with us and for us, comp. Contra Cels. viii. 64, p. 789; Hom. in Num. xxiv. (Opp. iii. p. 362). If, however, not worthy of divine honour, yet, according to Origen, the angels are peoẞúτεροι καὶ τιμιώτεροι οὐ μόνον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάσης μετ ̓ αὐτοὺς κοσμοποιΐας (Comm. in Matt. xv. 27). The εὐφη μεῖν and μακαρίζειν, which he claims for angels, would soon lead to invocation and finally to worship. On the order and

rank of angels in Origen, see Redep. ii. s. 348 ff.

§ 51.

The Devil and Demons.

The Bible does not represent the prince of darkness, or the wicked one (Devil, Satan), as an evil principle which existed from the beginning, in opposition to a good principle (dualism); but, in accordance with the doctrine of one God, it speaks of him as a creature, viz. an angel who was created by God good, but who, in the exercise of his free will, fell away from his Maker. This was also the view taken by the orthodox Fathers (1). Everything which was opposed to the light of the gospel and its development, physical evils (2), as well as the numerous persecutions of Christians (3), was thought to be the work of Satan and his demons. The entire system of paganism, its mythology and worship (4), and, according to some, even philosophy (5), were supposed to be subject to the influence of demons. Heresies (6) were also ascribed to the same agency. Moreover, some particular vices were considered to be the specific effects of individual evil spirits (7).

(1) Concerning the appellatives 1, σaтâv, σatavâs, σατᾶν, διάβολος, ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, δαίμονες, δαιμόνια, Beeλeßoúλ, etc., the origin of the doctrine and its development in the Scriptures, comp. de Wette, biblische Dogmatik, § 142-150, 212-214, 236-238; Baumgarten - Crusius, biblische Theologie, s. 295; Von Cölln, biblische Theologie, s. 420; Hirzel, Commentar zum Hiob, s. 16. The Fathers

generally adopted the notions already existing. Justin M. Apol. min. c. 5. Athenag. Leg. 24: Ως γὰρ θεόν φαμεν καὶ υἱὸν τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ... οὕτως καὶ ἑτέρας εἶναι δυνάμεις κατειλήμμεθα περὶ τὴν ὕλην ἐχούσας καὶ δι ̓ αὐτῆς, μίαν μὲν τὴν ἀντίθεον, οὐχ ὅτι ἀντιδοξοῦν τι ἐστὶ τῷ θεῷ, ὡς τῇ φιλίᾳ τὸ νεῖκος κατὰ τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέα, καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ νὺξ κατὰ τὰ φαινόμενα (ἐπεὶ κἂν εἰ ἀνθειστήκει τι τῷ θεῷ, ἐπαύσατο τοῦ εἶναι, λυθείσης αὐτοῦ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμει καὶ ἰσχύϊ τῆς συστάσεως) ἀλλ ̓ ὅτι τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀγαθῷ, ὃ κατὰ συμβεβηκός ἐστιν αὐτῷ, καὶ συνυπάρχον, ὡς χρόα σώματι, οὗ ἄνευ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐχ ὡς μέρους ὄντος, ἀλλ ̓ ὡς κατ ̓ ἀνάγκην συνόντος παρακολουθήματος ἡνωμένου καὶ συγκεχρωσμένου· ὡς τῷ πυρὶ, ξανθῷ εἶναι, καὶ τῷ αἰθέρι, κυανῷ) ἐναντίον ἐστὶ τὸ περὶ τὴν ὕλην ἔχον πνεῦμα, γενόμενον μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, καθὸ οἱ λοιποὶ ὑπ ̓ αὐτοῦ γεγόνασιν ἄγγελοι καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ ὕλῃ καὶ τοῖς τῆς ὕλης εἴδεσι πιστευσάμενον διοίκησιν. Iren. iv. 41, p. 288: Quum igitur a Deo omnia facta sunt, et diabolus sibimet ipsi et reliquis factus est abscessionis causa, juste scriptura eos, qui in abscessione perseverant, semper filios diaboli et angelos dixit maligni. Tert. Apol. c. 22: Atque adeo dicimus, esse substantias quasdam spiritales, nec nomen novum est. Sciunt dæmonas philosophi, Socrate ipso ad dæmonii arbitrium exspectante, quidni? cum et ipsi dæmonium a pueritia adhaesisse dicatur, dehortatorium plane a bono. Dæmonas [omnes] sciunt poëtae, et jam [etiam] vulgus indoctum in usum maledicti frequentat; nam et Satanam, principem hujus mali generis, proinde de propria conscientia animæ eadem execramenti voce pronuntiat. Angelos quoque etiam Plato non negavit. Utriusque nominis testes esse vel magi adsunt. Sed quomodo de angelis quibusdam sua sponte corruptis corruptior gens dæmonum evaserit damnata a Deo cum generis auctoribus et cum eo quem diximus principe, apud litteras sanctas ordine cognoscitur. Comp. Orig. De Princip. procem. 6 (Οpp. t. i. p. 48), who, however, leaves all other points problematical, as he does in the doctrine respecting angels; it is sufficient to believe that Satan and the demons really exist-quæ autem sint aut quo modo sint (ecclesta), non clare exposuit. It was not until the following period that the Manichees developed the dualistic view, that the devil is a distinct and essential evil principle, in the form of

