CHAPTER X. THE EXISTENCE AND MIRACLES OF SATAN.

I fully admit that a difficulty is involved in the idea that a being like Satan is permitted to perform actions which bear even a remote analogy to divine miracles. I have already shown that the New Testament only apparently ascribes to him a supernatural action of a very limited and special kind, differing widely from our usual conception of a miracle. I now proceed to inquire how far this limited action, thus attributed to him, if we suppose that possession was an objective fact, and not a form of madness, interferes with the validity of the attestation of miracles to the Christian revelation.

The existence of a being like Satan is alleged as constituting an enormous difficulty against the statements of the New Testament. A numerous class of writers dismiss the idea of his existence as unworthy of serious argument, and endeavour to dispose of it with a sneer. This world however contains numerous analogous cases of very evil men endowed with the highest mental powers, who have exerted the most injurious influences on others. Their existence is a fact; and the difficulties attending it cannot be got rid of by any kind of evasion. The objections that have been urged in connection with this subject are not founded on the facts of the moral universe as they exist; but on _à priori_ principles alone. It has been affirmed to be incredible that Almighty God should have permitted the existence of such a being as Satan; or if his existence is permitted, that he can be allowed to interfere in the affairs of men.

In dealing with this question it is evident that I must proceed on the supposition that I am reasoning with theists only. The whole question is irrelevant on the principles of Pantheism or Atheism, or, to put the case more distinctly, on such principles there is no greater difficulty in supposing that nature has evolved evil beings superior to men in their faculties and powers in some other part of the universe, than that it has evolved evil men, who are gifted with high forms of intelligence in this; or even that such beings should be capable of interfering in human affairs. If Pantheism or Atheism is a correct account of the facts of the universe, it is impossible to say what kind of beings nature may have evolved in the past, or may evolve in the future from her prolific womb.

But if it is once conceded that a personal God exists, who is the moral Governor of the Universe, the affirmation that the existence of such beings is inconsistent with his attributes, is only another form of asserting that the existence of moral evil is incompatible with them. The ground of its existence has been a problem, into which the human mind has striven to penetrate from the earliest dawn of thought, without ever approaching to its solution; but into this question it is useless to enter. In the present argument we are dealing with facts, and the existence of aggravated forms of moral evil in the universe is a fact. If there be a God, it must be consistent with his attributes. The real difficulty lies in its existence at all in the universe of a God who is all‐powerful and good.

But since it does exist, the existence of a being like Satan is a mere question of degree. It is an unquestionable fact, whether we can explain it or not, that many men of the worst moral principles have been gifted with the highest intellectual powers, and have been placed in positions in society which have enabled them to inflict the greatest evil on others. History is full of such cases. The most extreme forms of human corruption have been not inaptly designated as “Satanic.” If therefore under the moral government of God it is a fact that such forms of human wickedness exist; and if it is supposable, that there are other rational beings in the universe endowed with higher powers than man, how can it be inconceivable that they may differ in moral character, precisely in the same way as men do; and that some may be eminently virtuous, and others fearfully corrupt? It is clear that the difficulty centres in the existence of moral evil in the universe of a God who is possessed of almighty power, and perfect holiness and goodness. Why has He permitted it? Is its existence a necessary condition of the creation of a free moral agent? If so, might not the amount of it have been greatly diminished? The utmost light that reason can throw on these questions consists of a few very imperfect glimmerings. The fact is undeniable, that a large mass of moral evil exists, and in very fearful forms. If there be a Creator of the universe, it is plain that the present state of things must be consistent with his attributes. The only mode of escaping from this difficulty is by taking refuge in the vastly greater ones of pantheism or atheism.

Many theists, pressed by these difficulties, have attempted to evade them by endeavouring to reduce the amount of moral evil in the universe, the existence of which they cannot deny, to indefinitely small proportions, and then affirming that it will be ultimately swallowed up in the ocean of universal good. But the mere diminishing of its amount by no means solves the difficulty. The real question is, how has it come even into temporary existence? But there is also a still more grave objection to this course of reasoning. It renders it necessary that we should close our eyes to the most obvious facts. So far is it from being the case that the amount of moral evil in the world is small, that it is very large. This fact is indisputable. The whole course of history tells us that it has existed in all past ages and in very aggravated forms. To try to get rid of the difficulty in this manner is simply to close our eyes, and refuse to see it.

