DEVIL is the generic name for a spirit of evil, especially the supreme spirit of evil, the foe of God and man, but also for minor evil spirits or "demons." It is given as a name to many destructive and repulsive animals, to apparatus for tearing cloth, etc., to highly seasoned dishes, to boy assistants in printing houses (probably because of their inky appearance), and to juniors and hacks who prepare work (or "devil") for barristers, authors, etc. Here, however, we are concerned with the word only as used in mythology and religion.
The primitive philosophy of animism involves the ascription of all phenomena to personal agencies; the agents of good become gods, those of evil, demons. When the divine is most completely conceived as unity, the demonic is also so conceived, and over against God stands Satan, or the devil.
Though it is in connection with Hebrew and Christian mono theism that belief in the devil has been most fully developed there are approaches to the doctrine in other religions, e.g., "the lady Nina" and the dragon Tiamat in Babylonian, the serpent Apap in Egyptian, the Titans and Prometheus in Greek, Hel and Loki among the Teutons and Ahi and Siva among Hindus. The opposition of good and evil is most fully carried out in Zoro astrianism. Opposed to Ormuzd, the author of all good, is Ahriman, the source of all evil ; and the opposition runs through the whole universe (D'Alviella's Hibbert Lectures, pp. The conception of Satan belongs to the post-exilic period of Hebrew development, and probably shows traces of the influence of Persian on Jewish thought ; it also has its roots in much older beliefs (cf. I Sam. xvi. 14; Judges ix. 23 ; I Ki. xxii. 2 2 ; Gen. vi. 1-4), and evil, whether as misfortune or as sin, is generally assigned to divine causality (I Sam. xviii. io; 2 Sam. xxiv. I; I Ki. xxii. 20; Isa. vi. 1o, lxiii. 17). After the Exile there is a tendency to protect the divine transcendence by the introduction of medi ating angelic agency, and to separate all evil from God by ascribing its origin to Satan, the enemy of God and man. In the prophecy of Zechariah (iii. 1-2) he stands as the adversary of Joshua, the high priest; in the book of Job he presents himself before the Lord among the sons of God (ii. I), yet is represented both as accuser and tempter; and while, according to 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, God himself tests David in regard to the numbering of the people, ac cording to I Chron. xxi. 1, it is Satan who tempts him.
The development of the conception continued in later Judaism, which was probably more strongly influenced by Persian dualism, as in Tobit iii. 8, vi. 14; Ecclesiasticus xxi. 27; Wisdom ii. 24; Psalms of Solomon xvii. 49 ; and the book of Enoch. In the Jewish Targums Sammael "the highest angel that stands before God's throne, caused the serpent to seduce the woman"; he coalesces with Satan, and has inferior Satans as his servants. The birth of Cain is ascribed to a union of Satan with Eve. As accuser affecting man's standing before God he is greatly feared.
This doctrine, stripped of much of its grossness, is reproduced in the New Testament. Satan is the 81.60oXos, from 81.af3hXXets, to slander (Matt. xiii. 39; John xiii. 2 ; Eph. iv. 27; Heb. ii. 14; Rev. ii. io), slanderer or accuser, the ira.phEcvv (Matt. iv. 3; I Thess. iii. 5), the tempter, the hoes pos (Matt. v. 37 ; John xvii. 15 ; Eph. vi. 16), the evil one, and the (Matt. xiii. 39), the enemy. He is apparently identified with Beelzebub (or Beelzebul) in Matt. xii. 26, 27. Jesus appears to recognize the existence of demons belonging to a kingdom of evil under the leadership of Satan "the prince of demons" (Matt. xii. 24, 26, 27), whose works in demonic possessions it is his function to destroy (Mark i. 34, iii. I I, vi. 7 ; Luke x. I 7-20), but he himself conquers Satan in resisting his temptations (Matt. iv. 1–I 1). Simon is warned against him, and Judas yields to him as tempter (Luke xxii. 31; John xiii. 27). Jesus's cures are represented as a triumph over Satan (Luke x. 18). This Jewish doctrine is found in Paul's letters also. Satan rules over a world of evil. Paul's own "stake in the flesh" is Satan's messenger (2 Cor. xii. 7) . According to Hebrews Satan's power over death Jesus destroys by dying (ii. 14). Revelation describes the war in heaven between God with his angels and Satan or the dragon, the "old serpent," the deceiver of the whole world (xii. 9), with his hosts of darkness. After the overthrow of the Beast and the kings of the earth, Satan is imprisoned in the bottomless pit a thousand years (xx. 2). Again loosed to deceive the nations, he is finally cast into the lake of fire and brimstone (xx. to; cf. Enoch liv. 5, 6; 2 Peter ii. 4). In John's Gospel and Epistles Satan is opposed to Christ. Sinner and murderer from the beginning (I John iii. 8) and liar by nature (John viii. 44), he enslaves men to sin (viii. 34), causes death (verse 44), rules the present world (xiv. 3o), but has no power over Christ or those who are His (xiv. 3o, xvi. I 1 ; I John v. 18). He will be destroyed by Christ with all his works (John xvi. 33; I John iii. 8).
