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 calis the angels sancti angeli, De Civ. Dei xi. 9. In another passage, in a more rhetorical strain (Sermo 46), they are called domestici Dei, cœli cives, principes Paradisi, scientiæ magistri, doctores sapientiæ, illuminatores animarum, custodes earum corporum, zelatores et depensores bonorum. 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. According to Gregory the Great, the angels are limited (circumscripti) spirits, without bodies, while God alone is incircumscriptus; Dial. lib. iv. c. 29; Moral. ii. c. 3. He also terms them rationalia animalia, see Lau, loc. cit. p. 357 sq.

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 vindicare. 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. Though he thus mentions angels and martyrs as mediating persons, yet soon after he counsels men to the direct invocation of the Divine physician himself.

Theodoret ad Col. ii. 18, and iii. 17 (quoted by Münscher von Cölln, i. 86). Conc. Laod. (A. D. 320-372?) in Can. 35; Mansi ii. p. 570; see Fuchs, ii. p. 330, ss.; Bruns, Bibl. Eccles. i. p. 77. Gieseler, Church History, i. § 99, note 32-34, § 121, note 7: "OTɩ où dεi Xpioτiavovs ¿ykaTαλείπειν 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.

Theodoret, 1. c. Eusebius (Præp. Evang. vii. 15) already makes a distinction between τιμᾶν and σέβειν. Only the first is to be rendered to the angels. 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. Yet, in his Sermons, he insists upon the duty of loving the angels and of honoring them. He also believes in tutelary angels. Gregory M. in Cant. Cant. c. 8 (Opp. T. ii. p. 454).

6

⚫ Constantine the Great had built a church at Constantinople (Mixanov) 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 ὁμόροις ἐκείνων ἔστιν ἰδεῖν, The Emperor Justinian, and Avitus, bishop of Vienne (†523) also formally dedicated to angels churches built in honor of them.

7

Greg. Naz. xxxviii. 9, p. 668. All the angels together form, in his opinion, the κόσμος νοητός, as distinct from the κόσμος αἰσθητός, ὑλικὸς καὶ ópúμevoç. 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, ), 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 intelligitur 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.

Some of the earlier theologians, e. g., Basil the Great, and Gregory of Nazianzum, held that there were different orders of angels on the basis of different names given to them in Scripture. Basil de Spir. S. c. 16. Gregory Orat. xxviii. 31, p. 521, mentions ἀγγέλους τινὰς καὶ ἀρχαγγέλους, θρόνους, κυριότητας, ἀρχὰς, ἐξουσίας, λαμπρότητας, ἀναβάσεις, νοερὰς δυνάμεις ἢ vóaç. 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, hardly a century after Augustine, seems to have understood the subject much better; in his Hierarchia Colestis (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. κυριότητες, 5. ἐξουσίαι, 6. δυνάμεις, ii. 7. ἀρχαί, 8. ἀρχάγ yɛλoi, 9. äyɣɛλol. He nevertheless observed that the last term, as well as

* It was so called, not because it was consecrated to the archangel Michael, but because it was believed that he appeared there (Sozomen, ii. 3); comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 332.

Svváμɛis ovρáviai, was common to all (c. 11).* Gregory the Great followed him (Hom. in Ezekiel xxxiv. 7, Opp. Tom. i. p. 1603, al. ii. p. 477), and knows the following nine classes: Angeli, Archangeli, Virtutes, Potestates, Principatus, Dominationes, Throni, Cherubim atque Seraphim, which he brought into connection with the nine precious stones spoken of in Ezek. xxviii. 13. At the same time he holds that the angels, through love, have all in common; see Lau, p. 359.

§ 132.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

Metaphysical definitions of the nature of angels were of less interest in the religious and moral, and consequently in the 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 may fall into sin? Gregory of Nazianzum, and still more decidedly Cyril of Jerusalem, pronounced in favor of the latter view,' Augustine and Gregory the Great adopted the former."

1

Gregory thought that the angels were not ἀκίνητοι, but δυσκίνητοι το evil (Orat. xxviii. 31, p. 521), and supposed that this necessarily follows 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 Cyril 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.

Augustine 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

Pseudo-Dionysius, however (cap. 1 and 2), endeavored to remove the gross and sensuous ideas about the forms of the angels, and designated the common terminology as ἀπότομον τῶν ἀγγελικῶν ὀνομάτων σκευήν (durum angelicorum nominum apparatum); comp. his mystical interpretation of the symbols of angels in cap. 15. [Baur, Dogmengesch. p. 172, says that in this hierarchy, where all is measured by quantitative distinctions, the difference between the Platonic and Christian view becomes evident-the Christian view being, that there is a direct union of God and man; and that Augustine (De Civ. Dei, 9, 16) well expressed this difference, by directly denying the Platonic thesis— nullus Deus miscetur homini.]

casura stabilitate securi; this idea is evidently in accordance with his anthropological views about the donum perseverantiæ, and is distinctly brought forward in De Civ. Dei xi. 13: Quis enim catholicus christianus ignorat nullum novum diabolum ex bonis angelis ulterius futurum: sicut nec istum in societatem bonorum angelorum ulterius rediturum? Veritas quippe in Evangelio sanctis fidelibusque promittit, quod erunt æquales angelis Dei? quibus etiam promittitur, quod ibunt in vitam æternam. Porro autem si nos certi sumus nunquam nos ex illa immortali felicitate casuros, illi vero certi non sunt jam potiores, non æquales eis erimus, profecto etiam ipsi certi sunt suæ felicitatis æternæ. Comp. Pseudo-Dionys. c. 7. Gregory the Great also asserted that the good angels obtained the confirmatio in bono as a gift of God; Ezech. lib. i. hom. 7, Mor. v. c. 38, and xxxvi. c. 7, Lau, p. 362.

