(p.55)

LESSON IV

 

EVIL AND ITS REMEDY

 

            THE following discourse is in answer to numerous questions concerning the Devil, evil spirits, demoniacal possession, obsession, causes of insanity and many subjects of like nature concerning which we have been literally deluged with inquiries. We trust the reader will find in the next few pages a reasonable exposition of our view of evil and its remedy.

 

            That belief in an outside devil or in some evil spirits exterior to man, is widespread none will deny, and that there is, in a certain sense, valid ground for supposing the existence of extraneous diabolical agencies scarcely needs arguing; at the same time we can not see how any theory of a personal devil can help to solve the great problem of the ages, the mystery of seeming evil. The very watchword of metaphysicians is,” All is good; there is no evil,” and so startling is this affirmation to the ears of many, that, having heard it proclaimed, they turn away in resentment from the only system of thought which can possibly explain the riddle of existence in harmony with the idea of infinite love and wisdom as supreme in the universe.

 

            Now, very many orthodox or semi-orthodox persons who can not endorse Calvinism with its frightful doctrine of election and reprobation, endeavor to explain

(p.56)

the existence of evil in man by reference to an outside prince of darkness, who injects evil and irreverent thoughts into the human mind. They consider it fearful to contemplate evil as inherent in man. Their view of human nature is too bright and lenient to permit of their attributing evil to man directly. They therefore indulge in the subterfuge of a scape-goat, and argue front Scripture, poetry and philosophy to prove the existence of a veritable personal devil, whose manœuvers are so incessant and effectual that man is constrained against himself, and contrary to his own desires, to eschew good and practice evil.

 

            Such a theory is at once illogical, nonsensical and pernicious, as we will now endeavor, as briefly as possible, to prove, and, as believers in the sacredness of the Bible are frequently inclined to favor such a ridiculous conclusion, before directing our gaze elsewhere, we will ,take up seriatim, the scriptural narrative on which the devil theory is usually based.

 

            The second chapter of Genesis is ordinarily appealed to, to sustain the theory of the personality of the source of evil in the world, the metaphorical serpent being usually considered as his Satanic Majesty in the guise of a talking snake. This narrative, when intelligently interpreted, however, gives no sanction at all to such a theory; on the contrary, it completely refutes it. Four characters are introduced to us by whoever was the author of this very ancient allegory, which the Jews probably derived partly from Egyptian and partly from Persian sources. We are told of God and His divine voice, of a male

(p.57)

Adams, a female Eve, and a representative of a sub-human kingdom, who, in the form of a reptile, undertook to dissuade Eve and Adam from obeying the divine counsel, promising them knowledge and bliss as the fruit of disobedience.

 

            Now, a careful analysis of the four characters already referred to will prove to our satisfaction that these four actors are ever present on the stage of human life. God is revealed to us through our interior nature, through the moral sense or conscience, of which none are wholly destitute, though it is quite conceivable that primitive or barbaric races have little if any conception of this light. Eve, an interior principle, though not the innermost of all, stands for human affections; while Adam, the external Ivan, represents the intellect. The serpent is none other than the animal or lower self-hood.

 

            Now all these elements are intrinsically good. Evil is inverted good, and besides inverted good, there is no evil. Evil then, has no real existence; it has no fundamental principle; it is not, but simply appears to be.

 

            Inversion occurs only when the affections are led downward and outward, instead of upward and inward, at the solicitation of the animal proclivities, and thus the only devil (old Saxon de evil) there is, is inordinate self-love, which means a disregard of the monitions of the higher nature in order to satisfy the lower.

 

            This view of the serpent of temptation is at once reconcilable with anthropology and common sense. Who is there who has not felt the promptings of a higher and lower nature? Who has not felt the counter

(p.58)

influence of good and evil genii? Paul, in the seventh chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, sets forth the inner conflict with amazing accuracy. After 1,800 years the world still feels that what that wonderfully gifted Roman lawyer, Saul of Tarsus, experienced, every one experiences now, unless it be that some are so blunt, so dead to all higher impulses, that, living wholly in the senses, they know nothing of the conflict, which can not be said to rage where no contrast of the opposites is presented to the understanding.

 

            We venture to declare that there is not a child in any school or family who can not be brought up to rightly interpret the story of the fall and subsequent elevation of man, for just what every little one undergoes physically exactly corresponds to what he must pass through mentally and morally. Conflict is essential to growth; without it there could be no growth, no development of moral character. Intellectual greatness is inconceivable apart from effort, and so is moral growth.