But not only does moral, but physical evil exist. This is another unquestionable fact, and its existence bears directly on my argument. Many and vain have been the attempts to explain it away. It has been affirmed that pain after all is no such great matter. I strongly suspect that those who have asserted this, have experienced but little of it. It is true that it may ultimately result in good under God’s government, but taken by itself, it is undeniably an evil. Do not frightful sufferings abound? Do not most painful diseases afflict our frames? Is it not possible to suffer terribly from causes quite independent of our own conduct? Is not a great earthquake a terrible calamity to those who suffer from its effects, although it may be attended with beneficial results to those who do not? Pains may be said to be useful warnings; but surely the warning might have been given without the extremity of the suffering. They are also affirmed to be the penalties of ignorance, and this may be partially true: but the ignorance is in a vast majority of cases unavoidable. It is a simple fact, that a great amount of physical suffering exists, the reason of which we are wholly unable to explain.

But further: moral evil propagates itself, and inflicts calamities on those who are not implicated in its guilt. Is it not true that men have existed both in the ancient and modern world, whose actions have inflicted the greatest evils on mankind for generation after generation? Can any one doubt that descendants suffer for the sins of remote ancestors, and children for those of their parents? Facts are facts, and they will not become less so by our refusing to look at them. The evil wrought by such a man as Philip II. of Spain, is a fact, and it has extended its baneful influence to our own times. Is not a large portion of the evils under which France has groaned, traceable to the misdeeds of two of her sovereigns? These were quietly sleeping in their graves, when the evils they had occasioned burst on the head of their guiltless successor. But it is needless to quote examples. History is one long succession of them. Whether we like it or not, the old saying is an accurate account of the moral order of the universe as it exists, “Visiting the sins of the fathers on the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” These are facts which the theist equally with the Christian must face, for they exist in the universe of that God, in whose moral perfections both believe. I repeat, therefore, that the only way of escaping from them is by rushing into the far greater difficulties of pantheism or atheism.

These reasonings might be indefinitely extended. The result which follows from them is clear, that if we attempt to reason from abstract principles to the constitution of a universe, we shall produce one utterly unlike that which actually exists. It follows, that as they cannot account for the facts of the universe, as they come under our observation, they are unsafe guides on all similar questions. Consequently they are unable to show that the existence of evil beings possessed of superhuman powers, is inconsistent with the perfections of God.

Nor is there any greater force in the objection, that if such beings exist at all, it is inconsistent with our conceptions of the divine government, that they should be allowed to interfere in the affairs of men. I reply, that it is equally inconceivable, that God should have allowed a man, to whom he has imparted the greatest mental endowments, and whom he has placed in an elevated position in society, who lived centuries ago, to exert an evil influence on the present generation. The difficulty that a powerful influence for evil can be exerted by men on those who have never seen them, and of whose existence they have never heard, is just as great as the one under consideration. Yet it is one of the most undeniable of facts, that men do exert the most powerful influence on one another, and that such influence can be exerted by generations long since passed away on those who live ages afterwards; and that it can be exerted unconsciously.

I am far from wishing to deny, that the difficulty is a real one. On the contrary, I fully admit it; and that it is one which our present faculties are unable to explain. But it is one which is not peculiar to Christianity, nor has it originated in it. The interference of superhuman beings in human affairs for the purposes of evil, would be only another form of the same difficulty.

Precisely similar reasonings to those which have been employed to prove that the existence of a being like Satan is impossible, when they are applied to other subjects, bring us into direct collision with realities. There can be no doubt, that if the constitution of the universe had been placed in our hands, its phenomena would have been very different. But our function is a far humbler one. It is not to erect a universe according to our conceptions of what is best, but to learn the order of that in which we live, and to accept facts on sufficient evidence, however strongly they may conflict with abstract theories.

