DEVIL 
they fometimes interpofe more openly ra a difguife, 
or at leaft have fo dase) been permitte 03 particu. 
ces of demoniacal poelon, — 
and violent fuggettioa 
It has alfo been an opinion generally reer ‘hat 
to be detefted as his enemies, whatever power is 
ne have, from which he would not | to prote& them 
Mis fhould faithfully ferve him. (Se Theff. ii. 9. 
againft the empire ar | agency cs = e devil; and 
fome have even denied his exiltence, ell as his interfe 
rence in the concerns and influence on n the inds of 
Satan, nor the word devil in any heathen 
authors, in the fignification attached to it among Chriftians ; 
that is, as a creature revolted from God: their “theology 
rafled 
and perfecuted mankind. 
a gocd cor and an evil principle, _ was an enemy 
of mankinc See mere and Damon 
that the facred writers 
ige 
tures, the doétrine itfelf is untenable. 
vil {pirit isno where exprefsly taught as 
a doGtrine of revelation ; that it was unkno wn to the Jews 
si and ag who hae ages ~ Head upon which it 
s foun Hen e New ament we find evil, 
aac a moral, a aoe to the yeh to demons, or 
the ghoits of w wicked men. Bat neither Jefus nor his apoftles, 
it is faid, ever explicitly declare, that they themfelves ad- 
mitted the phi 
fe) 
teach it as of divine authority. They leave the mytholo ogy 
of evil fpirits, like many other popular opinions and prejus | 
dices, in the fame ftate in which they foun d it, to be cor- 
taught, and b 
firft teachers of Chriftianity neither politively affirm, nor au- 
thoritaively contradiQ, the exiftence and agency of an evil 
{pirit; but exprefs themfelves upon this {ubje& exadlly as the 
rett of their conteraporaries would ; and they content them- 
{elves with eftablifhing principles, which ferved gradually to 
undermine and expofe the vulgar and popular opinion. It 
has been faid, that the evil {pirit is aunticd to the ae 
nation of the prince of this world (John, xiv. 30. 
true meaning of this expreflion may probably be, that Ie 
was about to be unjufily arrefted by order of the magiftrate. 
A fimilar expreffion occurs in 1 Cor. ii. 8; where the Jewith 
ord are certainly the perfons in- 
As f ay gei ; be re- 
collef&ted, that the writer of this obfcure epiflle is arguing 
n 
e paflage, it 
proves concerning diabolical agency ; for it repre= 
{ents the fallen angels not as ranging at hbertyy but as bound 
in chains. Thofe who rejeét the notion of diabolical tek 
allege the total want of evidence to prove it. As philofo. 
phers, they difcover no segs which oT ce 
hypothefis of an invifible malignant energy; and a 
tentive readers of the Chriftian Scripture they fee pethne 
to warrant fuch a cosclufion, but a fort of language which a 
competent ea beg with the oriental ftyle would teach 
them to interpret in a figurative and mythological, and not 
in a literal and hiftorical fenfe. 
agency, of fuck a being, in the natural and in the moral world, 
aid to be incompatible with the rank and powers affigned 
c “all creatures, and with the limited fphere of their opera- 
tion, and equally inconfiftent with the rectitude and benevo- 
lence of the Wupreme Ruler of the univerfe, who would not 
fubje& his rational offspring, frail.and erring in themfelves, 
to a confl& with powers fo fuperior to their own, and the 
exercife of which is fo adverfe to their f{piritual and immortal 
interefts, as well as to cheir temporal welfare. Jt has been 
further faid, that the doétrine of diabolical agency, it the 
extent to whick 
ee opinions and 
of abfurd and fagion 
eof the religion ar fe Americans 
e idolatrous nations, who wo ia aaa devil: 
but the term “devil muft not be here taken in 1% mmon 
fenfe : thofe people have an idea of two ety dcsesdait 
beings; one whereof is good, and the o evil. And they 
lace the earth under the guidance and Wiredion of that evi. 
being, which eur authors, with fome impropriety, call the 
1 
