The tendency of the mind in its inquiry is generally towards one or other of two extremes. The first is to consider evil as a negative imperfection arising, in some unknown and inexplicable way, from the nature of mat- ter, or from some disturbing influences which limit the action of goodness on earth; in fact, to ignore as much of evil as possible, and to decline to refer the residuum to any positive cause at all. The other is the old Per- sian or Manichajan hypothesis, which traces the exist- ence of evil to a rival creator, not sid)ordinate' to the Creator of good, though perhaps inferior to him in power, and destined to be overcome In- him at last. Between these two extremes the mind varied through many gra- dations of thought and coinUless forms of superstition. Each hypothesis had its arguments of probability against the other. The first labored imder the difficuhy of be- ing insuflicient as an account of the anomalous facts, and indeterminate in its account of the disturbing cause; the second sinned against that belief in the unity of God and the natural supremacy of goodness, which is sup- ported by the deepest instincts of the heart. But both were laid in a sphere lieyond human cognizance; neither could be proved or disproved with certainty.
The revelation of Scripture, speaking with authority, meets the truth and removes the error inherent in both
these hypotheses. It asserts in the strongest terms the perfect supremacy of God, so that nnder his permission alone, and for his inscrutable purposes, evil is allowed to exist (see, for example, Prov. xvi, 4; Isa. xlv, 7; Amos iii, G ; comp. Rom. ix, 2"2, 23). It regards this evil as an anomaly and corruption, to be taken away by a new manifestation of divine love in the incarnation and atonement. The confpiest of it began virtually in God's ordinance after the fall itself, was effected actually on the cross, and shall be perfected in its results at the judg- ment-day. Still Scripture recognises the existence of evil in the world, not only as felt in outward circum- stances ("the world"), and as inborn in the soul of man ("the flesh"), but also as proceeding from the influence of an evil spirit, exercising that mysterious power of free-will, which God's rational creatures possess, to rebel against him, and to draw others into the same rebellion (" the devil").
In accordance with the " economy" and progressive- ness of God's revelation, the existence of Satan is but gradually revealed. In the first entrance of evil into the world, the temptation is referred only to the serpent. It is true that the whole narrative, and especially the spiritual nature of the temptation ("to be as gods"), wliich was united to the sensual motive, would force on any thoughtful reader the conclusion that something more than a mere animal agency was at work ; but the time had not then come to reveal, what afterwards was revealed, that "he who sinneth is of the devil" (1 John iii, 8), and that " the old serpent" of Genesis was " called the devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world" (Eev. xii, 9 ; xx, 23).
Tliroughout the whole period of the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations, this vague and imperfect revela- tion of the source of evil alone was given. The Source of aU Good is set forth in all his supreme and unap- proachable majesty : evil is known negatively as the falling away from him ; and the " vanity" of idols, rather than any positive evil influence, is represented as the opposite to his reality and goodness. The law gives the " knowledge of sin" in the soul, without referring to any external uifluence of evil to foster it; it denounces idol- atry, without even hinting, what the New Test, declares plainly, that such evil implied a " power of Satan."
The book of Job stands, in any case, alone (whether we refer it to an early or a later period) on the basis of "natural religion." apart from the gradual and orderly evolutions of the Jlosaic revelation. In it, for the first time, we find a distinct mention of Satan, the adver- sary of Job. But it is important to remark the em- phatic stress laid on his subordinate position, on the ab- sence of all but delegated power, of all terror, and all grandeur in his character. He comes among the " sons of God" to present himself before the Lord; liis malice and envy are permitted to have scope, in accusation or in action, only for God's own purposes; and it is espe- cially remarkable that no power of spiritual influence, but only a power over outward circumstances, is attrib- uted to him. All this is widely different from the clear and terrible revelations of the New Test.
The captivity brought the Israelites face to face with the great dualism of the Persian mythology, the con- flict of Ormuzd with Ahriman, the co-ordinate spirit of evil. In the books written after the captivity we have again the name of Satan twice mentioned; but it is confessed by all that the Satan of Scripture bears no re- semblance to tlie Persian Ahriman. His subordination and inferiority are as strongly marked as ever. In 1 Chron. xxi, 1, where the name occurs without the arti- cle (" an adversary," not " the adversary"), the comjiari- son with 2 Sam. xxiv, 1 shows distinctly that, in the temptation of David, Satan's malice was overruled to work out the "anger of the Lord" against Israel. In Zech. iii, 1, 2, Satan is o dvTiiHKog (as in 1 Pet. v, 8), the accuser of Joshua before the throne of God, rebuked and put to silence by him (comp. Psa. cix, 6). In the case, as of the good angels, so also of the evil one, the