THE DEVIL- Chapters 1 & 2

The field of inquiry is thus limited: let care be taken in its examination. The passages are: -

Matt.	4v 1	Luke	8v 12	1 Tim.	3v 7	1 John	3v 8
	4v 5	John	6v 70		3v 11		3v 8
	4v 8		8v 44	2 Tim.	2v 26		3v 10
	4v 11		8v 2		3v 3	Jude	9
	13v 39	Acts	10v 38	Titus	2v 3	Rev.	2v 10
	25v 41		13v 10	Heb.	2v 14		12v 9
Luke	4v 2	Eph.	4v 27	James.	4v 7		12v 12
	4v 3		6v 11	1 Peter	5v 8		20v 2
	4v 6	1 Tim.	3v 6	1 John	3v 8		20v 10
	4v 13

What, then, is the word rendered “devil” in these passages? It is diabolos. What does this mean? It is derived from diaballo, this itself being compounded or made up, of two words, dia - through, and ballo - to strike, to pierce (as with an arrow): diaballo, therefore, signifies to pierce through: and as, when a man’s character is attacked by the false charges of another, his character is pierced through, this word diaballo means also to calumniate, which is to pierce through with the darts of calumny. And, as the idea of this calumny implies that the accusations are false, the term diabolos means false-accuser, a calumniator. The proper meaning of the word diabolos, is, therefore, false-accuser, calumniator; the improper meaning is “devil” - this improper interpretation having been first given by the translators of the Scriptures into Greek; a rendering Leigh* remarks, “nowhere else sampled (i.e., so used) in any Greek author.” The derivation of this word thus proves that false-accuser, calumniator, is the correct translation.

Additional evidence that “false-accuser” is the correct translation of diabolos is afforded in the occasional use of the proper meaning of the word in the common translation. A few passages may be noted. Paul, in writing to Timothy respecting the wives of deacons, observes, “Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things,” 1 Timothy 3v 11. The phrase, not slanderers, is, in the original, me diaboloi, “not devils”- that is, if the proper meaning of the word diabolos is “devil.” The translators here were obliged to translate the word rightly: for the same subserviency of mind that caused them to obey the audacious mandate of King James to translate the word ecclesia, church, and not assembly or congestion, which is its proper meaning, would operate in making them avoid giving offence to the fair sex, which they would have done had they rendered the word diaboloi, “devils.” Their gallantry, perhaps it was, made them do right. This, then, is passage the first where the proper meaning has been given.

Paul, in writing to Titus, uses the same expression: “The aged women, likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false-accusers,” Titus 2v 3. The phrase rendered “not false-accusers” is me diabolous, “not devils” - if devil be the proper meaning of the word diabolos. The translators, however, have here again, by the undoubted application of the term to women, been obliged to translate the word properly, and have themselves thus afforded a second evidence that diabolos means false-accuser. (We need to remember that the translators for King James were under strict command to follow and translate words within specific “ecclesiastical” and hierarchal basis (and bias), plus they were also operating from a predetermined mindset concerning certain doctrinal positions that were to be maintained. In other words, they were not free to start without pre-conceived notions when translating, as you, the reader, are at this time-IoG.)

A third passage, confirming this as the proper interpretation, is the following: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy. Without natural affection, truce-breakers, false-accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away,” 2 Tim. 3v 1-3. Here the word, correctly rendered “false-accusers,” is diaboloi, “devils” - that is, if “devils” is the proper interpretation - the interpretation given to it in thirty-five other passages in the common translation. But it is not the proper rendering: the proper translation has been, given in this passage, thus affording a third confirmatory evidence that “false-accuser” is the meaning of the word diabolos. (If one were to think that “devil” is acceptable, then may we present this consideration: Substitute “devil” in the preceding verse and one must willingly acknowledge that any human being displaying such conduct as described by Paul would literally be one- a devil! Of course, that would negatively effect the justification that forms the very basis of what is taught and upholds the popular teaching concerning an evil spirit being called the “Devil.”)

