prov. c. 5. Opp. iv. 150. Aug. de advers. leg. ii. 12, and elsewhere. (5) Didym. Enarr. Epp. cathol. e vers. lat. Bibl. PP. max. T. iv. p. 325, in commmenting on 1 Pet. iii. 22, merely said, that Christ had accomplished the work of redemption for all rational beings (cuncta rationalia). Gregory of Ivyssa expressed himself more explicitly, orat. catech. c. 26, (see in Münscher von Cölln, i. p. 97), but Germanus contested the genuineness of the passage in Photius Cod. 233. Even Orosius complained in a letter to Augustine (Opp. Aug. T. viii.), that some men revived the erroneous views of Origen on this point. (6) Cyrill of Jerusalem, Cat. iv. p. 51, ascribed to the devil an obstinate heart and incorrigible temper; comp. Augustine ad Orosium contra Priscillian. et Orig. c. 5, ss. Opp. T. viii. p. 433, ss. de civ. D. xxi. 17:......Qua in re misericordior profecto fuit Origenes, qui et ipsum Diabolum atque angelos ejus post graviora pro meritis et diuturniora supplicia ex illis cruciatibus. eruendos atque sociandos sanctis angelis credidit. Sed illum et propter hoc et propter alia nonnulla...non immerito reprobavit ecclesia. He shows, that the final deliverance of the devil necessarily follows from the doctrine of the remission of the punishments of hell; but the more this notion is incorrect (in reference to the word of God), the more agreeable and charitable it appears to men. [Jerome, ep. 84, ad Pammach. et Ocean. p. 528. Ep. 124. ad Avitum, p. 920.] Concerning the final condemnation of Origen's opinion, see Mansi, T. ix. p. 399. 518. According to Gregory the Great, the devil still enjoys a potentia sublimitatis, Mor. xxiv. 20; xxxii. c. 12, 15. He rejoices in sowing evil, and is possessed of considerable power, which, however, is broken by Christ. Final punishment will be inflicted upon him after the general judgment, comp. Lau, p. 365, ss. (7) Eus. præp. ev. iii. c. 14-16. Aug. de civ. D. ii. c. 24; x. 21: Moderatis autem præfinitisque temporibus, etiam potestas permissa dæmonibus, ut hominibus quos possident excitatis inimicitias adversus Dei civitatem tyrannice exerceant.-Posidonius, a physician, combated (according to Philostorgius hist. eccl. viii. c. 10), the current opinion, that madness proceeds from demoniacal influences, asserting that Οὐχὶ δαιμόνων επιθέσει τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐκβακχεύεσθαι, ὑγρῶν δέ τινων κακοχυμίαν τὸ πάθος ἐργαζε σθαι, μηδὲ γὰρ εἶναι παράπαν ἰσχὺν δαιμόνων, ἀνθρώπων φύσιν ἐπηρεάζουσαν. The popular view nevertheless continued to be defended in most theological systems. (8) Athana. de incarn. verbi dei c. 48. Opp. T. i. p. 89. Cyrill Hier. Cat. xiii. 36 : [ὁ σταυρὸς] σημεῖον πιστῶν καὶ φόβος δαιμόνων...... ὅταν γὰρ ἴδωσι τὸν σταυρὸν, ὑπομιμνήσκονται τοῦ ἐσταυρωμένου· φοβοῦνται τὸν συντρίψοντα τὰς κεφαλὰς τοῦ δράκοντος, Cassian Coll. viii. 19, distinguishes the true power of faith which defeats the demons, from the supernatural power, which even the ungodly may exert upon evil spirits, since these obey them as servants (familiares). The poem of Severus Sanctus Endelechius de mortibus bonum contains a lively description of the supernatural efficacy of the sign of the cross against demoniacal influences, even in reference to the animal kingdom. (Comp. the edition of Piper, Gött. 1835. 8; a number of other passages referring to the point in question are quoted from the works of the Fathers in the introduction to the said edit.) V. 105, ss. Signum, quod perhibent esse crucis Dei, Hoc signum mediis frontibus additum. Fugit continuo sæva lues greges, 3. Soteriology. REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST, Döderlein, de redemtione a potestate Diaboli, insigni Christi beneficio (diss. inaugur. 1774. 75.) in his Opuscula academica Jena 1789. Baur, die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung, p. 67-118. The doctrine of Satanic agency occupied during this period a prominent place in the scheme of redemption, inasmuch as Gregory of Nyssa and other theologians, some of whom belonged to the western church, revived the former notion, that God, in order to save men, had defrauded the devil by a dishonest exchange.(1) This idea, however, met with decided opposition on the part of Gregory of Nazianzum, though he too admitted that the devil was deceived by God.(2) But the notion of a debt paid to God, which was first propounded by Athanasius,(3) gained increasingly ground. It was still farther carried out by some rhetorical theologians, who asserted, that Christ had more than paid the debt.(4) The idea in question, however, was not as yet received in a doctrinal form. Others looked at the death of Christ from what we might call the subjective point of view, i. e. they either interpreted it in a mystico-symbolical way, (5) or they showed its importance in its bearing upon morals. (6) In connection with such views it was moreover supposed, that the redemption of the world was effected not only by the death of the Saviour, but by the entire manifestation and life of the Son of God.(7) Free scope was as yet left to investigations respecting the particular mode of redemption.