Personality of Satan.—We determine the per sonality of Satan by the same criteria that we use in determining whether Czesar and Napoleon were real personal beings, or the personifications of abstract ideas—viz. by the tenor of history con cerning them, and the ascription of personal attri butes to them. All the forms of personal agency are made use of by the sacred writers in setting forth the character and conduct of Satan. They describe him as having power and dominion, messengers and followers. He tempts and resists ; he is held accountable, charged with guilt ; is to be judged, and to receive final punishment. On the supposition that it was the object of the sacred writers to teach the proper personality of Satan, they could have found no more express terms than tho&P which they have actually used. And on the supposition that they did not intend to teach such a doctrine, their use of language incapable of communicating any other idea is wholly inex plicable. To suppose that all this semblance of a real, veritable, conscious moral agent, is only a trope, a prosopopcia, is to make the inspired pen men guilty of employing a figure in such a way that, by no ascertained laws of language, it.could be known that it was a figure—in such a way that it could not be taken to be a figure, without violence to all the rhetorical rules by which they on other occasions are known to have been guided. A personification, protracted through such a book as the Bible, even should we suppose it to have been written by one person—never dropped in the most simple and didactic portions—never explained when the most grave and important truths are to be inculcated, and when men the most ignorant and prone to superstition are to be the readers- a personification extending from Genesis to Reve lation,—this is altogether anomalous and inadmis sible. But to suppose that the several writers of the different books of the Bible, diverse in their style and intellectual habits, writing under widely differing circumstances, through a period of nearly two thousand years, should each, from Moses to John, fall into the use of the same personification, and follow it too in a way so obscure and enig matical that not one in a hundred of their readers would escape the error which they did not mean to teach, or apprehend the truth which they wished to set forth,—to suppose this is to require men to be lieve that the inspired writers, who ought to have done the least violence to the common laws of lan guage, have really done the most. Such uniformity of inexplicable singularity, on the part of such men_ as the authors of the several books of the Bible, could be accounted for only on tbe hypothesis that they were subject to an evil as well as a good in spiration. On the other hand, such uniformity of appellations and imagery, and such identity of cha racteristics, protracted through such a series of writings, go to confirm the received doctrine of a real personality.
But there are other difficulties than these general ones, by which the theory of personification is encumbered. This theory supposes the Devil to be the principle of evil. Let it be applied in the interpretation of two or three passages of Scripture. Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil ' (Matt. iv. I-I1). Was Jesus tempted by a real, personal being ? or was it by the principle of evil ? If by the latter, in whom or what did this principle reside ? Was it in Jesus ? Then it could not be true that in him was no sin. The very principle of
sin was in which would have made him the tempter of himself. This is bad hermeneutics, producing worse theology. Let it also be remem bered that this .princifie of evil, in order to be moral evil, must inhere in some conscious moral being. Sin is evil, only as it implies the state or action of some personal and accountable agent. Who was this agent of evil in the temptation ? Was it to a mere abstraction that the Saviour said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God ;' Get thee behind me, Satan ?' Or was it to a real person, having desires and purposes and volitions, —evil, because these desires and purposes and volitions were evil ? There is but one intelligible answer to such questions. And that answer shows how perfectly untenable is the position that the Devil, or Satan, is only the personification of evil. Again : He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth : he is a liar and the father of it ' (John viii. 44). With what propriety could these specific acts of guilt be charged upon an abstraction ? An abstraction a murderer ! a liar ! The principle of evil abode not in the truth ! Seriously to affirm such things of the mere abstrac tion of evil is a solemn fiction ; while, to assert them of a fallen angel, who beg,uiled Eve by false hood, and brought death upon all the race of man, is an intelligible and affecting truth. What neces sity for inspired men to write that the Devil sinned from the beginning, if he be only the principle of evil ? What consistency, on this hypothesis, in their saying that he transforms himself into an angel of light, if he has no volition, no purpose, no craft, no ends or agency ? If there are such things as personal attributes, it must be conceded that the sacred writers do ascribe them to Satan. On any other supposition the writers of the N. T. could more easily be convicted of insanity than believed to be inspired. The principle of interpretation by which the personality of Satan is discarded leads to the denial of the personality of the Deity.
Natural History. —The class of beings to which Satan miginally belonged, and which constituted a celestial hierarchy, is very numerous : Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him' (Dan. vii. to). They were created and dependent (John i. 3). Analogy leads to the conclusion that there are different grades among the angels as among other races of beings. The Scriptures warrant the same. Michael is described as one of the chief princes (Dan. x. 3) ; as chief captain of the host of Jehovah (josh. v. 14). Similar dis tinctions exist among the fallen angels (Col. ii. 15 ; Eph. vi. 12). It is also reasonable to suppose that they were created susceptible of improvement in all respects, except moral purity, as they cer tainly were capable of apostasy. As to the time when they were brought into being the I3ible is silent ; and where it is silent, We should be silent, or speak with modesty. Some suppose that they were called into existence after the creation of the world ; among whom is Dr. John Dick. Others have supposed that they were created just anterior to the creation of man, and for purposes of a mer ciful ministration to him. It is more probable, however, that as they were the highest in rank among the creatures of God, so they were the first in the order of time ; and that they may have con tinued for ages in obedience to their Maker before the creation of man, or the fall of the apostate angels.