γὰρ τὸ καλῶς ποιῆσαι τὰ γινόμενα· προνοίας δὲ τὸ καλῶς ἐπιμεληθῆναι τῶν γενομένων, and c. 43, p. 315 : Πρόνοια τοίνυν ἐστὶν ἐκ Θεοῦ εἰς τὰ ὄντα γινομένη ἐπιμέλεια· ὁρίζοντας δὲ καὶ οὕτως αὐτὴν· πρόνοιά ἐστι βούλησις Θεοῦ, δι ̓ ἣν πάντα τὰ ὄντα τὴν πρόσφορον διεξαγωγὴν λαμβάνει κ. τ. λ. Generally speaking we find here a complete system of teleology.

(6) Hier. Comment. in Abacuc c. 1. (Opp. T. vi. p. 148): Sicut in hominibus etiam per singulos currit Dei providentia: sic in ceteris animalibus generalem quidem dispositionem et ordinem cursumque rerum intelligere possumus; verbi gratia: quomodo nascatur piscium multitudo et vivit in aquis, quomodo reptilia et quadrupedia oriantur in terra et quibus alantur cibis. Ceterum absurdum est ad hoc Dei deducere majestatem, ut sciat per momenta singula, quot nascantur culices, quotve moriantur [comp. on the other hand Matth. x. 29, 30], quæ cimicum et pulicum et muscarum sit multitudo in terra, quanti pisces in mari natent, et qui de minoribus majorum prædæ cedere debeant. Non simus tam fatui adulatorcs Dei, ut, dum potentiam ejus etiam ad ima detrahimus, in nos ipsi injuriosi simus (!), eandem rationabilium quam irrationabilium providentiam esse dicentes.

Bibl. max.

(7) Junil. de partibus legis divinæ, l. ii. c. 3, ss. PP. T. x. p. 345. General providence manifests itself in the preservation of the genus, and of the condition of all existence; special providence is displayed, 1. in the care of God for angels and men; 2. in that of the angels for men; and, 3. in that of men for themselves.

$130.

THEODICY.

The controversy with the Manichæans, whose notions were to some extent adopted by Lactantius,(1) rendered necessary a more precise definition of the nature of evil, and such a distinction between physical and moral evil, as would represent the latter as the true source of the former. Hence the evils existing in the world were regarded either (objectively) as the necessary consequence and punishment of sin, or (subjectively) as phenomena

which, being good in themselves, assume the appearance of evil only in consequence of our limited knowledge, or the corrupt state of our mind, or through a perverse use of our moral freedom. But the wise and pious, looking forward to that better time which is to come, use those evils as means of advancing in knowledge, and of practising patience.(2)

(1) Inst. div. ii. c. 8. In the same place he advances the unsatisfactory notion which even Augustine seems to have entertained (Enchir. ad Laur. c. 27,) that evil would exist though it were merely for the sake of contrast; as if good were good only by the contrast which it forms with bad, and ceased to be so when there is no contrast.

(2) Athan. contra gent. c. 7. Basil M. in Hexaëm. Hom. ii. 4. Hom. quod Deus non est auctor malorum (the passage should be read in its connection) Opp. T. ii. p. 78, (al. i. p. 361.) Klose, p. 54-59. Greg. Nyss. orat. catech. c. 6. Greg. Naz. orat. xiv. 30, 31. xvi. 5, quoted by Ullmann, p. 493. Chrys. in 2 Tim. Hom. viii. Opp. xii. 518, e. Aug. de civ. Dei xi. 9: Mali enim nulla natura est, sed amissio boni mali nomen accepit. Comp. c. 22. Fire, frost, wild beasts, poison, etc., may all be useful in their proper place, and in connection with the whole; it is only necessary to make such a use of them as accords with their design. Thus poison causes the death of some, but heals others; meat and drink injure only the immoderate......Unde nos admonet divina providentia, non res insipienter vituperare, sed utilitatem rerum diligenter inquirere, et ubi nostrum ingenium vel firmitas deficit, ita credere occultam, sicut erant quædam, quæ vix potuimus invenire; quia et ipsa utilitatis occultatio, aut humilitatis exercitatio est aut elationis attritio; cum omnino natura nulla sit malum, nomenque hoc non sit nisi privationis boni. Sed a terrenis usque ad cœlestia et a visibilibus usque ad invisibilia sunt aliis alia bona meliora; ad hoc inaqualia, ut essent omnia etc. Comp. de vera rel. c. 12. Evils are beneficial as punishments, ibid. c. 15:...amaritudine pœnarum erudiamur. On the question why the righteous have to suffer as well as the unrighteous? see de civ. Dei i. 8-10. Christians. rise above all trials only by love to God: toto mundo est omnino sublimior mens inhærens Deo, de morib. eccles. cath. c. 11.