 

            Now the symbol of the serpent is a singularly expressive and appropriate symbol of man’s lower nature, as being the most subtle of all earthly creatures, and yet a creeping thing. It suggests immediately a something at once attractive and repellent; a something good enough in its own way, and in its own place, but exceedingly dangerous when permitted to usurp the throne of the affections, and thence domineer over human intellect, using it as a servant of sense, when it should ever be the faithful follower of spirit.

 

            Serpents are mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis, in which earliest account of creation we are

(p.59)

informed that God created creeping things and blessed them. Reptiles were included in the work of the Almighty, which He blessed. The Eternal, we are told, looked with complacent delight upon primitive man, in whom were all the lower kingdoms, and the lower kingdoms themselves were pleasant in the divine eyes. Evil is in man, but what afterward appears as evil is originally good, and only becomes evil after a conscious act of inversion on the part of man.

 

            All temptation to error comes through the affections, therefore, it is said, the woman tempted man, and caused him to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. The woman Eve stands for the affectional impulses, which are the desires and wishes of our nature. Our will is not in intellect, but in affection; therefore, the old word “heart” is used instead of mind when temptation is alluded to in Scripture: “Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life,” signifies, be especially careful as to the bent of your affections, while “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh,” means that all our conversation and conduct proceeds not from our intellectual convictions or beliefs, but from our loves.

 

            Our loves make us what we are. While, in a sense, it is strictly true that as a man thinketh, so he is, it is plainer and deeper truth that as a man loveth, and therefore willeth or desireth, so he is.

 

            To deny the freedom of the human will in toto is to advocate a barbarous fatalism, so subversive of human weal as to conduce to the justification of every possible crime and misdemeanor, and surely the intent of all would-be reformers is to purge the world of

(p.60)

wickedness, to rescue the evil-doer from the clutches of iniquity, reform the sinner, and thus effectually protect and elevate society.

 

            Those who say that reverence is natural to man, while the devil is always irreverent, and make like assertions, prove themselves ignorant of the entire nature of man as expressed on earth. The spiritual or interior nature is the good genius of our human intellect, and is forever urging us to a higher and nobler state. • Reverence is our love for a superior state, and manifests the attraction which the heavens within have for the thinking and reflecting mind; while irreverence is occasioned by the seductions of the lower nature, which is always leading us to the hells or inferior states of our animal existence.

 

            When Paul advised the Corinthians to be on their guard lest the serpent which beguiled Eve also beguile them, he did not refer to a talking snake, which would be a curiosity to-day in any menagerie, nor to a snake which walked uprightly, and was afterward condemned to crawl, nor to a fallen angel who, in the similitude of an enticing reptile, parleyed with our first parents in a terrestrial paradise. He simply warned them against being led away from higher things 1w the seducing charms of external nature; and thus he told them to ever be sober and vigilant, lest the inward adversary should lead them, when off their guard, into the flowery but dangerous paths of sensuous enjoyment, when duty or moral obligation called upon them to heed a higher call and follow a diviner lead.

 

            We deny that the sensual nature is an evil nature; it is a lower nature, good after its kind, but good in a

(p. 61)

lesser degree than the intellectual, as the intellectual in its turn is good in a lesser degree than the moral or spiritual nature; it is a good and useful servant, but an atrocious and tyrannical master. Rightful subordination of the lower to the higher instincts makes man an angel, while inordinate development makes him a devil, and the only devil there is, no better definition of which has ever been given than the old Latin sentence, Demon est Deus inversus. We see then at once how in the absolute sense there is no evil, evil being a condition, a state, but not the inherent nature of anything.

 

            Infinite Good is the sole creator, and man makes evil out of good, by turning good upside down. It is then in his power to repent and be converted, and his conversion is his act which turns the good he has inverted right side up again. This spiritual truth is also, a truth of reason, and can be amply sustained and aptly illustrated by phrenology, physiognomy, and all kindred external sciences, which, like thermometers and barometers, reveal the condition of the mind whose emotions they portray. A student of phrenology places before him a chart of the human head upon which he sees delineated the various organs of the brain. In the frontal or coronal regions he beholds such words as benevolence, conscientiousness, etc., indicating the noblest propensities, but toward the base of the brain, and at the back of the head, he reads destructiveness, secretiveness, amativeness, etc. Now, if he be ignorant, he will at first assume that the utter suppression of the lower faculties, even to the point of their annihilation, is necessary to the development of a lovely

(p. 62)

character, and following this mistaken trend of thought, multitudes of self-immolating fanatics have sought in vain to attain the highest heaven hereon earth, as well as after the body’s dissolution, by torturing their lower propensities out of existence.

