§14. THE ORIGIN OF EVIL.

THE great question which urges itself upon the attention not only of theologians, but of every reflecting man in this world of sin and suffering, is-Whence came evil?'

Before answering this question, suppose we present another, viz., 'What is the origin of good?" The plain answer to this, in which all will doubtless agree, is, that all good comes from God; and as God's existence had no beginning, good has existed from eternity. But what if we say that a like answer may be given to the question concerning the origin of evil?-viz., that all evil comes from the Devil; that the Devil's existence had no beginning; and therefore evil has existed from eternity.

The objection to this view which most readily presents itself, is, that evil, if it existed from eternity, was unavoidable, and we cannot consistently blame the Devil and those who are evil, for their wickedness. But we as readily reply that the same objection may be made to the praise which we bestow on God and those who are good, since all admit that goodness existed from eternity. God's goodness is certainly the necessary product of his essential, eternal nature. But is he any the less praiseworthy? If we analyze our elementary ideas of moral truth, we shall find that we praise God, not because his goodness had a beginning, but for its intrinsic beauty and usefulness. On the same principle, if the Devil existed and was a sinner from eternity, we must blame his wickedness for its intrinsic deformity and mischievousness.

It may certainly be presumed, with strong probability, at the outset of all inquiry on this subject, that sin and death did not originate in God, or in any of his works. If we believe with good evidence, that he is benevolent and holy, we may safely be more solicitous to clear his moral character of all responsibility, direct or indirect, for the existence of evil, than to extol his physical greatness, by representing him as the author of all beings and acts, bad as well as good. All the proof we have that God is sincerely at war with evil, invites and requires the presumption that he has not, either by creation, by decree, or by permission, given birth to it himself. If evil did actually originate in the creation of God, by his decree or permission, then the whole warfare between good and evil which the Bible exhibits, is apparently, so far as he is concerned, only a great farce.

The way then is fairly open, and a strong presumption plainly points us to the simple intelligible theory that the ultimate cause of all evil is an uncreated evil being; as the ultimate cause of all good is an uncreated good being. This is the theory which we propose to establish.

We hope none will be deterred from an examination of what we have to say in support of this theory, by the clamor which professed theologians are always ready to raise against it, as being identical with the exploded heresies' of the Magians, the Manicheans, and the Gnostics. We might say in answer to this clamor, that many theories which were exploded' by the

wise men of the dark ages, have, in later times, been found true. But, be this as it may, it is not true that our doctrine is identical with the heresies alleged, if the common histories and reports of them are to be credited.For example, the Magians, Manicheans and Gnostics, are said to have taught that the evil being created this world; and, since creation is the distinguishing prerogative of divinity, they are justly charged with teaching the exist ence of two Gods. We are not exposed to this charge, because we have no fellowship with their theory of creation. We believe that one God created the heavens and the earth. Again, the Manicheans and Gnostics (with all the other ancient sects of Christians who taught the doctrine of two eternal principles) held that the evil being was the author of the Jewish dispensation and of the Old Testament, which of course they rejected. We believe that the same God instituted both the Jewish and Christian dispensations, and inspired the writers of both the Old and New Testaments. Instead of setting up a theory as they did, against the Bible, we have derived our theory wholly from the Bible, and shall bring our proof of it from the Old Testament as well as from the New. It must be tried therefore on its own merits, by the Bible, apart from all prejudice against former heresies of similar aspect.

The great majority of religionists--all, we think, who are not turned far aside from scriptural simplicity by their theological systems, and especially all who have had any considerable spiritual experience,-will admit, without requiring us to prove it, that the Bible recognizes throughout, the existence of a personal, spiritual, superhuman being called the Devil, or Satan, who is the central presiding spirit of the whole kingdom of evil. We are aware, however, that a portion of the Universalists deny this, affirming that the words Devil and Satan are used in scripture merely as common nouns, equivalent to slanderer and adversary, and are applied, not to a single spiritual superhuman being, but to men or bodies of men." To this class we offer the following brief argument.