(8) Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. cat. c. 22-26. The train of his argument is as follows: Men have come under the dominion of the devil by sin. Jesus offered himself to the devil as the ransom for which he should release all others. The crafty devil assented, because he cared more for the one Jesus who was so much superior to him, than for all the rest. But notwithstanding his craft he was deceived, since he could not retain Jesus in his power. It was, as it were, a deception on the part of Goda (ἀπάτη τίς ἐστι τρόπον τινά,) that Jesus veiled his divine nature, which the devil would have feared, by means of his humanity, and thus deceived the devil by the appearance of flesh. Gregory allows such a deception according to the jus talionis; the devil had first deceived men, for the purpose of seducing them; the design of God in deceiving the devil was to redeem But The close affinity between this assertion and Docetism, which ever and anon endeavoured, to make its appearance, is very plain. See Baur, 1. c. p. 82, 83. mankind. (Gregory's argument looks very much like the wellknown maxim "that the end sanctifies the means."-This somewhat dramatic representation of the present subject includes that other more profound idea carried out with much ingenuity in many of the odd legends of the middle ages, that the devil, notwithstanding his subtility, is at last outwitted by the wisdom of God, and appears in comparison with it as a stupid devil.) Comp. Ambrose in Ev. Luc. Opp. iii. Col. 10. i.: Oportuit hanc fraudem Diabolo fieri, ut susciperet corpus Dominus Jesus, et corpus hoc corruptibile, corpus infirmum, ut crucifigeretur ex infirmitate. Rufinus, expos. p. 21: Nam sacramentum illud susceptæ carnis hanc habet causam, ut divina filii Dei virtus velut hamus quidam habitu humanæ carnis obtectus......principem mundi invitare possit ad agonem: cui ipse carnem suam velut escam tradidit, ut hamo eum divinitatis intrinsecus teneret insertum et effusione immaculati sanguinis, qui peccati maculam nescit, omnium peccata deleret, eorum duntaxat, qui cruore ejus postes fidei suæ significassent. Sicuti ergo hamum esca conseptum si piscis rapiat, non solum escam cum hamo non removet, sed ipse de profundo esca aliis futurus educitur: ita et is, qui habebat mortis imperium, rapuit quidem in mortem corpus Jesu, non sentiens in eo hamum divinitatis inclusum ; sed ubi devoravit, hæsit ipse continuo, et disruptis inferni claustris, velut de profundo extractus traditur, ut esca ceteris fiat (in allusion to certain passages of Scripture, especially to Job: Adduces draconem in hamo et pones capistrum circa nares ejus,) Leo M. sermo xxii. 3. Greg. M. in Evv. L. ii. Hom. 25. 8. quoted by Münscher von Cölln, i. p. 431, (comp. Lau, 1. c. p. 445, ss.) and Isidore Hispal. Sent. lib. iii. dist. 19, (illusus est Diabolus morte Domini quasi avis) quoted by Baur, p. 79. The theologians of this period differed in so far in their opinions, as some adopted only the more general notion of the power which the devil possessed over men, while others (especially Augustine) conceded to the devil a real right; comp. Baur, Versöhnungslehre, p. 68, ss. (2) Orat. xlii. p. 691, C: We were under the dominion of the wicked one, inasmuch as we were sold unto sin, and exchanged pleasures for vileness. If it now be true that a ransom is always paid to him who is in the possession of the thing for which it is due, I would ask, to whom was it paid in this case? and for what reason? Perhaps to Satan himself? But it would be a shame to think so (p The üßgews.) For in that case the robber had not only received from God, but God himself (in Christ) as a ransom and an exceedingly great recompense of his tyranny......Or is it paid to the Father himself? But in the first place, it might be asked, how could that be, since God did not hold us in bondage? And again, how could we satisfactorily explain that the Father delighted in the blood of the only begotten Son? since he did not even accept the offer of Isaac, but substituted the sacrifice of a ram in the place of a rational being? Or is it not evident, that the Father received the ransom, not because he demanded or needed it, but on account of the Divine economy (dià cùv eixosoμíæv), and because man is to be sanctified by the incarnation of God; that having subdued the tyrant, he might deliver and reconcile us to himself by the intercession of his Son ?" See Ullmann, p. 456, 57. Gregory was nevertheless disposed to admit some artifice on the part of Christ in the contest in which he conquered Satan. "This consisted in this, that Christ assumed the form of man, in consequence of which the devil thought, that he had only to do with a being like ourselves, while the power and glory of the Godhead dwelt in him.” Orat. xxxix. 13, p. 685. Ullmann, 1. c. (3) De incarnat. c. 7, ss. God had threatened to punish transgressors with death, and thus could not but fulfil his threatening: Οὐκ ἀληθῆς γὰρ ἦν ὁ θεὸς, εἰ, εἰπόντος αὐτοῦ ἀποθνήσκειν ἡμᾶς, μὴ ἀπέDinoxer ó ävIgwπOS. x. T. λ. But, on the other hand, it was not in accordance with the character of God that rational beings, to whom he had imparted his own spirit (Logos), should fall from their first state in consequence of an imposition practised upon them by the devil. This was quite as contrary to the goodness of God (οὐκ ἄξιον γὰρ ἦν τῆς ἀγαθότητος τοῦ Θεοῦ,) as it would have been contrary to his justice and veracity, not to punish the transgressor. When the Logos perceived that nothing but death could save man from ruin, he assumed a human body, because the Logos himself, i. e. the eternal Son of God, could not die. He offered his human nature as a sacrifice for all, and fulfilled the law by his death. By it he also destroyed the power of the devil (ἠφάνιζε τὸν θάνατον τῇ προσφορᾷ τοῦ καταλλήλου, c. p, p. 54), etc. Comp. Möhlers, Athanasius, i. p. 157. Baur, p. 94, ss. Concerning the similar, though more general notions of Basil the Great (Hom.de gratiar. actione-Hom. in P's. xlviii. and xxviii.-de Spir. Sancto 15,) comp. Klose, p. 65. Cyrill also says, Cat. xiii. 33: 'Exǝgoi |