PERSONALITY OF THE DEVIL.
"Resist the Devil, and he will flee from you." Jas iv, 7. UNIVERSALISTS deny in toto, that there is now, or ever was such a spiritual being as the devil, either real or personal; and contend, that all the idea designed to be conveyed by that word, is a personification of the principle of evil, in its various forms. It is applied in a metaphorical sense, they tell us, to various objects, such as human nature, the Roman government, wicked men, such as Judas, the lusts of the flesh, &c., &c., but in every case it is to be understood as a figure of speech, and nothing more. This figure was known, in days of old, and designated by many titles, expressing his character, attributes, and offices. He was called "Abaddon," "Apolion," "Belial," "Accuser," "The Beast," "The Angel of the bottomless pit," "The great Dragon," "Beelzebub," "Deceiver," "The Evil One," "The God of this world," "A Murderer," "A Liar," "The Prince of this world," "The Prince of the power of the air," "The Old Serpent," "The Devil," "The Father of lies," "The Tempter," "Satan," and "The Prince of Devils!" Rev. ix, 11; xii, 10; xix, 19, 20; xii, 7, 9; 1 Pet. v, 8; Matt. xii, 24; John xvii, 15; 2 Cor. iv, 4; John viii, 44; 2 Cor. vi, 15; 1 John iii, 8; Eph. ii, 2; Eph. vi, 12; Matt. iv, 3. He must truly have been an extraordinary metaphor, possessing doubly as many names as the Almighty himself! And I will disprove the existence of God, as a real personal being, upon the same principle precisely, that Universalists make out the devil nothing but a figure of speech—a personification of a mere principle of evil! If because Judas was called "a devil," [John vi, 70,] and Peter "Satan," [Matt. xvi, 23,] there is therefore no other devil, except Judas and Peter; then, according to the same logic, because Moses was called "a god," [Ex. vii, 1,] and Abraham lord, [Gen. xviii, 12,] there is therefore no other Lord God except Abraham and Moses! If, because God is said to perform many wonderful and mighty works, he is therefore a real being, and not a personification of a good principle; then, according to the same logic, the devil must be a real being, and not a mere personification of an evil principle, for many wonderful works, in the Scriptures, are ascribed to him. He appeared in the presence of God, and they held a conversation together concerning Job. Mark the fact: they both conversed together; and if it be consistent to say that one was a mere principle of evil, the other was nothing but a mere principle of good! Again: He caused a wind to blow down the house on Job's children, and kill them; brought the Sabeans upon Job's oxen, who took them all away; caused the fire of God to fall from heaven, and burn up all Job's sheep: and finally, he smote Job with sore boiles, from the crown of his head, to the soles of his feet. If this was all done by a figure of speech, they must have had rather a savage sort of metaphors in Job's time!! This same figure of speech conveyed the Saviour around from place to place, conversed with him, quoted scripture, fell from heaven like lightning, broke chains and fetters, had power to cast men into prison, to walk about as a roaring lion, to work miracles, to overcome seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, to bind a woman eighteen years, to possess a herd of two thousand swine, and drive them down into the sea, and drown them, is in possession of a kingdom, is to be judged at the last day, was conscious that there was a time coming, when he had to be punished, confessed Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, is finally to be tormented in the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death: and strange to tell, all this is spoken of with reference to an eastern metaphor, a figure of speech; and not any real being, visible or invisible, neither in heaven above, earth beneath, or the waters under the earth! Job i; ii; Matt. iv, 6; Rev. xiii, 13; Rev. ii, 10; 1 Pet. v, 8; Acts xix, 16; Luke x, 18; Luke xiii, 16; Mark v, 12, 13; Matt. xii, 26; Mark v, 4; 2 Pet. ii, 4; Rev. xx, 10; Matt. viii, 29. If the devil, possessing all the foregoing characteristics, and performing all these wonderful exploits, be nothing but a metaphor, a mere principle of evil, then, I defy a Universalist to prove, that God is any thing more than a mere principle of good, the opposite of evil; and that the Bible is any thing more than a mere principle of humbuggery! God and the devil are always spoken of in the scriptures as exact opposites, just as much so, as are the principles of good and evil. God is the author of truth, and the devil is the father of lies. God is the Father of light, and the devil is the Prince of darkness. Hence we read: "Ye cannot serve God and mammon;" "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil." "The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God." "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" "He that committeth sin is of the devil,—whosoever doth not righteousness is not of God." "If God were your Father, ye would love me—ye are of your father the devil." Matt. vi, 24; 1 John iii, 8-10; 1 Cor. x, 20; 2 Cor. vi, 15; John viii, 42-44. All good, as the reader can discover from the foregoing quotations, is ascribed to God; whilst the devil is spoken of as the author of all evil. Now as God is not merely that good principle, of which he is the author, neither is the devil that evil principle of which he is the author. Is the principle of evil the author of itself? If so, then the principle of good is the author of itself, and consequently all the God there is in the universe! Just as certain as God, the author of good, is a real being, just so certain is Satan, the author of evil, a real being, and not that evil principle of which he is the author. Thus, upon the same principle, that the devil can be philosophized into a figure of speech, or a personification of a bad principle, can the Almighty Jehovah be figured out of existence as a real being, and proved to be nothing more than an Eastern metaphor, or rhetorical flourish. But let us try some of the real significations of the devil, according to Universalism, such as the wicked Jews, the Roman government, Judas, Peter, human nature, the lusts of the flesh, the carnal mind, &c. The best plan of testing a doctrine, is to substitute the definition for the word itself, and see what kind of sense it makes. We shall thus give the Universalist theory of no-devil-logic a fair trial. "And his fame went throughout all Syria, and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those that were possessed with Roman governments, and he healed them." Matt. iv, 24. "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, depart from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Roman government and his angels." Matt. xxv, 41. "And when he had dipped the sop, he gave to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: and after the sop, Peter entered into him." John xiii, 26, 27. Or perhaps Judas entered into himself, since he was as much of a devil as Peter was! and of course before that he was out of himself! "Resist Peter, and he will flee from you." James iv, 7. "Be sober, be vigilant, for your adversary, Peter, as a roaring lion walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." 