This seems to be the turning-point of every theodicy (Rom.

viii. 28.)

§ 131.

ANGELOLOGY AND ANGELOLATRY.

J. P. Carpzovii, varia historia Angelicorum ex Epiphanio et aliorum veterum monumentis eruta. Helmst. 1772. 4. Keil, Opuscula academica, ii. p. 548, ss.

Since the ideas of generation and procession from the Father had been exclusively applied to the Son and the Holy Ghost, it was distinctly acknowledged that the angels are creatures, and not emanations from the essence of God.(1) Nevertheless they were still regarded as highly gifted creatures who are far superior to mankind.(2) Adoration was rendered to them; but Ambrose was the only Father during this period-and he did it merely in a passing remark-who recommended the invocation of angels to Christians.(3) But both the

prohibition of the worship of angels (angelolatry) by the synod of Laodicea (about the middle of the fourth century), and the testimony of Theodoret prove, that such a worship must have been practised in some parts of the East (it was perhaps borrowed from earlier ages.) (4) Theodoret, as well as Augustine, opposed the adoration, or at least the invocation of angels, which was disapproved of even by Gregory I., who was desirous of confining it to the Old Testament dispensation. (5) But the practice of dedicating churches to angels, (6) which was favoured by emperors and bishops, would necessarily confirm the people in their belief, that angels heard and answered prayer, notwithstanding all dogmatic explanations. With regard to the dogmatic definition concerning the nature of angels, Gregory asserted that they were created prior to the rest of the world; others, e. g. Augustine, dated their existence from the first day of creation. (7)

In the work of Pseudo-Dionysius (de hierarchia cœlesti) which, though composed during the present period, did not come into general use till the next, the angels were systematically divided into three classes and nine orders.(8)

(1) Lact. Inst. iv. c. 8: Magna inter Dei filium et cæteros [sic] angelos differentia est. Illi enim ex Deo taciti spiritus exierunt.........Ille vero cum voce ac sono ex Dei ore processit. (2) Basil, M. de Spir. S. c. 16, calls the angels dégiov veμa, Tug üλor according to Ps. civ. 4, and hence ascribes to them a certain corporeity. Gregory of Nazianzum says, Orat. vi. 12, p. 187 :.........φῶς εἰσι καὶ αὐταὶ τελείου φωτὸς ἀπαυγάσματα. According to Orat. xxviii. 31, p. 521, ss. the angels are servants of the Divine will, powerful by strength, partly original and partly derived, moving from place to place, everywhere present, and ready to assist all, not only by reason of their zeal to serve, but also on account of the lightness of their bodies; different parts of the world are assigned to different angels, or placed under their dominion (Orat. xlii. 9, p. 755, and 27, p. 768), as he knows who has ordained and arranged all things. They have all one object in view (Orat. vi. 12, p. 187), and act all according to the one will of the creator of the universe. They praise the Divine greatness, and ever behold the eternal glory, not that God may thus be glorified, but that unceasing blessings may flow even upon those beings who stand nearest to God. Comp. Ullmann, p. 494, 95. Augustine calls the angels sancti angeli, de civ. Dei xi. 9. Fulgentius of Ruspe, de trin. c. 8, on the authority of great and learned men, asserts, that they are composed of body and spirit; they know God by the latter, and appear to men by means of the former.