 

            Science and reason interpose to say subordinate, do not destroy, for the hells in man must ever be rendered subject to the heavens in man, that divine order and harmony may prevail. To rein in the lower instincts, to make them utterly submissive to higher loves, is the only way to round out a graceful and delightful character. What we call evil then is lower good, and is therefore not evil, evil in actual sense being only possible when a perverse inclination disposes one to subordinate conviction to appetite, thereby reversing the divine order which is that appetite should be subdued by reason, and intellect become the servant and exponent of the’ divine innermost in man, which is called sometimes the essential ego, and sometimes the atma in theosophical and other explanatory treatises.

 

            Now, having thus far very briefly given a glance at the serpent, who generally is regarded as the devil in orthodox circles, let us turn to the Satan in the Book of Job, and see whether we can not account for that mysterious personage without having recourse to any mythical object of medieval superstition, such as many theologians offer for our acceptance.

 

            In the Hebrew rendering of the Massoretic text (we mean that translation which is commonly used when the Scriptures are read in English, or referred to in that tongue in Jewish synagogues), the word Satan is missing, its place being occupied by the word accuser, .a word, which, in its original sense, has undoubtedly

(p. 63)

reference to the ancient idea of an accusing angel whose mission it was to arraign evil doers before the bar of divine justice. There can be but little doubt that in Egyptian and other ancient allegories the accuser was nothing other than what we are accustomed to call accusing conscience, conscience offended, which, when it raises its protesting voice, to use Shakespeare’s immortal phrase, “makes cowards of us all.” This same conscience, when it speaks approvingly, makes heroes of us all.

 

            Now, the two personages who appear in ancient allegories as recording angels are probably in their deepest ethical significance two aspects of conscience. In the first case conscience, as the approving angel, smiles on all well-doers; in the other instance this same conscience, as the accusing angel, frowns upon evil doers and evil doings. Everybody loves the approval, and hates the disapproval of conscience. Whatever conscience is, it is invariably beloved, courted, encouraged when it smiles, while all possible measures are resorted to, to deaden and silence it when it utters a protesting word.

 

            Now, in fighting against this accuser or adversary within, man is fighting against his best and truest friend, as he eventually discovers often to his own most bitter cost. Just as it is with inward conscience, or the moral sense we endeavor to stifle, should it upbraid, so it is with all extraneous influences which bear upon us and pronounce judgment on our acts. Many a man has been reduced to ignominy and disgrace by the flatteries of mistaken friends, while the bitter though wholesome tonic of adverse criticism has made giants of many

(p. 64)

who, had they been left entirely to the tender mercies of particular admirers would have been dwarfs.

 

            To learn from an enemy, to appreciate hostile criticism, to regard an opponent as a friend, is to learn a hard though much needed lesson. We may many of us pray, if we pray wisely, to be delivered from our flatterers far more than from our censors, and not only is insincere or stupid flattery detrimental to our highest interests, but too much unqualified honest admiration is apt to be injurious, as it leads us into self-complacent modes of thought and by making us thoroughly contented with present attainments, offers no spur, and holds out no inducement to future victory.

 

            Job’s adversary, Satan, proved, his best and most helpful friend. The character of Satan is not altogether charming, we must admit. The best elements in the character are undoubtedly sublime from ancient writers’ recognition of the important part, all seemingly adverse influences play in human evolution, but the darker shades are no doubt taken from those unlovely attributes of character so often displayed by those who take delight in hostile criticisms of others. Satan is not, however, despicable or unjust. There is nothing mean or contemptible about him. He evidently wants to put Job severely to the test, and after proving him at every point, shows himself incapable of hurting him, while, on the contrary, he proves himself at length Job’s greatest benefactor.

 

            There is ample room for considerable divergence of opinion with regard to Satan’s motives and intents. A discussion could easily be carried on with considerable vigor on both sides, were one to undertake to

(p. 65)

defend the character as royal and noble, while another undertook to prove it harsh and unlovely in the extreme. It stands probably for justice devoid of mercy, for a stern, uncompromising, unmarried justice, and whenever justice, appears without its consort, mercy, it is repellant and severe. We may even go far enough to say that Satan is a personification of one divine attribute, while the Lord, with whom Satan converses, is another attribute. These attributes of Deity, Justice and Mercy, are often represented as separate and distinct persons holding converse width each other. Indeed the orthodox Christian trinity has originated in many theological schools with this very highly personified description of the attributes of Deity to be met with in ancient Scriptures. God the Father is Justice, God the Son is Mercy, and the two are one. We can not, of course, accept the doctrine of three persons in one God in the sense in which the word person is commonly employed, but we can readily see how the divine justice has given the world a conception of a severe and implacable Sovereign, while the divine mercy has given the idea of an infinitely gentle and loving Savior. A broader view reconciles these attributes to each other in human thought, and a genuine atonement or reconciliation is effected between the divine attributes, so far as we are concerned, when we see them for the first time in their true relation.

