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

viii. 28.)

§ 131.

ANGELOLOGY AND ANGELOLATRY.

J. P. Carpzovi, 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.) 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 dégrov veμa, Tug akov 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.

(2) Theodoret ad Col. ii. 18, and iii. 17, (quoted by Munscher von Cölln, i. 86.) Conc. Laod. (about the year 363.) Can. 35. Mansi, ii. p. 570. See Fuchs, ii, p. 330, ss. Bruns, Bibl. 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· ἅπερ ἀπηγόρευται. 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. p. 454. (Chrysost. de precat. hom. i. Opp. T. i. p. 743, A.)

(6) Constantine the Great had dedicated a church at Constantinople (Mao) to St. Michael, Sozom. hist. eccl. ii. 3., and Theodoret, (1. c.) says in reference to the Phrygians and Pisidians ; μέχρι δὲ τοῦ νῦν εὐκτήρια τοῦ ἁγίου Μιχαὴλ παρ' ἐκείνοις καὶ τοῖς ὀμόgorg èxsívov čotiv ide. The Emperor Justinian, and Avitus, bishop of Vienne, also dedicated churches to Angels.

τοις

(7) Greg. Naz. xxxviii. 9, p. 668. All the angels together, form, in his opinion, the κόσμος νοητός, as distinct from the κόσμος aionrós, brunds xai igwuevos. 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

T:

ligitur angelorum, profecto facti sunt participes lucis æternæ, quod [quæ] est ipsa incommutabilis sapientia Dei, per quam facta sunt omnia, quem dicimus unigenitum Dei filium, ut ea luce illuminati, qua creati, fierent lux, et vocarentur dies participatione incommutabilis lucis et diei, quod est verbum Dei, per quod et ipsi et omnia facta sunt. Lumen quippe verum, quod illuminat omnem hominem in hunc mundum venientem, hoc illuminat et omnem angelum mundum, ut sit lux non in se ipso, sed in Deo: a quo si avertitur angelus, fit immundus.

(8) Some of the carlier theologians, e. g. Basil the Great, and Gregory of Nazianzum, founded different orders of angels on the various names given to them in Scripture. Bas. de Spir. S. c. 16. Greg. Orat. xxviii. 31, p. 521, mentions ȧyyśλous rivas nai ἀρχαγγέλους, θρόνους, κυριότητας, ἀρχὰς, ἐξουσίας, λαμπρότητας, ἀναβάσεις, voegàs duvámeis, ǹ vóas. He does not, however, distinctly state by what these different classes are distinguished, since he thinks these internal relations of the world of spirits beyond the reach of human apprehension; Ullmann, p. 494. Comp. Augustine Enchirid. ad Laur. 58: Quomodo autem se habeat beatissima illa et superna societas, quæ ibi sint differentiæ personarum, ut cum omnes tamquam generali nomine angeli nuncupentur...... ego me ista ignorare confiteor. Sed nec illud quidem certum habeo, utrum ad eandem societatem pertineant sol et luna et cuncta sidera etc. But Pseudo-Dionysius, who lived nearly a century after Augustine, seems to have understood the subject much better; in his Hierarchia cœlestis (Ed. Lansselii, Par. 1615 fol.) c. 6, he divided the whole number of angels into three classes (hierarchies), and subdivided each class into three orders (τάγματα): i. 1. Θρόνοι, 2. Χερουβίμ, 3. Σεραφίμ, ii. 4. κυριότη τες. 5. ἐξουσίαι, 6. δυνάμεις. iii. 7. ἀρχαί, 8. ἀρχάγγελοι, 9. ἄγγελοι. He nevertheless observed, that the last term, as well as duváμsis ougával, was common to all (c. 11.)a Gregory the Great followed him (Hom. in Ezekiel, xxxiv. 7. Opp. Tom. i. p. 1603, al. ii. p. 477.), and mentioned the following nine classes: Angeli, Archangeli, Virtutes, Potestates, Principatus, Dominationes,

a Pseudo-Dionysius, however, cap. 1, and 2,) endeavoured to remove the gross and sensuous ideas of the body of the angels, and designated the common terminology as ἀπότομον τῶν ἀγγελικῶν ὀνομάτων σκευήν (durum angeliorum nominum apparatum), con.p. his mystical interpretation of the images of angels in cap. 15.

Throni, Cherubim atque Seraphim, which he brought into connection with the nine precious stones spoken of in Ezek. xxviii.

13.

§ 132.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

Metaphysical definitions of the nature of Angels were of less importance in the religious-moral, consequently dogmatic point of view, than the question whether angels, like men, possessed a free will, and were capable of sinning? It was generally admitted that this had been the case prior to the fall of the evil angels. But theologians did not agree in their opinions respecting another point, viz. whether the good angels who at first resisted temptation, will never yield to it, or whether it is possible that they too should fall into sin? Gregory of Nazianzum, and still more decidedly Cyrill of Jerusalem, pronounced in favour of the latter view,(1) Augustine adopted the former.(2)

(1) Gregory thought that the angels were not dzivo, but duoxínro to evil (Orat. xxviii. 31, p. 521), and imagined that this would necessarily follow from the fact that Lucifer once fell, Orat. xxxviii. 9, p. 668. Orat. xlv. 5, p. 849. Ullmann, p. 496. Comp. also Basil the Great de Spir. S. c. 16.) But Cyrill of Jerusalem (Cat. ii. 10.) insisted that the predicate "sinless" should be applied to none but Christ, and maintained that the angels too stood in need of pardon. Comp. Lactantius Inst. vii. 20; Angeli Deum metuunt, quia castigari ab eo possunt inenarrabili quodam modo.

(2) Aug. de ver. rel. i. 13: Fatendum est enim, et angelos natura esse mutabiles, si solus Deus est incommutabilis ; sed ea voluntate, qua magis Deum quam se diligunt, firmi et stabiles manent in illo et fruuntur majestate ipsius, ei uni libentissime subditi. According to the Enchiridion, c. 28. the good angels received after the fall of the evil ones what they had not had before, viz. certam scientiam, qua essent de sua sempiterna et nunquam casura stabilitate securi; this idea is evidently in accordance with his anthropological views on the donum perseve