2. Secondly, But the proof is more full and direct, from those _appellations and titles which the Scripture and the experience of men have put upon him_; his usual name, Δαίμων, _quasi_ Δαήμων, which—in Mat. viii. 31; Mark v. 12; Rev. xvi. 14—we translate _devil_, properly signifieth one that is wise, knowing, or skilful. And however the wickedness of that spirit hath so far dishonoured this word, that it is always, as some think, used to signify ‘unclean spirits;’ yet still it carries an evidence of their nature in reference to knowledge, that though they are wicked creatures, yet are they wise and knowing. It is said, Gen. iii. 1, ‘The serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field;’ which, though it be true literally of the serpent, whose wisdom and subtlety naturalists have abundantly noted, yet that expression hath an eye upon Satan, who was the principal agent; and the serpent there is called subtle, as influenced by Satan, whose instrument he was:[92] which we may believe, not only upon the credit of Austin and Lyra, but more securely upon the testimony of other scriptures, which name him ‘the old serpent,’ Rev. xvii. 9, and impute all that craft in the management of that temptation to a particular remarkable skill and subtlety of Satan. ‘The serpent beguiled Eve through subtlety,’ 2 Cor. xi. 3; and, if Beza conjecture right, the appellation Δαίμων do so fitly suit this history of the tree of knowledge, that the title of knowledge seems to be given him for this singular masterpiece of craft. 3. Thirdly, That Satan hath great knowledge is by these arguments discovered; but if further inquiry be made into the _nature of his knowledge_, we shall be nearer to a satisfaction in this particular; and here we may observe a threefold knowledge in Satan. (1.) First, _A natural knowledge_; which the schoolmen have distinguished into these two: [1.] _An evening knowledge_, which he received from things created, whereby the _species_ of things were impressed upon his mind, and so received, being a knowledge _à posteriori_, from the effects of things; which, because it is more dark and obscure than that which ariseth from the causes of things, they termed evening knowledge. [2.] The other is _morning knowledge_, which is a knowledge of things in the power and wisdom of God, in which he saw the ideas and images of all things. This knowledge they prefer before the other, as lines and figures are better known from mathematical instruction than by their bare tract as written in dust.[93]