In the common faith of the Gentile Churches after the Apostolic age the influence of polytheism survived in the belief in the dominion of demons, from which Christ is the Redeemer. While Christ's First Advent delivered believers from Satan's bondage, his overthrow would be completed only by the Second Advent. The belief in Satan appears in fantastic forms in Gnosticism. The Fathers traced false doctrine as well as evil practice to him. In Irenaeus emerges the strange doctrine that the death of Christ was a ransom paid to the devil. God was represented by Origen as duping the devil, and His right to do so was justified. While this view was maintained by several Christian thinkers, others felt scruples about ascribing a "pious fraud" to God, and it at last fell into the background. The possibility of the redemption of Satan, advanced by Origen, however, was in the 5th century branded as a heresy. Persian dualism was brought into contact with Christian thought in the doctrine of Mani ; and it is per missible to believe that the gloomy views of Augustine regarding men's condition are due in some measure to this influence. Mani taught that Satan attacked the earth, and defeated man sent against him by the God of light, but was overthrown by the God of light, who then delivered the primeval man. "During the middle ages," says Tulloch, "the belief in the devil was absorbing —saints conceived themselves and others to be in constant conflict with him." This superstition, perhaps at its strongest in the 13th to the I 5th century, passed into Protestantism. Luther was always conscious of the presence and opposition of Satan. He held that this world will pass away with its pleasures, as there can be no real improvement in it, for the devil continues in it to ply his daring and seductive devices. This belief in the devil was specially strong in Scotland among both clergy and laity in the 17th century.
In more recent times a great variety of opinions has been ex pressed on this subject. The reality of demonic possession has been denied, and Satan variously represented as a personification of the principle of evil. But some Christian theologians, such as Daub, Dorner, Martensen, have tried to form a speculative de fence of the common belief. A. Ritschl gives no place in his constructive doctrine to the belief in the devil; but recognizes that the mutual action of individual sinners on one another con stitutes a kingdom of sin, opposed to the Kingdom of God (A. E. Garvie, The Ritschlian Theology, p. 304). In the book entitled Evil and Evolution there is "an attempt to turn the light of modern science on to the ancient mystery of evil." The author contends that the existence of evil is best explained by assuming that God is confronted with Satan, who in the process of evolution interferes with the divine designs, an interference which the in stability of such an evolving process makes not incredible. Satan is, however, held to be a creature who has by abuse of his free dom been estranged from, and opposed to his Creator, and who at last will be conquered by moral means. W. M. Alexander in his book on demonic possession maintains that "the confession of Jesus as the Messiah or Son of God is the classical criterion of genuine demonic possession" (p. 15o) and argues that as "the Incarnation indicated the establishment of the kingdom of heaven upon earth," there took place "a counter movement among the powers of darkness," of which "genuine demonic possession was one of the manifestations" (p. Interesting as these speculations are, it may be confidently affirmed that belief in Satan is not now generally regarded as an essential article of the Christian faith, nor is it found to be an indispensable element of Christian experience. On the one hard science has so explained many of the processes of outer nature and of the inner life of man as to leave no room for Satanic agency. On the other hand the modem view of the inspiration of the Scriptures does not necessitate the acceptance of the doctrine of the Scriptures on this subject as finally and absolutely authori tative. The preaching of Jesus even in this matter may be ac counted for as either an accommodation to the views of those with whom He was dealing, or more probably as a proof of the limitation of knowledge which was a necessary condition of the Incarnation, for it cannot be contended that as revealer of God and redeemer of men it was imperative that He should either correct or confirm men's beliefs in this respect. The possibility of the existence of evil spirits, organized under one leader Satan to tempt man and oppose God, cannot be denied ; the sufficiency of the evidence for such evil agency may, however, be doubted; the necessity of any such belief for Christian thought and life cannot, therefore, be affirmed. (See also DEMONOLOGY; Pos SESSION.) BIBLIOGRAPHY.-The Hibbert Lectures; G. F. Moore, The History Bibliography.-The Hibbert Lectures; G. F. Moore, The History of Religions, 2 vols. (1914) ; H. Schultz, Old Testament Theology (1892) ; W. Beyschlag, New Testament Theology (end ed., 1896) ; Tennant's The Doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin (19o3) ; I. A. Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine (188o) ; Martensen, Dogmatics (1866) ; W. M. Alexander, Demonic Possession (1902) . (A. E. G.) DE VILLIERS, JOHN HENRY, BARON first Chief Justice of the Union of South Africa, was born at Paarl, Cape Colony, in June 1842. He was educated at the South African college, Cape Town, and Utrecht and Berlin universities. In 1865 he was called to the bar by the Inner Temple and began practice in Cape Colony. Entering Cape politics in 1866, he was elected a member of the House of Assembly, became attorney-general of the Colony in 1872 and two years later was appointed Chief Jus tice of the Cape. In this capacity he succeeded, by his decisions, in adapting the Roman-Dutch law of the colony to modern re quirements. He was appointed President of the National Conven tion in 1908 and in 191 o was raised to the peerage on becoming Chief Justice of the Union of South Africa. He died Sept. 2, 1914.