 

            The whole difficulty in theological controversy has been that men will persist in arguing about oppositions and changes in the divine character and attitude, while every seeming change in God is only a reflection we behold of a change in ourselves.

(p. 66)

When Job is subjected to Satan’s buffetings, he is as much in the hands of infinite beneficence as he was before the commencement of those dire catastrophes depriving him of all his possessions, calamities apparently utterly unmerited, and therefore most difficult to understand and most hard to be reconciled to. Job shows his wisdom truly when he raises the cry, Shall we receive good at the hands of God, and shall we not also receive evil from the same divine source?

 

            A flippant critic will point to such passages as these in proof of his rabid and hasty theory of Biblical contradictions, but the careful and cautious student, the deliberate thinker, who, perusing ancient records, strives to discover how men thought about the darkest and most perplexing phases of human experience in days of old, will see in it a faithful and penetrative admission that much, if not all, that appears evil is good in disguise.

 

            It was a thought of olden days widely spread that six months in every year were under the dominion of good, and the other six under the control of evil genii. Anyone acquainted with Egyptian beliefs must be aware that the vulgar thought among the unenlightened was that out of the twelve constellations through which the earth annually passes, six were good and six were evil. The reign of the good began in March and ended in September, while the reign of the evil began with the autumnal and ended with the vernal equinox.

 

            In Persia, Ormuzd, the power of light, is represented as creating six gods. Ahriman, the power of darkness, is said to have created six also. But in Egypt, every year on the 25th of December, the

(p. 67)

victory of light over darkness was celebrated. And, the builders of that miracle in stone, the great pyramid of Gizeh, so constructed it that twice every year it should be fully bathed in the glorious light of the sun, the befitting symbol of the eternal and ineffable Deity, whose light never grows dim, and whose goodness is meted out to man as truly in the dark winter of adversity, when man’s mortal mind, symbolized by earth, turns away from its illuminator, as in the bright summer of prosperity, when that same mortal thought is in perihelion with the divine.

 

            In the Christian calendar, Michælmas day, September 29th, is a festival of rejoicing in honor of an archangel’s victory over the dragon, and it is a very impressive circumstance, deserving of far more than passing notice that such a festival occurs at the very season when the earth passes into Draco, or Scorpio, the first of the six evil signs. The intent of such a festival, when traced to its origin, is to show that in religious thought God is as much the author of what we call evil as of what we call good; that evil is only some obstacle or impediment in our way, which we needs must overcome; anti, while trials need to be surmounted, passions to be subdued, and all lower affections to be brought into subjection to the higher, the mystical Michael in us, our higher nature, must subdue the mystical dragon, our lower nature. And this lower nature is a blessing, when rightly subordinated, as it affords a substantial base on which the temple of genuine character can stand erect.

 

            The oft-rendered solo from the “Messiah,” “I Know

(p. 68)

That my Redeemer Liveth,” is one of the most exquisite portrayals of confidence in the absolute and certain demonstration of real good out of apparent evil ever written. Remember Job, to whom the words are attributed, is in the lowest depths of misery and suffering when he utters them, amid the trumpet of his voice gives forth no uncertain sound. He declares that he has knowledge that all is working for the best. Were the word hope or believe instead of know, it would be inadequate. That word know is a note of triumph. The word “Redeemer” can be translated “vindicator,” if one prefers that rendering, which is equally correct; while the controverted portion of the passage, “Though worms destroy this body, yet in (or out of) my flesh shall I see God,” is really so rich in meaning, that the two seemingly opposite translations are susceptible of a perfect harmonization. Sometimes it is in the flesh, whilst we yet remain on earth ; sometimes it is not till we are out of the flesh, or have cast aside the mortal robe, that we clearly see the divine hand in all our afflictions; but, whether in or out of the flesh, the perfect issue is not to be doubted.