Christ and the evangelists used the words Devil, Satan, Beelzebub, &c., without defining them. Of course, if they were honest, they used them in their ordinary, well known sense. What they meant by them, therefore, is to be determined by showing, not what they might have meant according to the original significancy of the words, or what they ought to have meant according to our views of pneumatology, but what they must have meant according to the common usage of speech in the age and nation in which they lived. The question is one, not of etymology or philosophy, but of history. What was the popular theory of the Jews concerning the Devil, when Matthew wrote his account of Christ's temptation? This is the question on which the whole controversy hinges; for Matthew in that account introduces the Devil for the first time in the New Testament, without a word of explanation, as though he was a well known personage. Of course he adopts a pre-existing theory, and uses the word Devil in its predetermined sense. To deny this, is to charge him with using a current word in an unusual sense without explanation, which is as bad as forgery. Assuming then that the word Devil in Matt. 4: 1, is used in accordance with the usus

loquendi of Matthew's time, we affirm that the book of Job was the source, or at least the channel, of the theory concerning the nature and power of the Devil, which then prevailed. That theory represented Satan as a personal being, having place among angels in the spiritual world; and ascribed to him supernatural power (in subordination to God) over the minds and bodies of men, and over the elements of nature. Every one of these characteristics is plainly visible in the account of Satan in the 1st and 2d chapters of Job. Moreover, it can be shown from extra-biblical authorities that the Jews in Matthew's time actually held this theory of the nature and power of the Devil, whether they got it from the book of Job, or not. Matthew used the word Devil in accordance with this theory, and of course meant by it a personal, spiritual, superhuman being. So also Christ and the other writers of the New Testament, used the words Devil, Satan, Beelzebub, &c. in their popular meaning. They did not set up a new theory, and introduce new terms. No matter, therefore, what was the original significancy or applica tion of those words; they meant in Christ's mouth just what they meant in the minds of those to whom he spoke; and we think even Universalists will not venture to deny that in the minds of the Jews they were appellations of a superhuman, wicked spirit.

Assuming then the existence of a central, pre-eminent, wicked being, called the Devil, our inquiry concerning the origin of evil resolves itself into the question whether that being was created by God, or existed from eternity. We argue the eternal existence of the Devil, from the following considerations.

I. The Bible plainly teaches that there is one uncreated person besides the Father, viz., Jesus Christ. There is, therefore, no a priori absurdity in the idea that the great antagonist of Jesus Christ is uncreated. Orthodoxy itself teaches that there are three uncreated persons, or 'eternal principles. Why may there not be one evil, as well as two good beings, co-existent with the first person of the Godhead? We see no more difficulty in the supposi tion of the eternal existence of the Devil, than in the received doctrine of the Son and Holy Spirit.

II. We find no substantial foundation in the Bible, for the Miltonian hypothesis that the Devil is a fallen angel. The idea that the person described under the name of 'Lucifer' in the 14th chapter of Isaiah, is Satan, cannot be harbored a moment by any one who will candidly read that chapter through. The prophet, foretelling the deliverance and prosperity of Israel, says:It shall come to pass in the day that the Lord shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy hard bondage, that thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say-How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. *** Hell from beneath is moved for thee, to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also be come weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under

thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?' &c. It is quite evident that this language refers not to Satan, or to an angel of light, but to a man who had exercised an oppressive dominion over the nations. Yet this is one of the main props of the common tradition.

