D E 
A kind of expletive, exprefling wonder or vexation : 
The tilings, we know, are neither rich nor rare ; 
But wonder how the-devil they got there. Pope. 
In a theological fenfe, devil ufually denotes the chief of 
thofe fallen angels, who were excluded from the prefence 
of Almighty God. This article is fo much connected 
with the leading dodtriires'of revelation, that it deferves 
very ample conlideration and copious remark. We will 
firft take the fubjeft in the abdraCt, and fliew the Proba¬ 
bility that there fhould exid Angels ; a Probability 
founded on analogy. And we cannot do it better than in 
the words of the deep and learned bifiiop Bull: 
“ Although'man be an excellent creature among the 
creatures of this lower world; yet that very reafon where¬ 
by he excels thole other creatures, mud needs force him 
to acknowledge, that he himfelf is too mean, to be the 
fird-born and top of the creation, the mader-pieee of the 
works of God, who is the great creator and framer of all 
things. Suppodng that God hath created a complete 
world, a perfeCt fydem of things comprehending all de¬ 
grees of entity ; it demondratively follows, that there 
are 1 ’uch beings as angels. We have before us in this 
lower world leveral ranks of being ; fome that have only 
bare being, as earth, air, water; fome that have life too, 
as plants, trees, vegetables ; fome that bedde life, have 
fenfe, perception, and diferimination of material objects 
in their outward appearances, as the brute animals; 
ladly, fome that have beyond all this, a faculty of ini 
vedigating and fearching out the inward nature and pro¬ 
perties of things material and fendble, and alfo of dif- 
courdng on immaterial, fipiritual, and divine things; 
which is that to which in our common fpeech the name 
of reafon or underdanding is defervediy appropriated, 
and is to be found in men, who are the highed order of 
beings here below. But yet man is thus rational only 
in one part of him, being otherwife akin to the ‘ bead 
that perifheth.’ And hence he reafojis and difeourfes of 
things, not without the help of fenfe, imagination, and 
grofler corporeal phantafms, which are as it were, the 
fird foundations, whereon he raifes his highed fpecula- 
tions, and fo he is neither wholly, nor purely, a rational 
or intelligent creature. Now it cannot be imagined by 
any one of deep thought, that the reafon of mankind 
being fucli, fliould be the mod perfect reafon of created 
beings, or that among them all, there diould be none 
of a purer or higher capacity, to know and glorify the 
great Creator of all things. It remains therefore, that 
Befides, and above mankind, there is a rank of intelli¬ 
gent beings, feparated and abdra&ed from this heavy 
matter, with which we are clogged, of nearer affinity to 
the fupreme and univerful mind, and of a purer and 
fublimer underdanding faculty, than that wherewith we 
mortals are endowed. And thefe are the beings which 
we call angels.” (See biffiop Bull, vol.ii. p.440.) 
That there diould be more fpecies of intelligent crea¬ 
tures above us, than there are of fendble and material 
ones below us, is an opinion fo probable, fo confonant 
to reafon and truth, that it has been adopted not only 
by an ingenious {peculator now living, but alfo by the 
penetrating and judicious Locke, in his Eldiy, “ on the 
Human Underdanding.” 
Allowing then, as in reafon we mud allow, that it is 
perfectly confident with probability there ffiould exid a 
race of intelligent beings fuperior to man, we mud ad¬ 
mit alfo, that they mud poffefs moral powers, at lead 
to an equal, if not a greater degree. Among thofe mo¬ 
ral powers, freedom of will in choofing, and liberty of 
action in following, either good or evil, are primary and 
eflential. It-is Possible then that fome angels might 
have been difobedient to God. 
Now we know that God in his nature is holy and jud. 
The attribute of holinefs would make him abhor ; the 
attribute of judice would make him remove from his 
more immediate and glorious manfion, both dn and the 
V I L. 775 
perpetrators of dn. The removal therefore of finfui an¬ 
gels is a confequence, which direCtly follows from tlie 
exidence of a righteous God. 