 

            The common orthodox interpretation which makes this passage allude to a physical resurrection is an utter falsification of the entire spirit of the prophecy, and if those who have any doubts on this score will read the last chapter in the book of Job, they will encounter an unanswerable objection to their material idea of a bodily resurrection in a fleshly sense, as Job, after his trials were over, it is said, exclaimed, prior to physical dissolution, when addressing Deity in strains

(p. 69)

of jubilant thanksgiving, “I had heard of Thee with the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth Thee.” Second Adventism is here robbed completely of one of its chief supports. Its very choicest proof text is seen at once by any enlightened commentator to favor Swedenborg, entirely at the expense of Christadelphus, who relied on it for so much support.

 

            We must now proceed to consider very briefly the New Testament doctrine of demons which needed casting out of minds and bodies afflicted and insane. We need scarcely remind you that demon and demonology, in their strictly philosophic sense, are not words of evil import. Socrates called his highest counselor a demon, which, correctly translated, means only an influence operating otherwise than through the medium of a corporeal structure. Now every student of oriental beliefs must be well aware that the Palestinian Jews in the clays of Jesus shared the common oriental belief in evil spirits, and looked upon sick people in general, and insane persons in particular, as subjects of an infernal kingdom, of which Beelzebub was ruler.

 

            Without entering upon a dissertation concerning Bel, Belus, Baal, Belial, and all the various names given to the false god whom the Israelites were perpetually encountering in some one of its many forms as an object of idolatrous worship, we may safely conclude that as Aaron’s golden calf must have stood for mammon worship, or inordinate greed of gold and other material possessions, this infamous idol, called the prince of infernal dominions, was sensuality. The worship of this hideous monster was the disgusting desire and practice of sensuality in all its hybrid forms

(p. 70)

of degradation. When infamous idolaters sacrificed their sons and daughters unto devils, they delivered then up to the curse which follows upon depraved and depraving sensuality.

 

            If all who are striving to strengthen the moral convictions of society, and who take an interest in the young, would tell the young men and women of the present clay that their sensual appetites are the devil, that the source of temptation is in their own lower nature, that they must subdue their carnal appetites by turning their thoughts and affections in spiritual, moral and intellectual directions; if they -would but assure them that the only tempter to be dreaded is the one acknowledged by James when he says, “Every man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed,” they would do infinitely more to strengthen morality than by seeking to prove the existence of an altogether too convenient scapegoat.

 

            Devils are to be cast out, and how can they be cast out if they are not in us? They are our own impure thoughts of every kind and name, and until we engage in the work of exorcism, in the right spirit and according to the true method, we shall never be able to relieve the insane, or elevate the moral tendency of society. Sensuality in thought is the cause of demoniacal possession or obsession. Lunatic asylums are filled with inmates driven thither either through inordinate gratification, or unwilling repression of sensual appetites; and we should never forget, when discoursing on psychic influence, that we draw to us from the unseen states which are all about us whatever our desires attract.

 

(p. 71)

            Do we believe that persons on earth are ever under control of outside devils? We believe they become so related to the psychic emanations of the impure minded, that they come under the dominion of error from whatever source it may emanate. Do we believe that sensitives are peculiarly liable to come under such malign influence? That depends entirely, not ‘simply upon their surroundings, but upon their thoughts and dispositions. We attract and submit to whatever we fear or love. We can not resist what we fear or what we love. Resistance only comes with brave and determinate opposition toward what we neither fear nor love. A weak, yielding, altogether too negative and forceless habit of mind leads to insanity. Victims of mental aberration are frequently those who lack mental and moral stamina. They reflect whatever conditions are thrown around them. Indecision and weakness of will lead to insanity; while fear, as well as love of base things, brings us under the dominion of the insidious powers of darkness, which pervade the air.

 

            No moral education is worthy the naive unless it promotes vigorous activity of the higher promptings. Children need to be taught the great importance of correct thinking, and should never be left without employment and then scolded for being naughty because they have no proper occupation for brain or hands.

 

            Swept and garnished houses are no safeguards against the approach of evil, for unless we are constantly occupied with good, we fall easy prey to the seductions of any tempter who may chance to come our way. Saloons, gaming hells, and other villianous haunts, will exert no attraction over the mind of youth,

(p.72)

if, before exposing young men and maidens to the perils and dangers of a city, parents, guardians and teachers wisely direct their thoughts into channels of usefulness and purity. No disease can invade an organism not receptive to the animalcules in the atmosphere, which are repelled when the body is in a healthy, and invited when it is in an unhealthy state.