In all the passages thus quoted the word is applied to human beings, and not to any supernatural, invisible beings - a fact well worthy of being noted.

The question here occurs, if the phrase “false-accuser,” or that of “slanderer,” is the proper translation in these passages, why should not a similar rendering be given throughout the Scriptures? Why should the Translators, or, more correctly, the Revisers of the Scriptures, not have rendered the word uniformly throughout? The answers are left to be supplied by the common-sense of each inquirer.

It will be seen from the preceding remarks that false-accuser, slanderer, calumniator, is the primary meaning, and, it may be added, the proper meaning of this word diabolos, a meaning which has this advantage, that all can understand it; a statement which cannot be made in reference to the word “devil”; for does any one, adopting the common notions, understand what the “Devil” is? Do any two people agree on his character, his existence, his attributes? Seeing, then, that there is a simple meaning, and seeing there is a mysterious meaning, can it be proper, can it be advantageous, to substitute a word which has no definite meaning for one which has a fixed, a practical meaning?

To proceed in the investigation it may be inferred that, as all truth is harmonious, the introduction of the actual meaning of the word diabolos in those passages in which, in the common translation, it has been represented by the word “devil,” will render the passages themselves much more intelligible and practically useful.

These passages may now be considered with this idea before the mind.

Jesus had been declaring some of those great truths which certain of those who followed him were “not able to hear,” so that “from that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him,” John. 6v 66. Their self-love ruling wrongly in their natures deceived them, and hence they falsely accused Christ of deceiving them, and so forsook him. Their departure afforded Christ an opportunity of asking the twelve, “—Will ye also go away?” Then Simon Peter answered him, “Lord to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son, of the living God,” John. 6v 67, 68, 69. To this rejoinder of Simon was the distressing information imparted by the Lord: “Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” John. 6v 70. The language is plain in its application. The Saviour is speaking to twelve men, and one of these men, he stated, is a devil? No- he does not so say. The Common Version makes him thus to speak, but the real expression which Jesus used was, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a diabolos,” a false-accuser. This is what he says; and illustrative of the point of view in which the disciple referred to is a false-accuser, the form is pointed out in which the character was made manifest: “for he” (Judas) “it was who should betray him,” John. 6v 70 - pierce him through by false accusation. That diabolos in this passage means “false-accuser,” and not “devil,” is further evident from this, that if it means “devil,” then Judas was a devil: for it is said, “He spake of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon,” John. 6v 71; and Judas being a man, a devil must therefore be a man. This conclusion, which at once would overturn the common idea of the devil - that he is a supernatural being — cannot be got rid of except by doing justice to the word diabolos, and rendering it by the word, properly expressive of its meaning, namely, “false-accuser.”

The next step in the betrayal of the Christ still further demonstrates that “false-accuser” is the proper meaning of the word diabolos, and that therefore the introduction of the word “devil” into the passage detailing such step, is incorrect: “And supper being ended-the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him,” John. 13v 2. This passage, many think, argues strongly in favour of a literal “devil,” because, it is said, that “the devil having now put into,” or entered, “the heart of Judas.” But it is quite clear that this cannot be literally true, for no “Devil” could put anything into the heart of a person (Please consider what is said by the author here. Those who wish to believe in a supernatural Devil will at first object to the author’s statement, but wait, stop, and consider. If the “Devil” could put anything it wanted into your heart and anyone’s heart- to do evil, then it already has and no one will ever want to love God, or obey God, or come to God, etc. Any such desire would immediately be thwarted by the Devil. Also, this would make the Devil more powerful than God, a non-sensical position [atheistic] for one believing in God.); and, it is further evident that if a “devil” is to be regarded as a distinct being, Judas was a “devil,” for Jesus called him so; and how could one “devil” enter into another “devil”? and, what is more difficult still, into the heart of that other “devil”; which must have been the case if Judas, already a “devil” (“one of you is a devil”), had a “devil” entered his heart. (Not to mention that if such were the case, we would still have a problem with such an “understanding” due to its equivocation of terms, which, in turn, invalidates such a premise as well.)