We are now gone fo far in the argument as .bare reafon 
can lead us. By the aid and deductions of that alone, 
we can prove it Probable there diould be ang'els: we 
can prove it Possible thofe angels might offend'agaihft 
reCtitude: we can prove it Unavoidable, upon the 
fuppofition there is a God of perfect- attributes, that if 
ang'els did offend, they mud be puniffied by being out- 
cad from the region of pure goodnefs. Farther than this 
it is irnpoflible to go, by the mere conduCt.of reafon. 
Let us then in the next place have recourfe td anciently 
received opinions. 
The Egyptians believed there were GE'rtai, w'hb mif- 
applied their liberty, who committed crimes ; fell into 
mifery ; and were buffering puniffiment by way of ex¬ 
piation. 
The Pet'fians held two principles ; the good, Oro- 
mazes ; the evil, Arimanius. The one refembling 
light ; the other darknefs. 
A n Arabian philofopher of the dfteenth century, named 
Sarasthani, is quoted by Dr. Hyde, in his book on the 
Religion of the Ancient Perdahs. That philofopher af¬ 
firms, the fird Magi did not conceive the two principles 
to have been co-eternal; but held light, or Oromazes, 
to have been eternal; but darknefs, or Arimanius, to 
have been produced in time. 
From thefe opinions of Egyptians and Perfians, which 
the abbe Ramfay with equal diligence.and learning has 
brought together, with much more Oriental information, 
in his “ Difeourfes on the Theology of the Ancients,” 
affixed to his “ Travels of Cyrus,” it is clear that the 
mod philofophical of the ancients were fully perfuaded 
there exiffed beings fuperior to man, who were at en¬ 
mity with the fuprei-ne God. 
Supported as we are by deduClions of reafon, and fen- 
timents of reflecting heathens, we may proceed to obferve 
that the exidence of that evil fpirit, who in our own 
language is called “ the Devil,” or “ Satan,” is fometimes 
figuratively intimated, and at other places exprefsly men¬ 
tioned, in the books of the Old and New Tedament. 
In the fall of man related by Mofes, (Gen. iii.) it is 
evident an evil being was the tempter, “ whether he 
was only called a Serpent, or whether he made a/e of a 
Serpent as the indrument of his deceit.” (See Sherlock, 
p. 10. Appendix to Second Dilfertation.) 
“ Maimonides, in his More Nevochim (Par. iii. c. 22.) 
fuppofes the angel which appeared to Balaam (Numb, 
xxii. 22.) to be no other than Satan, the great adverfary 
of mankind ; having deferibed him from the Talmud, 
thus: Ipfe ed Satan h. e. adverfarius; ipfe ed figmen- 
tum malum ; ipfe ed Angelas mortis; he proceeds, Hie 
ed etiam quem vidit Bileam in vifione prophetica, qui 
dixit ei, en ego egreffus fum LE Satan in adverfarium 
tibi. 
“ The fame he thinks of that angel whom David duv 
{in vifione prophetica as he likewife terms it) in the time 
of the plague with his fword drawn, and his hand Jf.retched 
out over Jerufalem. (1 Chron. xxi. 16.) 
“ Whether this opinion were right or wrong, it diews 
that Maimonides, and the Jevvidi dodlors who were in 
the fame fentiments with him, believed that Satan was a 
being well known in David’s time; and in Balaam’s, i. e. 
in Mofes’s time.” (See p. 90, Critical Dilfertation on 
the Book of Job, by Charles Peters.) 
In anfwer to thofe, who with greater ingenuity, than 
folid learning and critical examination, have pretended 
the drd knowledge which the Jews had of Satan, was 
gained during their captivity in Babylon, the thoroughly 
read Peters obferves, “ There is nothing in the Scrip¬ 
ture that looks like a new Revelation of the Hidory of 
Satan, or ffiould make us think the Jews were ever un¬ 
acquainted with it.” (p.91.) 
That in Zechariah, who propheded after the captivity, 
, Satan 
