The daily morning journal and courier., 1898-12-19
DIFFERENT VIEWS OF EVIL
SERMON BY REV. ". F. DTCKERMAN
 YESTEEDAY.
The Theory of Moral Obiigation-Fau1ts of the Theory-Reincnrnati Views Held by Mystics-ReaIism the Normal and HeaIthfuI Attitude.

~N~~
 and HeaIthfuI Attitude.
 At the Church of the Messiah yester- day morning the pastor, Rev. w. F. Dickerman, preached an able sermon on the Problem of Evil" the sermon be- ing the conclusion of a series of ser mons on that subject. He said in sub stance:
 We come now to consider the theory which makes evil an incident of free will This brings God into the case, The view previously discussed held evil to be an incident of evolution in the natural order, the less perfect an inevi- table stage in the development of the world; that, quite aside from Provi- dence, all things are limited in adapta- tion and liable to pain or dissolution in their very constitutions. But now we come to a theory of moral obligation. Man must choose Between right and wrong and take the consequences of free will. In many minds responsibility rests not upon God, but upon the crea- lures in whom He has framed moral sense.
 Experience does not find exact justice in this partial view of responsibility, for the innocent are often the greatest sufferers. Hence we are left with very large residuum of evil which will not yield to the human free will theory. The entire view is relieved when we consider that there is only one absolute will in the universe and that is Gods. Mans will is finite, limited-a will free within certain boundaries; that an om- niscient being is responsible for his fin ite, conditioned creatures. Infinite wis dom, goodness and power, having end- less resources, must have ethical char acter, sustaining logical relation to the creatures who were mere automa- tons, having no conscious choice in as suming a responsibility fraught with danger of unspeakable i'll.
 So if man shall be placed in position to choose a way, God must be ethically involved in that way so as to have a care for the results. To pit a finite will against an infinite will and place all the accountability on the side of Gods poor, weak, inexperienced child is to make God totally depraved.
 Another theory used to cover the in- applicable cases of evil is that of rein carnation. Fanciful as it seems, there is much worthiness in it.. It does credit to the human heart. It holds that pain comes only of desert, is justly due the transgressor. No one suffers in vain. He has sinned sometime, maybe, in a previous state of existence, and is now working out his penalty.
 Thus he is purged of his Karma, and begins life on a higher plane. This the ory would seem to accord with univer- sal justice, and is entitled to respect at least
 Among mystics is a growing habit to poetze away the whole problem by either representing evil as an undevel- oped good or by transcending it in thought and practice-rising above it, as they say.
 Then another school of mystics fatly deny it's existence, calling it an error of the mortal mind, as if error were not itself an evil. Thus both these classes of mystics ignore the problem as enti- tied to consideration.
 The normal and healthful attitude to the existence of evil is that of realism to admit the fact of life and accept the ordeal of experience. The rational view is to behold the Providence in all these seemingly ontoward phenomena as not exceptional, but normal. To seize up- on reality and make it minister to use full ends is true philosophy. After re- viewing all theories we must know that any other arrangement of things in a limited and changing system is incon- ceiYable.