I now proceed to consider the real difficulty connected with this subject, and which has been very strongly urged by the author of “Supernatural Religion.” It is this. “If it is conceivable that beings exist who possess superhuman knowledge and power; and that they are capable of interfering as the New Testament affirms, in the affairs of men, how can the performance of a miracle be the guarantee of a divine commission? May not inferior agents, who possess superhuman knowledge and power, be able to produce results which would to all outward appearance be miraculous? Might not an evil being, who was possessed of the highest intelligence like Satan, perform such actions as would be equivalent to miracles, for the purpose of authenticating falsehoods? All that such actions prove is the presence of superhuman knowledge and power; but they would leave it quite uncertain whether the power was divine or Satanic.” Such is the objection, and it demands an adequate solution.

I reply, that if we view the question merely as an abstract one, it is quite possible, if a superhuman being of high intelligence is permitted to interfere in the affairs of men, that he should be able to perform actions which might have all the appearance of being supernatural. Such results might be even brought about by a superior acquaintance with the existing forces of nature, and by a successful combination of them, without the introduction of any new force whatever. For such results we need not invoke the aid of a supernatural being. They have been frequently effected by a superior human intelligence acting on an inferior one. We all know how Columbus used his superior knowledge of astronomy, to predict an eclipse, and the ignorant natives of America mistook this as denoting the presence of a superhuman being. Such results may be always produced, when superior knowledge acts on ignorance; and such is the origin of no inconsiderable number of impositions which have been practised on mankind. It is therefore quite conceivable, as an abstract question, that as men who possess a very superior intelligence, are capable of producing results which to an inferior intelligence would have the appearance of being supernatural, without really being so, in the same manner, if Satan is supposed to possess an intelligence greater than that of the wisest of mankind, and if his interference in human affairs is permitted, he may be able to perform actions which would have the appearance of being supernatural, by a skilful use of the existing forces of nature.

But to such power there must be a limit. There are certain results which plainly lie beyond the power of any mere combination of the forces of nature to produce. Of these, many of the miracles recorded in the Gospels are instances, such as the cure of blind or leprous men by no other visible instrumentality than a word or a touch. Actions of this kind differ wholly in character from those which we are now considering. If a miracle was a more objective fact taking place in external nature, and nothing more, it might be open to question whether its performance was owing to supernatural agency, or to some combination of known or unknown forces. But the miracles with which we are concerned in this controversy, involve a great deal more than more objective facts in material nature.

But assuming, as I cannot help doing in an argument like the present, the existence of a God, who is the Creator and Governor of the universe, the question is not a mere abstract one, what a Being like Satan, if he is supposed to exist, might be capable of doing; but it becomes entirely one of permitted agency. It is plain, that if there is a God, every being in the universe, however powerful or intelligent, can only act within a certain definite sphere of operation, which the Governor of the universe has assigned to him. Within what limits then is he allowed act? Are subordinate agents permitted to interfere with the material forces of external nature? and if so, within what bounds? Can they wander over the universe at their mere will and pleasure, and interfere with its operations? How far is their interference permitted in the moral and spiritual worlds? The question before as is even reduced to one of far narrower limits. Our only direct knowledge of the existence of such an agency is derived from Revelation. The real point therefore which concerns us is, to what extent is such permitted agency affirmed in the New Testament. Do the Satanic interventions there described interfere with divine miracles as attestations of a divine commission? We have nothing whatever to do with abstract propositions or with what Rabbinical writers may have affirmed on this subject, but with the assertions of the New Testament alone.

If there is a God, it is certain that the present order of nature must be a manifestation of His will. So must be the energy of its forces in conformity with invariable law. Whatever power He has delegated to subordinate agents, must form a portion of this universal order, and be exercised in conformity with the divine purposes. It is inconceivable that subordinate agents can be allowed to break in upon it at their will and pleasure, for the general permanence of its order forms an essential condition for the exercise of moral agency. If they are allowed to do so, it must be only within clear and definite limits, which ultimately effectuate the purposes of the Creator. Such is the nature of the power which man can exert over material nature. It can only modify results, by giving a new direction to its forces. In the case of man this power is limited to the world in which he lives. In a similar manner, if beings superior to him in power and intelligence exist, their interference must be subject to definite limitations. Such is the uniform affirmation of the writers of the New Testament. Even if we take their language in the most literal sense, the supernatural interventions which they attribute to Satan, are confined to a very definite order of phenomena. In one word, the sacred writers have described Satanic intervention as limited to the world of mind; and as capable, through its action on the mind, of producing certain results on the bodily organization. To this there is one exception, the apparent ascription of a few diseases to Satanic agency. This I shall consider hereafter.