The only other passages which are usually cited to prove the apostasy of Satan, are 2 Peter 2: 4, and Jude 6, where the fall of certain angels is mentioned. But these passages will be found on examination to afford no support to that theory. Peter and Jude mention the same events, i. e. the sin of the angels, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; and they speak of these things as if they were recorded in the scriptures, and well known to those to whom they wrote. Peter says the angels sinned, and were cast down to hell, and reserved in chains of darkness unto judgment. Jude tells us in what their sin consisted; inasmuch as he likens it to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. He says, "The angels which kept not their first estate, (or principality,) but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, IN LIKE MANNER giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, [or other flesh, sarkos eteras,] are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.' The account, and the only one which we have in the Old Testament, to which we can suppose Jude to have referred, of angels leaving their own habitation and going after other flesh, is found in the sixth chapter of Genesis, where it is said, that when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose.' Ver. 1, 2. See also verse 4, &c., where it is said that the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [giant] children unto them,' &c. This view of the meaning of 2 Pet. 2: 4, Jude 6 and Gen. 6: 1, involves no intrinsic absurdity. It only makes a breach in the theories of those who assume without proof that angels have not a corporeal and sexual nature. All the ancient Christian Fathers, and most of the Jewish Rabbins at this day refer the termsons of God' in Gen. 6: 1, to angels. Gesenius, the greatest Hebrew philologist in Germany or in the world, gives it the same meaning, and classes it with the same term in Job 1: 6, &c., without a suggestion to the contrary. It appears then, that Peter and Jude refer to a fall of angels which took place just before the flood, long after the original birth of evil in this world. They say not a word that authorizes the assumption that Satan was one of those angels: and the statement of John (1 Epis. 3: 8) that the devil sinneth from the beginning, understood in the lowest meaning that can be put upon it, determines that he was a sinner before the fall of Adam, and of course proves that he could not have been one of those angels.

6

III. As there is no evidence that Satan was ever an angel, we have no

specific account in the Bible of his creation, his original holiness, and his subsequent fall; and the adherents of these dogmas (on whom rests the burden of proof in the case, because as we have shown, the a priori presumption is against them) are left without any scriptural support, except what can be gathered from those general statements which represent God as the creator of all things, and the agent of all evil. We may refer to Col. 1: 16, as a fair specimen of this class of statements. By him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers.' Now as God and his Son existed before heaven and earth, and are not therefore a part of them, -so we believe that the Devil, being uncreated, is not a part of heaven and earth, and is not included among the thrones and dominions here mentioned. This view of the passage accords with the statement a few verses afterward, that God has reconciled all things to himself, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.' The atonement manifestly covers the whole field of creation. The same 'all things' that were created, are also reconciled. We must therefore admit either that the Devil was not created, and is not referred to in Col. 1: 16, or that he has an interest in the atonement. Our Calvinistic friends will not consent to the latter alternative; and our Univer salist friends must not assume it, till they can show that the Devil is a part of heaven and earth, which they cannot show from this passage without beg ging the question of his creation.

Such passages as Isa. 45: 7- I make peace and create evil,'-we refer to the providential government which God exercises over all the concerns of heaven and earth, whereby he determines the form and circumstances of all events, without implicating himself at all in the origin of sin. He directs the stream of evil, though he did not create the fountain.

IV. All the positive evidence which the Bible furnishes on the subject of the origin of the Devil, goes to prove that he is uncreated.

1. We learn from Gen. 2: 9, and 3: 5, 22, that 'God knew good and evil' before the fall of Adam. Evil therefore existed at that time; but not in the things which God had made, for he pronounced them all very good.'Where then did it exist, if not in an uncreated Devil? We have no allusion in all the Bible to the fall of any angels in the period between the creation and the fall of Adam. A fact so momentous must not be assumed without proof. That the Devil was the evil power which God knew before the fall of Adam, and that he was the seducer of Eve, and the father of Cain, is evident from Rev. 12: 9, Rom. 16: 20, 1 John 3: 12, &c. If he existed at the time of the fall, and was a devil then, as these texts and the whole tenor of scripture indicate, we must either conclude that God created him a devil, which is contrary to Gen. 1: 31; or that he was created good and had fallen, of which there is no account; or lastly, that he was uncreated. 2. In the parable of the tares and wheat, (Matt. 13: 24-43,) the person who sowed the tares (i. e. the representative of the Devil, as appears by the subsequent explanation) is not described as a rebellious son or servant of the owner of the field, but as an enemy,' altogether alien from his household, which is incongruous with truth, if the Devil is a part of creation.