According to the text, it seems that the devil was a sinner from the beginning. I suppose that must mean from his beginning, or from the beginning of things. According to Dr. Deems' creed, his God is the Creator of all things, and consequently must have been the Creator of the devil. According to the Scriptures the devil is the father of lies, and Dr. Deems' God is the father of the devil--that is to say, the grandfather of lies. This strikes me as almost "blasphemous." The Doctor also tells us "that Jesus believed as much in the personality of the devil as in that of Herod or Pilate or John or Peter." That I admit. There is not the slightest doubt, if the New Testament be true, that Christ believed in a personal devil--a devil with whom he had conversations; a devil who took him to the pinnacle of the Temple and endeavored to induce him to leap to the earth below. Of course he believed in a personal devil. Not only so; he believed in thousands of personal devils. He cast seven devils out of Mary Magdalene. He cast a legion of devils out of the man in the tombs, or, rather, made a bargain with these last-mentioned devils that they might go into a drove or herd of swine, if they would leave the man. I not only admit that Christ believed in devils, but he believed that some devils were deaf and dumb, and so declared. Dr. Deems is right, and I hope he will defend against all comers the integrity of the New Testament. The Doctor, however, not satisfied exactly with what he finds in the New Testament, draws a little on his own imagination. He says: "The devil is an organizing, imperial intellect, vindictive, sharp, shrewd, persevering, the aim of whose works is to overthrow the authority of God's law." How does the Doctor know that the devil has an organizing, imperial intellect? How does he know that he is vindictive and sharp and shrewd and persevering? If the devil has an "imperial intellect," why does he attempt the impossible? Robert Burns shocked Scotland by saying of the devil, or, rather, to the devil, that he was sorry for him, and hoped he would take a thought and mend. Dr. Deems has gone far in advance of Burns. For a clergyman he seems to be exceedingly polite. Speaking of the "Arch Enemy of God"--of that "organizing, imperial intellect who is seeking to undermine the church"--the Doctor says: "The devil may be conceded to be sincere." It has been said: "An honest God is the noblest work of man," and it may now be added: A sincere devil is the noblest work of Dr. Deems. But, with all the devil's smartness, sharpness, and shrewdness, the Doctor says that he "cannot write a book; that he cannot deliver lectures" (like myself, I suppose), "edit a newspaper" (like the editor of the _Telegram_), "or make after-dinner speeches; but he can get his servants to do these things for him." There is one thing in the Doctor's address that I feel like correcting (I quote from the _Telegram's_ report):