1 Pet. v, 8. "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold Peter hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat." Luke xxii, 31. "And the God of peace shall bruise Judas under your feet shortly." Rom. xvi, 20. "There was given me a thorn in the flesh, the messanger of Judas to buffet me." 2 Cor. xii, 7. "And he was casting out a Judas, and it was dumb: and it came to pass, when Judas was gone out, the dumb spake, and the people wondered. But some of them said: he casteth out Judas through Peter, the prince of Judas." Luke xi, 14, 15. "Ye are of your father Peter, and the lusts of Peter will ye do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth, because there was no truth in him." John viii, 44. "And he asked him, what is thy name? And the human nature answered, my name is legion, for we are many: and all the human natures besought him saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave, and the human natures went out and entered into the swine, and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and were choked." Mark v, 9-13. "As they went, behold they brought to him a dumb man possessed of a human nature: and when the human nature was cast out, the dumb spake, and the multitude marveled, saying, it was never so seen in Israel." Matt. ix, 33.66 No wonder the people would marvel, that a man could speak, after his human nature was cast out of him! "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalen, out of whom he had cast seven human natures." Mark xvi, 9. I wonder how many she had left!! "And the Lord God said unto the carnal mind, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field, upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Gen. iii, 14. The carnal mind must surely have a singular mode of traveling, and live upon extraordinary diet!! "And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand; and he laid hold on the lusts of the flesh, that old carnal mind, which is Judas and Peter, and bound them a thousand years." Rev. xx, 1-3. "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the lusts of the flesh: and when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterwards an hungred: and when the lusts of the flesh came to him, they said unto him, if thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered the lusts of the flesh, and said: It is written, man shall not live by bread alone; but by every word of God. Then the lusts of the flesh taketh him into the holy city, and placeth him on the pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written, 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. Jesus answered the lusts of the flesh. It is written, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the lusts of the flesh taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, and said unto him, all these things will I give unto thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then said Jesus: get behind me, thou lusts of the flesh, for it is written: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the lusts of the flesh leaveth him, and behold, angels came and ministered unto him." Matt. iv, 1-11. Had Christ no lusts of the flesh before the devil came to him? And after the devil left him, had he no more lusts of the flesh? "If his own lusts, or his own carnal mind, was the devil that tempted, was he not sinful? He certainly was; "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God." Rom. viii, 7. His lusts were most unquestionably sinful, if they were the devil that tempted him; for that which is holy, will not try to tempt any one into wickedness! When the Pharisees told Christ he had a devil, it was looked upon then, and has always been, by professed Christians, in all ages, as sheer blasphemy, until Universalists have recently made the discovery that the Pharisees told the truth, and that Christ had just as big a devil as any body! If the devil which came to Christ, and went away from him, was not a real being—nothing but a figure of speech; then what were the angels, which came to him after the devil left him? If they were nothing but metaphors, then how can any man on earth prove that Christ was a real being? He cannot do it, as we have two metaphors against the idea, and there is just as much reason in supposing that Christ was a metaphor, as either of the others! But if the angels were real beings, and Christ a real being, how can it be supposed, that the devil was nothing but a figure of speech, when he had fully as much to do in the performance as any of them? "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the lusts of his flesh, he disputed about the body of Moses." Jude 9. Thus, according to Universalism, a spirit had a contention with the lusts of his flesh, and the Saviour teaches that "a spirit hath not flesh and bones." Luke xxiv, 39. If Universalists, to avoid this absurdity, should prefer the ground, that the archangel did not contend with his own lusts, but with the lusts of Moses dead body; still it will not help them, for they teach that when the body dies, the lusts of the flesh become extinct; and thus the archangel was found combating some thing that had no existence, and fighting, as Paul says, like one that beats the air! "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought, and his angels." Rev. xii, 7. As the dragon and his angels were nothing but figures of speech, it is not likely that Michael and his angels were real beings! Thus, we have two mighty armies of figures, meeting in battle array on the plains of heaven, with two great metaphors at their head as commanders in chief! "And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, even the lusts of the flesh are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld the lusts of the flesh, as lightning, fall from heaven." Luke x, 17, 18. "And no marvel, for the lusts of the flesh is transformed into an angel of light." 