But if it is understood that the word “devil” represents not only a human being who falsely accuses, but the state of mind whence false accusations arise: that, in other words, it represents a ruling, active, selfish, accusing state of mind, which, entering a man - that is, gaining rule in, or possession of, his mind - creates in the man those mental states by which the man, as a false-accuser, manifests himself, the matter becomes quite clear, and all contradictions cease. The narrative then informs us that Judas, who, ere the betrayal, was a false accuser, at last became so much the servant of the self-love principle, the accusing his master principle, as to be subject to its dictations, and to become a slave in carrying out its behests.

Vicious plans, confirmed vicious habits, are not produced in a moment. The selfish desire works a long time before it comes to its development. A vicious state of mind works insensibly oftentimes before the vice enters the heart of the man - that is, before it is so influential as to break forth into positive acts. Such was the case with Judas. He had long been in a state of mind in which he falsely accused his master: mark how he grumbled respecting the ointment used for the anointing of the Christ (“–for he kept the bag”): but before this state took the form of betrayal, of positive act, various barriers had to be overcome. These were overcome, and then the false-accusation-state-of-mind, diabolos, entered and possessed him.

Another passage in which the word diabolos occurs, and is translated, but improperly so, “devil,” is the following: “And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus: which was with the deputy of the country. Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then Saul (who also is called Paul), filled with the Holy Spirit, set his eyes on him, and said, O full of all subtilty, and all mischief thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right was of the Lord?” Acts 13v 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

What does the whole narrative prove? That Elymas, not content with his sorceries, falsely represented to Sergius Paulus the doctrines which Paul preached, and which Sergius Paulus had believed. What followed this false accusation of Paul? Paul, the account states, set his eyes upon the false-accuser, and said, “O full of all subtilty, and of all mischief, child of calumny, enemy of all righteousness.” There is no authority in the original for the word “the” which, in the Common Version, precedes the word “devil,” so that if “devil” were the proper translation, the passage ought to be “child of a devil.” But “devil” has no business in the passage at all: Paul charges Elymas with calumny, and personifies him as a child of calumny, just as we say of a wicked person, he is a “child” of vice.” (We might comment that this type of expression- “child of ….” has largely gone out of popular use today, although one may still at times hear it said that “so and so is a child of God” or the like. However, it was popular and common throughout much of the 20^th century and at least as far back as King James.)

This exact sense of the word diabolos, namely, as embracing the utterer of false-accusation, develops the force of another passage in which Jesus, after being falsely-accused by the Jews, charges them- John. 8v 44- “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye do” -that is, you adopt the character of a false-accuser in calumniating me: ye, as such, are the children of this state of mind. You, in mind, are led away by the accursed disposition of falsely-accusing: ye are the children mentally of the false-accuser, and being so, your mental perceptions manifest their parentage. And the destructive character of this falsely-accusing state of mind, of this slaying by calumny all that is excellent, of this giving false views of the character of God, is exhibited by the passage in question; John. 8v 44 - “He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because truth is not in him: when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it.” So that when the mind is in this state, truth is not present: it is banished: the mind generates lies: it murders truth. This selfish state slays the man, defacing the likeness-to-God state: and this, from the very first, when it gained the mastery.

Another passage in the Common Version in which the phrase “the devil” occurs would be beautifully expressive, truly natural, if rendered according to the proper interpretation, “false-accuser.” Paul is recommending the Ephesians to perform all the social duties in such a way as to give no cause of complaint to any one, not even the most captious; to those anxiously looking for opportunities to charge them with offences: Eph. 4v 27- ”Neither give place to the false accuser” (tou diabolou) - that is, give no opportunity to any one who would be glad to charge you with offences against the law. And that Paul refers to a human, and not to an invisible, enemy, is proved by the context, where offences are referred to that are objects of notice by the civil magistrate before whom the false-accuser, but not the “devil,” would be happy to have the opportunity of taking the believer: “Let him that stole steal no more; but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.”