It is a remarkable fact, and one worthy of particular attention, that the supernatural action attributed to Satan in the New Testament, with the exception above referred to, is a mental one. It is through the action on men’s minds alone, that demoniacal agency produces any results on their bodily frame. No direct action on the material forces of nature is ever attributed to it. We find nothing in the smallest degree resembling the act of a demon overturning a pitcher of water. The kind of influence attributed to Satan is of a similar character, though much higher in degree, to that which one man can exert over another. One man of superior mental power is capable of exerting an influence over a weaker mind to such a degree, as almost to enthral it. We call this a species of fascination. In the New Testament the similar but mightier Satanic influence is Possession. One mind, by getting a powerful hold on another, can exert an influence on the body, as in mesmerism. The Satanic influence exerted in possession is only a more powerful one.

It is certain that the extent to which one human mind can act on another is bounded by no narrow limits; what is more, it is one which is frequently exerted for evil. It is evidently within the purposes of the Creator to permit this. Why it is allowed to the extent to which it is, is beyond our powers to discover. But the wide extent to which it not only can be, but actually is exerted, is a fact that cannot be denied. It is also an influence that can be exerted secretly. The difference between this power and that which is supposed to be attributed to Satan in the New Testament is far more one of degree than of kind; and the latter is one which is bounded by clear and definite limits. Between a Satanic possession and a miracle performed by Jesus the distinction is unmistakable.

It follows from the foregoing considerations, that the Satanic supernaturalism, which we have to consider, as far as if stands in opposition to the miracles of God, is reduced to very narrow limits. It consists almost exclusively of possession and its phenomena. No other kind of action bearing even a remote analogy to a miracle, with the single exception of the history of the temptation, is anywhere attributed to Satan in the New Testament.

In estimating the evidential character of miracles, it has been a far too common practice with those who deny the historical character of the Gospels, to keep out of view their moral aspect as an important portion of their evidential value. It has been affirmed that a miracle must be estimated as an act of power quite apart from its moral impress. The author before me even goes the length of supposing, that, if Satan is as cunning as he is represented in the New Testament, he may even turn himself into an angel of light and perform works bearing the impress of holiness for the purpose of furthering the interests of the kingdom of lies.

Such an idea receives no countenance from anything which is affirmed by St. Paul. The passage in which allusion is made to Satan transforming himself into an angel of light is as follows: “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers should be transformed as the ministers of righteousness.” It is quite clear that nothing was further from the Apostle’s mind than the idea of Satanic miracles bearing the impress of holiness as wrought in support of the kingdom of falsehood. He is simply speaking of Judaizing teachers, who claimed the support of apostolical authority, for the purpose of disseminating their unchristian views.

The idea is absurd and ridiculous, but we know that it occurred to the opponents of our Lord, who charged him with working miracles by Satanic agency. The special instance in which they made this charge was that of his supposed expulsion of demons. Our Lord met it by the decisive argument, “How can Satan cast out Satan? If Satan be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?” In a word, he appealed to the moral aspect of his miracles as a convincing proof that their accusation could only have been instigated by deliberate malice.

The same objection was doubtless urged against his other miracles, although it is nowhere stated in express terms in the Gospels. But whatever absurd beliefs may have been entertained by the learned Rabbis, they were easily met by the common sense of the people. “We know,” said the Rabbis, “that this man is a sinner.” “How can a man that is a sinner perform such miracles?” is the reply. “Whether he be a sinner, I know not, but one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.” “Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?” It is evident that the difficulties suggested by the author of “Supernatural Religion” as to the evidential value of miracles being nullified by the views which prevailed respecting demoniacal action were not appreciated when the fourth Gospel was composed, although according to this theory they ought to have been at that time in full force. But apart from the peculiar character ascribed to Satanic supernaturalism in the New Testament, the entire idea that there could have been any danger of confounding Satanic miracles with the miracles of God, rests on the fallacy of confounding a mere objective fact with an action of a moral agent. A miracle does not consist merely in the outward event, which is caused by him, but in the occurrence united with the character and purpose of the agent. The actions of holy beings must bear the impress of their holiness; those of evil ones, of the contrary. If, therefore, evil moral agents are capable of performing actions which are analogous to miracles, they cannot fail to be stamped with the evil of their characters. Such would always form a discriminating mark between Divine and Satanic miracles, even on the supposition that the latter are possible.

