
Rccuunt for tho fall OF angelHs
To eussniu tho position tlat there is porsnnat
Devil, tho appeal must DO to Scripture. No Que
can doubt tho oxplicitncBH Of Scripture Language
OH the existence, personality, aud agency Of
Satan. Although the word Sntan and thu word
Devil mny bo found having tho general senso of
adversary aud Hlasdeser. still theae words occur
NhOte VIZ cannot ret RNay from tic conclusion,
that thoy are used 10 denote personal bong.
That ths writer's of tho Scriptures believed that
thst tlle1o ia u personal God, in oyidcnt froln
their language. Tho7 never giyo iliut tlMt
satan is an ulaGinnEy being, that tho Devil Is 10
lnoFa than figure OF epooeh OF tue porsunltica-
ila,l, thoy speak Of satnn CONSCIOUS. moral,
personal aren't, eyor netiyo iii tho B.do Of evil.
We'll. Hu.lo may nay, we admit that tln writer's
Of the scrirtures did bolicse that toro IL per-
fplIAl Devil, TINT WAS tho prevailing on,p-
ion shsn. and they wrote just as
they anil othors believed III thotr day,
stitl might il not bn Bo, that hat they meant
by sa.an wAB not just whSt others III con,iug
ascA OF ADVANCED knuwledgo wore to ,aeau By
hhtau. Ihuy meant perkunal Devil. but to ua
il in nlore conKonant with reason aud common
Hesihn to interpret batan as simply tic rnrson-
cation Of lho prlnciplo Of evil. ana thu 1nryos
tbs pnrl.osH juHt Us ,yatf AZ Il personal uuyil.
The answer IL tint e.tcIi u model Ut intetptntn-
item ~ o. Ell TO atripuA ottectlond. Appiy It 10
tiotl fnr Instance, md you rob the l}bln of
per.enat God hid nJako Him nathnR moro than
figure OF speech or tho principle of good. In
fact, oy this mode Of Interpretation you mfght
dtsest every historical character Of Ills pe1son-
atty. hntt l,aro nn!y Imaginary beings. Again,
Nv considering; satan to 10 no moro than the
principle Of nvit. how hro wo to a1p!uin the
temptation of lho SON Of G"tS Aga1,,, JesuH
speaks OF the Devil ua u murderer from tho be-
rlnninl;.-aH o ffar Rnt tho father Of 1t. How,
tbon, cau tho abstract ideh of evil 10 called =
murderer and y lut7 If IL 10 W, that we nro to
accept tue Scriptures in t,ulr rinn enforced
moaning. we aIn Taught tfat tier" il por.,,1,ai
spirit caou the bowl that ha IL rrnco Or CHEF
Of many evil s.aliss, called his nngnls; that ali
theso wera oDce bright hn.l i,ro; that they lnHt
thur Isr.t estate perhaps through rru that tho
fall in Eden was brought about by tho tun,rtn-
ton of batan; tl8t tho poyil and 4a angela uti,l
continue to tempt and lead no,s ,uso siia tl.at
thear object u 70 destroy and ruin human happl-
Ut owl. Lrt not Lsyotnl tho curbing, controlling,
restraining nrln ol tiad. Willis tho hcriut,.rea