Another passage in which the word diabolos in the Common Version, rendered “the devil,” would, if rendered “false accuser,” exhibit the sense in its beautiful simplicity, is, “And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These things saith the first and the last, which was dead and is alive; I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty (but thou art rich), and the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried: and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life,” Rev. 2v 8, 9, 10. It is quite certain that the “devil,” an invisible agent, could not cast them (that is, human bodies) into prison, but a diabolos, a false-accuser, by branding them with charges before a civil magistrate, might obtain their committal: and that such a false-accuser, or such false-accusers, are human beings, is proved by the preceding verse, wherein they are described as “Jews, and are not, but are the Synagogue, or the assembly, of the adversary” (tou satanas - the Translators have left out the tou “the,” which is before “Satan,” which latter means adversary). The passage, therefore, will appear in its clearness when the word diabolos is rendered according to its simple meaning. “Fear none of these things, which thou shalt suffer: behold, the false-accuser shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried.”

The tou diabolou occurs in two other passages, in which it is rendered in the Common Version “devil,” where, if rendered false-accuser, the sense would at once become apparent. Paul is describing the qualifications of a Christian bishop: one he particularly details, 1 Tim. 3v 6 - “Not a novice;” and the reason is given, “lest being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil.” The condemnation of the devil of orthodox belief would never be associated with the lifting up with pride; such lifting up would, according to the common idea of the Devil, be pleasing to the Devil. If it be said that the condemnation is that into which “the Devil” fell, the answer is, that condemnation must first be proved.

The words are krima tou diabolou; the term krima means legal judgment, hence our word “crime”, which is applied to an offence of which the civil magistrate takes note. Paul therefore means, that being lifted up with pride, the novice might act in such a manner as to, render himself amenable to the critically exercised judgment of the false-accuser. That Paul refers to no invisible being, but to men, by whom the bishop is surrounded, is proved by the following passage: 1 Tim. 3v 7 – “Moreover he must have a good report of them that are without” (i.e., men of the world), “lest he fall into reproach and into the snare of the false-accuser”; rendered “devil” in the Common Version.

The same idea of a human “false-accuser” is conveyed in other passages where the word “devil” is improperly given in the Common Version. Thus, Peter writes (I Peter 5v 8). “Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” This passage is very commonly quoted to prove the existence and the power of the Devil; but that the phrase diabolos refers to a human false-accuser is settled by the phrase definitive of- and preceding it, namely, “adversary.” The word for adversary is antidikos, which means an opponent at law (To attribute this term to be a reference to “Satan” is illogical as the popular “Satan” could not possibly be an opponent at law, since “he” is believed to be a lawless one. “He” could be, if “he” were as believed, “an opponent of law”, or perhaps, “an opponent outlaw”, but he cannot be, in keeping with the language, context, and grammar, “an opponent at law”. Therefore, this needs be a reference to another human, or human system- society- IoG). Peter, therefore, is referring to the necessity of believers so shaping their conduct as members of society, that the opponent will have no opportunity of charging them with any violation of the law of moral duty (for dike, a part of the word antidikos, means “moral rectitude”) before the civil magistrate. How much more simple would this passage be if rendered, as it ought to have been, “Be sober, be vigilant, because your opponent, the false-accuser, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”

A somewhat similar application of the term diabolos is found in James 4v 7, where we read: “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” James teaches submission on the one hand and resistance on the other: to God, submission of mind; to the utterer of false-accusation (or, it may be, to the falsely-accusing state of mind possessing one’s self for the time being) resistance, when “the diabolos will flee.”

Another passage in which the word diabolos occurs, and is translated “devil,” is the following: - “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the Lord rebuke thee,” Jude v9. The proper meaning of the word diabolos here is “false-accuser”; and, that Michael, the chief messenger, and also the false-accuser, were individual human beings, will be shown in the remarks to be made hereafter on the word “Satan.” ( OK- just so you don’t have to skip ahead and try to find out what the author is referring to: Jude was referring to a prior situation in scripture found in Zechariah- IoG)

In the Revelations are three passages in which the word diabolos occurs and is, in the Common Version, translated “devil,” but in which it refers to a false-accuser, and not to an invisible supernatural agent. The demonstration of this view will require the force of the word Satan to be understood; and, therefore, these three passages will be dealt with when “Satan” is examined.