2 Cor. xi, 14. "And when the thousand years are expired, the lusts of the flesh shall be loosed out of his prison." Rev. xx, 7. From the foregoing, we discover that the lusts of the flesh does not suit exactly, as a definition for the devil; but we shall turn the matter, and try it the other way. If the devil means lust, of course then lust means the devil. "Now these things were our examples, to the intent that we should not devil after evil things, as they also deviled." 1 Cor. x, 6. "When the devil has conceived, he bringeth forth sin." James i, 15. "You ask and receive not, because you ask amiss, that you may consume it upon your devils." James iv, 3. "Abstain from fleshly devils, which war against the soul." 1 Pet. ii, 11. "All that are in the world, the devil of the flesh, the devil of the eye, and the devil of life, are not of the Father." 1 John ii, 16. "The world passeth away, and the devil thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever." 1 John ii, 17. "The flesh devils against the Spirit, and the Spirit devils against the flesh, and these are contrary, the one to the other." Gal. v, 17. "But they that will be rich, fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful devils, which drown men in destruction and perdition." 1 Tim. vi, 9. "That ye put off, concerning the former conversation, the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful devils." Eph. iv, 22. "For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women, laden with sins, led away with divers devils." 2 Tim. iii, 6. "The time will come, when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own devils shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears." 2 Tim. iv, 3. "How that they told you, that there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly devils." Jude 18. "Flee also youthful devils." 2 Tim. ii, 22. "And they slew of Moab at that time about ten thousand men, all devilish, and all men of valor." Judg. iii, 29. Thus, according to Universalism, we have divers kinds of devils, such as "foolish devils," "ungodly devils," "deceitful devils," "fleshly devils," "hurtful devils," "youthful devils," and as all positive adjectives imply their opposites, we must also have another class, such as "wise devils," "godly devils," "spiritual devils," "peaceable devils," "old devils," &c., &c., and the Lord only knows how many more kinds of devils there are, if Universalism be true! Thus Universalists defeat their own object; for in trying to oppose the existence of ONE devil, they make out almost as many devils as there were frogs in Egypt! They thus out orthodox old orthodoxy herself! I wish here to answer a very common objection, which Universalists almost universally urge upon this subject. "Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lusts, and enticed." "Christ was tempted in all points, like as we are." James i, 14; Heb. iv, 15. Hence, the conclusion is, that the devil which tempted Christ was his own lusts. But we have examined Christ's temptation, and have found that the devil which tempted him, could not possibly have been his lusts; for it is most absurd to suppose that his lusts were away from him forty days, came to him, and before him, got behind him, and finally left him for good and all!! Hence this objection cannot be well founded. But, save one, how will you dispose of it? Easily enough! "Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lusts and enticed." But who is the tempter? Who is the enticer? Not his own lusts, certainly; for they are the principle by which he is induced to partake of the temptation, after it is presented! But who presents it? That's the point. The answer is, the devil! Is he who presents the temptation, and that principle, which leads you to partake of it, after presented, one and the same thing? Not exactly! James does not say, that a man's lust is the tempter. Here is where Universalists mistake the whole matter. Let us illustrate it. Suppose, reader, a worthless and abandoned spendthrift comes to you, and lays every possible inducement before you, to entice or tempt you to leave your work, and go with him to the "grog-shop." You resist at first, knowing that such a course of conduct is utterly repugnant to your profession as a Christian. But "your adversary, the devil," through that wicked agent, (as all wicked men are agents for the devil,) still persists in his devices, and taxes the last coffer of his sagacity, in order to lure you from the path of duty. Your old contracted love for ardent spirits—that lust of the flesh, which you had once overcome, is now excited and roused, and finally you yield the point, and are led away captive by the devil at his will! Now any man, with half an ounce of perception, can see that lust is not the tempter, or enticer; yet, when the temptation is presented by the devil, either personally, or by human agency, and we give way to it, then is the time that we are "drawn away of our own lusts and enticed." Thus would the Saviour have been tempted, had he yielded to the proposals of the adversary—he would have been "drawn away [not tempted] of his own lusts;" but "tempted of the devil!!" The fact that Christ had all the lusts of the flesh before the devil came to him that he ever had, and that he retained them all after the adversary left him, ought to be of itself sufficient to convince any man, that the devil which tempted him was not his lusts; and this being so, it follows that the scriptural doctrine of the devil is against Universalism; although the devil himself may be in favor of it!! In conclusion we remark, that there is not a text in the Bible, which speaks of the devil as being the lusts of the flesh; no, not one! But suppose there were a text, which figuratively applied the term devil to the lusts of the flesh, if this proves that there is no real personal devil, and that the lusts of the flesh is all the devil there is, then it follows, according to the same logic, because Paul says concerning some fellows, who were the enemies of the cross of Christ, "Whose god is their belly," [Phil. iii, 19,] that there is therefore no other God in the universe except the belly! If this was all the God the Bible held out, methinks that Atheists among Universalists, would be scared—Universalism against Itself pp. 252-261.