This precisely represents the case as it stands in the New Testament. All the miracles alleged to have been wrought by God, bear a definite impress of character and purpose. The supernaturalism ascribed to Satan is no less definitely marked. The one clearly comes from above. The indications that the other, if real, must have come from below, are equally distinct. The moral impress which the two series of events bear, is fully sufficient to discriminate the one from the other.

The attempt to distinguish between the miraculous act and its moral environment, is absurd. It has been affirmed that one miraculous act is as good as another, quite apart from the circumstances with which they are attended. Such a principle would destroy the distinction between a highly meritorious act and the foulest crime. A, for example, has killed B. The outward act may be the same; but the accompanying circumstances make all the distinction between a justifiable homicide, and a most atrocious murder. It is ridiculous to affirm that principles which are legitimate in common life become invalid only when they are applied to the evidences of Christianity. Why, in the name of common sense, may not one miracle be as clearly distinguishable from another by its moral environment, as an event in ordinary life is similarly distinguished? The affirmation, therefore, that the supposition of the possibility of Satanic miracles must invalidate the miracles of God is absurd.

Our Lord, therefore, was right in appealing to the character of his works as affording a conclusive proof of the source whence they originated, and in contrasting them with the species of supernaturalism which was popularly attributed to Satan. “How can Satan cast out Satan? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works, that ye may see and believe that the Father is in me and I in Him.”

This is conclusive reasoning. It is only possible to darken the question by treating it as one of bare possibilities, as to what kind of actions a being like Satan might be capable of performing, if he is allowed to interfere with the arrangements of the universe at his pleasure. Such a supposition is foreign to the question at issue, which is whether the supernaturalism which the New Testament is supposed to attribute to him can interfere with the evidential value of the miracles wrought by Jesus. My reply is, Examine and compare the two. When this has been done, no doubt can remain on any reasonable mind that the latter, if real, are from above; and the former from below. The affirmation therefore that if Satanic miracles, such as possession, are possible, it invalidates the evidence of those wrought by God in attestation of the truth of a divine commission is disproved.

Equally invalid is the objection against a miraculous attestation to a divine commission, on the ground that such testimony can be easily imitated. I reply, that the great mass of the miracles recorded in the New Testament do not easily admit of a fraudulent imitation. I by no means deny that the art of legerdemain is capable of producing results which to an ignorant observer have the appearance of being supernatural. But this class of actions bears not the smallest analogy to the miracles recorded in the New Testament. No art of legerdemain can persuade a man who has been for many years blind to believe that he has recovered his sight, and enable him to act accordingly.

But it has been argued; if God is the moral Governor of the universe, is He not bound to prevent a being like Satan from acting for the purposes of evil in the affairs of men? This question may be best answered by asking another. Is He not equally bound to hinder evil men from exerting such terrible influences on others, even long after they are dead? Is He not bound to hinder the possibility of the bringing up of children by their parents in various forms of vice, so as to render them in after life, more wicked than themselves? Yet it is an indubitable fact that such an influence is exerted under the moral government of God. Human life abounds with such cases, which bear a close analogy to Satanic action exerted in the affairs of men. When we can fully fathom the reason for the permission of the one, we shall have made considerable progress in understanding those of the other. The case may be simply stated. There are difficulties in the moral government of the universe, into the grounds of which we cannot penetrate. These press equally on every form of theism. The Satanic supernaturalism described in the New Testament presents a precisely analogous difficulty. This therefore can form no reason why one who believes that God is the moral Governor of the universe, as it now exists, should reject Christianity because the difficulties are of a similar order, and press equally on both. The only escape from them, as I have already said, is the inevitable position assumed by atheism, or pantheism, and the dreary prospect which they afford to the aspirations of the human mind.