The last passage now to be referred to in which diabolos, rendered “devil” in the Common Version, means, and ought to have been rendered, “false-accuser,” is that where Paul, addressing the Ephesians, says – “Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil,” Eph. 6v 11. A previous warning of the Ephesians by Paul against the false-accuser has been already noticed; and in this passage he notices the means by which they can successfully resist all the cunning methods (methodeias) of the false-accuser. The means are the “whole Armour of God.” And the necessity of the whole, and not a part, of the armour, is evidenced by the number of enemies with which the false-accuser of the believer is leagued: “For,” adds he (verse 12), “we wrestle not against flesh and blood” - that is, against our own selfish desires and our natural feelings - “but against principalities” (archas - i.e. civil rulers) (For more on this and its (their) ultimate fate see: What in the World are “All Things”? elsewhere on the Israel of God site. www.israelofgod.org/allthings.htm ), “against powers” (exousias - i.e., authorities), “against the rulers of the darkness of this world” i.e., against those who rule merely, and by means of, the dark ignorance of the age (aion) (“world” is “age”- not the planet Earth. If this were a reference to some supernatural spirit being or beings, then it would not be just this “age”, but all ages. Paul directed his comments against those presently at work who ruled in darkness and not the illuminating ways of God- IoG), and who, therefore, hate the religion of Christ, which is light. Not only against these has the disciple, who follows the commands of Christ, to fight, as Paul says, but, in his profession and practice of the truth, he has to fight against foes more deadly - the abominable superstitions and priestcraft systems, which cunning knaves have introduced into matters relating to heaven, even into Christianity itself, “against spiritual wickedness in high places,” or, as it may be translated, “against the spiritual things of the wickedness in the heavenly matters.”

It is true that many may prefer the peculiar un-meaningness and mystery of the passages as rendered in the Common Version; and they may find such obscurity useful in enabling them to apply the phrases to some mystifying beings in “the world of spirits.” “A thief cries, ‘Stop thief?’ - so the ecclesiastics, knowing that as long as the people think that this spiritual wickedness in high places means something going on in a world which none can see, think they can assert what they like as to this wickedness; and, in addition, they know that the people will be thus diverted from examining what is going on in this world which they can see, and will thus be prevented from discovering, by comparing with the original Scriptures, the gross and blasphemous pretensions and wickedness of these ecclesiastics in reference to the traditions and commandments of men with which they have sought to defile the minds of believers.”*

Paul, in this memorable passage, informs all believers that, if they do their duty, they have to fight, with Bible weapons, against the improper activities (for there are proper activities) of their natural feelings; against the institutions of the civil rulers, when they are opposed to the love of the neighbour and to obedience to Christ, as they often are; against those authorities in law and in opinion that are counter to the glorious truths made known by Deity; against those who live on the ignorance of mankind, making use of the darkness to set people against people; and, finally, against those enemies - the worst of all - who, by virtue of what they term “apostolic succession,” have, in matters relating to the Supreme, and to man in relation thereto, introduced a system of arrogant pretensions respecting their exclusive rights, and who, besides indulging in solemn mummeries in their half-pagan ceremonials, and priestly jugglery in their creed manufacture, have produced cunningly-devised fables which make those truths which are, as Cowper writes,

“Legible by the light they give,”

so obscure, that men have been obliged to go to these spiritual lawyers for an interpretation of the Divine Code; and a prosperous trade have they driven upon their assumed right of interpretation of the Divine Code; and a prosperous trade have they driven upon their assumed right of interpretation.

Considering that the believer has to combat all these foes; considering that the false-accuser presents so many forms; considering that these enemies are so numerous, and their interests so clashing with the love-neighbour principle; and that the false-accuser, urged on by these enemies to a constant watch, would hail any false step by which the believer might fall into the power, not of the “devil,” but of this false-accuser; well may the believer remember the words of Paul, and, in order to “be able to withstand the wiles of the false-accuser,” put on, the whole, and not a part merely, of the armour of God.