(3) Ambrose de viduis, cap. ix. § 55: Videtis enim quod magno peccato obnoxia minus idonea sit quæ pro a precetur, certe quæ pro se impetret. Adhibeat igitur ad medicum alios precatores. Ægri enim, nisi ad eos aliorum precibus medicus fuerit invitatus, pro se rogare non possunt. Infirma est caro, mens ægra est, et peccatorum vinculis impedita, ad medici illius sedem debite non potent explicare vestigium. Obsecrandi sunt angeli, qui nobis ad præsidium dati sunt: martyres obsecrandi, quorum videmur nobis quoddam corporis pignore patrocinium vindi

care.

Possunt pro peccatis rogare nostris, qui proprio sanguine, etiamsi quæ habuerunt, peccata luerunt....Non erubescamus eos intercessores nostræ infirmitatis adhibere, quia et ipsi infirmitatem corporis, etiam cum vincerent, cognoverunt. Nevertheless he soon after counsels men to the direct invocation of the Divine physician himself.

Can. 35. Bruns, Bibl.

(2) Theodoret ad Col. ii. 18, and iii. 17, (quoted by Munscher von Cölln, i. 86.) Conc. Laod. (about the year 363.) Mansi, ii. p. 570. See Fuchs, ii. p. 330, ss. eccles. i. p. 77. Gieseler, Kirchengesch. i. § 99, note 32–34, § 121, note 7 : "Οτι οὐ δεῖ χριστιανοὺς ἐγκαταλείπειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἀπιέναι καὶ ἀγγέλους ὀνομάζειν καὶ συνάξεις ποιεῖν· ἅτες ἀτηγόρευται. It is worthy of notice that Dionysius translates angulos instead of angelos.

(5) Theodoret, 1. c. Aug. de vera rel. c. 55: Neque enim et nos videndo angelos beati sumus, sed videndo veritatem, qua etiam ipsos diligimus angelos, et his congratulamur........Quare honoramus eos caritate, non servitute. Nec eis templa construimus; nolunt enim, se sic honorari a nobis, quia nos ipsos cum boni sumus, templa summi Dei esse noverunt. Recte itaque scribitur (Rev. xxii.) hominem ab angelo prohibitum ne se adoraret, sed unum Deum, sub quo ei esset et ille conservus. Comp. contra Faust. xx. 21. Conf. x. 42, and other passages quoted by Keil, 1. c. p. 552. Gregory M. in Cant. Cant. c. 8. Opp. T. ii. 454. (Chrysost. de precat. hom. i. Opp. T. i. p. 743, A.)

p.

(6) Constantine the Great had dedicated a church at Constantinople (Mixa) to St. Michael, Sozom. hist. eccl. ii. 3., and Theodoret, (l. c.) says in reference to the Phrygians and Pisidians ; μέχρι δὲ τοῦ νῦν εὐκτήρια τοῦ ἁγίου Μιχαὴλ παρ' ἐκείνοις καὶ τοῖς ὁμός gorç èxsívwv čotiv ideî. The Emperor Justinian, and Avitus, bishop of Vienne, also dedicated churches to Angels.

(7) Greg. Naz. xxxviii. 9, p. 668. All the angels together, form, in his opinion, the κόσμος νοητός, as distinct from the κόσμος aisantós, uninds xai gwusvos. Comp. Ullmann, p. 497. Augustine expresses himself differently de civ. Dei xi. 9. In his opinion, they are the light which was created in the beginning before all other creatures; at the same time, he so explains the dies unus (instead of primus 8 D), that this one day of light included the other days of creation, and then continues: Cum enim dixit Deus: fiat lux, et facta est lux, si recte in hac luce creatio intel