 

            Pure thought can not bat eventuate itself in purity of word and act, and no influence from without can gain an entrance, unless invited from within either by morbid desires or mental vacuity. To resist the tempter is not possible unless our minds are attuned to celestial forces, and then, with the actual, positive force of active, operative good, we can overcome all evil.

 

            Talmage and other sensational pulpit mountebanks, in their insane tirades against Spiritualism, are practically denying God and giving omnipotent power to the devil. Many of the Roman Catholic clergy, including the far-famed Monsignor Capel, are no wiser than Talmage, when treating a similar subject. Concerning the influence of the departed upon those yet upon earth, we have always stoutly maintained that the old proverb, “Birds of a feather flock together,” is literally true, and that close mental associations are impossible of continuance apart from kinship of thought and affection.

 

            If persons believe they have a work to do in elevating those in darkness, and allow mental contact for the benefit of those whom they seek to uplift, we can not conscientiously discountenance their work; but we do maintain that no error is more pernicious than that which teaches that man is a creature of uncontrollable

(p. 73)

circumstances, and therefore must perforce submit to any and every influence which may seek to gain ascendancy over him. Look for the source of evil within and not without. Fortify yourselves by noble pursuits, wise companionship, and elevating trains of thought, at those points where now you experience weakness; and when you feel some dark influence approaching you, and seeking to allure you to destruction, realize that your strength is in perfect trust and absolute confidence in Infinite Good, coupled with sincere and active effort to translate your highest sentiments into noble acts and words.

 

            When Goethe represents Faust in the clutches of Mephistopheles, he shows throughout the play or opera how deftly the seducing tempter plays upon the weakness of the student who seeks to win the earthly love of Marguerita, by any wile or artifice an adroit temptation may suggest. As a person, Mephistopheles is anyone who is desirous of rendering a service to another, no matter how unscrupulous the work in hand, if by so doing he can command a greater service from that other on his own behalf. Mephistopheles is not at all outside of humanity so far as his personality is concerned. He is to be found in clubs and drawing-rooms, at fashionable fétes and banquets; but instead of wearing a grotesque costume and protruding horns and tail, his dress is of the latest fashion, his broadcloth garments are of superfine material and of latest cut, his linen is immaculate, while a choice and fragrant flower, symbolical of innocence and grace, adorns his buttonhole; his manners are suave as suave can be, his diction most polite, his avowed morals irreproachable;

(p. 74)

he often takes a class in a Sunday-school, and sometimes mounts the pulpit stairs and there delivers an address of unctuous sanctity. He can be all things to all men, in order that he may entrap some, and thereby further his own selfish and nefarious designs.

 

            Utterly unscrupulous, he seeks his prey wherever he may find it. He is the worst type of a man about town – a polished swindler, an attractive dancer, au educated liar, a polite villain. He finds himself smiled upon everywhere, and often laughs among his boon companions at the stupidity of his admirers, who are shallow enough to promise him their earthly all in a moment of intoxication induced by himself, after he has carefully studied their weak points and flattered their vanity.

 

            Mephistopheles, subjectively regarded, is that element of selfishness, vanity, or sensuality within our breasts that gives the adventurous libertine in society his opportunity. Mothers with marriageable daughters, you may be seeking Mephistopheles as a son-in-law when you are desirous of seeing your daughters marry well, in a worldly sense. Young men of business, you are courting Mephistopheles whenever you sacrifice principle to policy, and barter your honor for money or the world’s applause. The love of money is the root of all evil. The devil is the god of gold; and he or she who loves material things inordinately is a devil worshiper.

 

            How shall we kill this devil? We can not annihilate a single particle of dust, nor can we destroy one iota of the force which pulsates in the forms of men and women, but we can transform, we can transmute

(p. 75)

what we can not and should not endeavor to destroy. Transmutation leads to glory. We may take all our lower impulses, and mastering them by the might of spirit, so overcome them in their lower sense, so transform their downward tendency, that while in their perverted state they are the occasions of our stumbling, in their transfigured form they are the faithful servants of the soul divine within us. Asceticism is a mistake. All endeavors to eradicate aught that inheres in the constitution of man must prove disastrous in its consequences, while to find the true philosopher’s stone which is capable of converting all inferior metals into gold is to find the soul within us, and so subdue our appetites to reason and our intellects to moral principle, that the devil in us, which is but inverted goodness, will be at length transformed into a glorious angel of light.

 

            Let us all accept our earthly discipline as a means of noblest conquest, and in the understanding of what is meant by the words, “He that overcometh shall inherit all things,” we can thank God for His goodness in giving us a lower nature to subdue.