§ 133.

DEVIL AND DEMONS.

[Isaac Taylor, Ancient Christianity, 4th ed. 1844, vol. ii. 137-222, on the Ancient Demonolatry.]

According to the prevailing opinion of the age, pride was the immediate and real cause of the fall of the evil spirits.' Almost all the theologians of this period, with the exception of Lactantius, whose notions resembled those of the dualistic Manicheans,* regarded the devil as a being of limited power, whose seductions Christian believers were able to resist. Didymus of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa ventured-though with great caution-to revive the notion of Origen, that there was still hope of the final conversion of the devil. Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, and Augustine combated this opinion, which was condemned in the sixth century by the Emperor Justinian, together with the other errors of Origen." It was, moreover, supposed that demoniacal powers were still in operation,' and were most effectually resisted not only by the moral, but also by the physical and magical efficacy of the name of Christ, and the sign of the cross.

8

1 Eusebius Demonst. Evang. iv. 9. Augustine De Vera Rel. i. 13: Ille autem angelus magis se ipsum, quam Deum diligendo subditus ei esse noluit et intumuit per superbiam, et a summa essentia defecit et lapsus est, et ob hoc minus est quam fuit, quia eo quod minus erat frui voluit, quum magis voluit sua potentia frui, quam Dei. De Catechiz. Rudibus § 30: Superbiendo deseruit obedientiam Dei et Diabolus factus est. De Civ. Dei xii. c. 6: Cum vero causa miseriæ malorum angelorum quæritur, ea merito occurrit, quod ab illo qui summe est aversi ad se ipsos conversi sunt, qui non summe sunt: et hoc vitium quid aliud quam superbia nuncupatur? Initium quippe omnis peccati superbia. Comp. Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 28. Envy was joined

with pride; comp. Gregory of Nazianz. Orat. xxxvi. 5, p. 637, and vi. 13, p. 187. Ullmann, p. 499. Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. Catech. c. 6: Tavта δὲ [viz., the excellence of the first man] τῷ ἀντικειμένῳ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν plóvov tálový ÚTTEKкаÚμATа ηv. Cassian, Collat. viii. 6, makes mention of both superbia and invidia. Gregory the Great also emphasizes pride; by this the devil was seduced to strive after a privata celsitudo; Moral. xxi. c. 2; xxxiv. c. 21; Lau, p. 365.—The idea of lasciviousness was put more and more into the background. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, and Cassian, gave also a more correct interpretation of the passage in Gen. vi. 2, which was misunderstood by earlier theologians: although Eusebius (Præp. Ev. v. 4), Ambrose de Noë et Arca, c. 4, and Sulpicius Severus (Hist. Sacra, i. 3), explained it in a sense similar to that which was formerly attached to it (§ 52, note 3). Comp. Chrys. Hom. in Gen. xxii. (Opp. T. ii. p. 216). [S. R. Maitland, in Brit. Mag. xxi. p. 389 sq., and in his Essays (on False Worship, p. 19 sq.), 1856. C. F. Keil, in Zeitschrift f. d. luth. Theol. 1855 and 1859; Engelhardt, ibid. 1856. Delitzsch, review of Kurtz in Reuter's Repertorium, 1857. Bibliotheca Sacra, Andover, 1850. Journal of Sacred Lit. Oct. 1858.] Theodoret in Gen. Quæst. 47 (Opp. T. i. p. 58): Εμβρόντητοι ὄντες καὶ ἄγαν ἠλίθιοι, ἀγγέλους τούτους ἀπέλαβον; and Fab. Hær. Ep. v. 7, Opp. iv. p. 402 : Παραπληξίας γὰρ ἐσχάτης τὸ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις προσάψαι τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀκολασίαν. Cyril Alex. Contra Anthropomorphitas, c. 17 (Opp. T. vi. p. 384); Contra Julian, lib. ix. p. 296, 297. Augustine De Civ. Dei xv. 23; quæst. 3 in Gen.; Cassian Coll. viii. c. 20, 21. [Comp. Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, i. p. 90-92.] Hilary (in Ps. cxxxii. p. 403), mentions the earlier interpretation, but without approval. Philastrius, on the contrary, numbers it among the heresies, Hær. 107 (De Gigantibus tempore Noë).

Inst. ii. 8. Previous to the creation of the world God created a spirit like unto himself (the Logos), who possessed the attributes of the Father; but after that he created another spirit, in whom the divine seed did not remain (in quo indoles divinæ stirpis non permansit). Moved by envy he apostatized, and changed his name (contrarium sibi nomen ascivit). The Greek writers call him diáßoλos, the Latin criminator, quod crimina, in quæ ipse illicit, ad Deum deferat (hence the appellation obtrectator). He envies especially his predecessor (the first-born), because he continued to enjoy the favor of God.-Lactantius thus agrees with the other theologians in supposing that envy was the cause of the fall. But his peculiar manner of representing Satan, as it were, as the second Son of God, and of drawing a parallel between him and the first-born, reminds us of Gnostic and Manichean notions. In another passage (now wanting in many MSS., but probably omitted at an early period to save the reputation of Lactantius), he calls the Logos the right, and Satan the left hand of God. If the passage in question were genuine, it would go to prove very clearly that the views of Lactantius on this subject were essentially Manichean, though the unity of the Father would be still preserved above the antagonism of Logos and Satan; but this notion would justly expose its author to the charge of Arianism. This seems to have been felt by those critics who omitted the above passage. Comp. the note of Cellarius in the edition of Bünemann, i. p. 218. Comp. cap. ix.