Diabolos is, then, a False-Accuser.

CHAPTER 2

Topics: Man possesses a threefold nature. The opposition between the institutions of society and the commands of Christ. Submission of self. Means to obtain this submission. False-accusation state of mind. Passages illustrative. Parable of the tares. Parable of the sower of the seed. The misintroduction of the Devil into the Old Testament.

MAN has three departments in his constitution, an animal, selfish in its tendencies; a moral and religious, or spiritual, universal in its tendencies; and an intellectual, operative in the formation and communication of ideas. The institutions of society are, in general, appeals to man’s nature; they patronise self; they give nutriment to self; they draw forth the abundant and destructive fruits of self. The religion of Christ, on the other hand, appeals to man’s moral and religious nature; it cultivates universality of feeling and the love-neighbour principle; it draws forth the fruits of kindness, of mercy, of justice, and of true humility God-ward. The distinction between the institutions of society and the requirements of the truth is forcibly depicted by the great teacher: “Ye have heard that it bath been said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it bath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.’ But I say unto you, love thine enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you, That ye may be the children of your Father (Note: “children of … does not make the child God or a ‘devil’, but merely reflects the conduct of the ‘child’ – individual believer- IoG) which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain, On the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect,” Matt. 5v 38-48.

To act in accordance with these commands of Christ requires the subjugation of self-requires not the destruction, but the control of self. To do this, man must have some motive, and that motive must be very powerful- both because his selfish nature is peculiarly strong, and because the institutions of society have a constant tendency to foster its development. What, then, is a motive sufficiently powerful? The belief that “God exists, and that He becomes a rewarder of those who are diligently seeking Him” after the fashion set forth in the revelation of the secret (“mystery”) of “God all in all” (I Cor. 15v 28) “made known for the obedience of faith among all nations” by Jesus and his apostles (Rom. 16v 23); such a belief will enable a man to overcome himself, and thus approach towards the perfection of God.

The love of self - the natural state - leads one to act in harmony with his selfish nature; to become its slave; to believe that God is a hard master, gathering where He has not strewed; that He is a revengeful God, who seeks His own sovereign will and pleasure, and has no regard for man; that He has left man to struggle, as well as he can, through the turmoils of life, and to take care of himself; and that the subduing of the animal nature is taking a great deal of pains for no purpose; and that to aim at the perfection of God is all a mistake.

These latter states of mind, too common, and often boasted of, are states in which God is falsely accused. Those who act under these states falsely accuse their Maker by refusing to believe that that which He commands is for their good rather than for His. They become diaboloi (plural), false-accusers of God: and the term diabolos can be transferred from the individual to the state of mind of the individual. In such sense, namely, as indicating a state, a falsely-accusing state, this word is frequently used in Scripture.

This disposition of mind, this falsely-accusing state, being in opposition to the higher (the-likeness-to-God) possibilities of man’s nature, is subversive to happiness, which is the fruit of these higher principles. This state punishes its possessor. It creates a fire that burns within; a worm that dieth not, continually gnawing at the happiness and peace of its possessor. Those, then, who gratify this selfish state, who falsely accuse God by refusing to believe His promises, and who, from this disbelief, do not exercise what He commands, namely, the kindlier feelings of humanity, and the love-principles of Christianity, for fear they should lose thereby; who will not sacrifice to heaven for fear that heaven (though heaven has promised to repay) should not repay them for the sacrifice; and who, in so neglecting to sacrifice, will not feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, lodge the stranger, clothe the naked, or visit the prisoner, do, as plainly as, possible, by their conduct falsely accuse God, and the arrangements of His divine wisdom.

To such responsible persons, our Saviour, the judge, will say, stationed, as they will be, in the place of inferiority, the left hand, “Depart from

SIN AND ITS SOURCE

THE DEVIL

CHAPTER 1.

THE DEVIL

CHAPTER 2