a regular system, although traces of it may be found in some earlier Gnostic notions, e.g. the Jaldabaoth of the Ophites, comp. Neander's Gnostische Systeme, s. 233 ff. Baur, Gnosis, s. 173 ff., Dg. s. 557. In opposition to this dualistic view, Origen maintains that the devil and the demons are creatures of God, though not created as devils, but as spiritual beings; Contra Cels. iv. 65 (Opp. i. p. 563).-As to the extent in which Platonism and Ebionitism participated in the Christian demonology, see Semisch, Just. Mart. s. 387 ff.

(2) Tertullian and Origen agree in ascribing failures of crops, drought, famine, pestilence, and murrain to the influence of demons. Tert. Apol. c. 22 (operatio eorum est hominis eversio). Orig. Contra Cels. viii. 31, 32 (Opp. i. p. 764, 765). He calls the evil spirits the executioners of God (Enμio). Demoniacal possessions were still considered as phenomena of special importance (as in the times of the N. T.). Minuc. Fel. c. 27: Irrepentes etiam corporibus occulte, ut spiritus tenues, morbos fingunt, terrent mentes, membra distorquent. Concerning these δαιμονιόληπτοι, μαινόμενοι, ἐνεργούμενοι, comp. in particular Const. Apost. lib. viii. c. 7. A rationalistic explanation is already given in the Clementine Hom. ix. § 12: "Olev πολλοὶ οὐκ εἰδότες, πόθεν ἐνεργοῦνται, ταῖς τῶν δαιμόνων κακαῖς ὑποβαλλομέναις ἐπινοίαις, ὡς τῷ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῶν λoуioμ@ σVVTibEvтal. Comp., moreover, Orig. ad Matt. xvii. 5 (Opp. t. iii. p. 574 ff.), De Princip. iii. 2 (Opp. t. i. p. 138 ff., de contrariis potestatibus). Schnitzer, s. 198 ff.; Thomasius, s. 184 ff., and the passages cited there.

(3) Justin M. Apol. c. 5, 12, 14 (quoted by Usteri, 1.c. s. 421). Minuc. Fel. 1.c.: Ideo inserti mentibus imperitorum odium nostri serunt occulte per timorem. Naturale est enim et odisse quem timeas, et quem metueris, infestare, si possis. Justin M. Apol. ii. towards the commencement, and c. 6. Comp. Orig. Exhort. ad Martyr. § 18, 32, 42 (Opp. t. i. p. 286, 294, 302). But Justin M., Apol. i. c. 5, also ascribes the process against Socrates to the hatred of the demons. The observation of Justin, quoted by Irenæus (Advers. Hær. v. c. 26, p. 324), and Euseb. iv. 18, is very remarkable: "Oτ Tρò μὲν τῆς τοῦ κυρίου παρουσίας οὐδέποτε ἐτόλμησεν ὁ Σατανᾶς βλασφημῆσαι τὸν θεὸν, ἅτε μηδέπω εἰδὼς αὑτοῦ τὴν κατάKрlow (comp. Epiph. in Hær. Sethianor. p. 289); thus the

efforts of the powers of darkness against the victorious progress of the Christian religion could be more satisfactorily explained.

(4) Ep. Barn. c. 16, 18; Justin M. Apol. i. 12, and elsewhere; Tatian, c. 12, 20, and elsewhere (comp. Daniel, s. 162 ff.); Athen. Leg. c. 26; Tert. Apol. c. 22, De Præscr. c. 40; Minuc. Fel. Octav. c. 27, 1; Clem. Al. Cohort. p. 7; Origen, Contra Cels. iii. 28, 37, 69, iv. 36, 92, v. 5, vii. 64, viii. 30. The demons are present in particular at the offering of sacrifices, and relish the smoke of the burnt-offering; they speak out of the oracles, and rejoice in the licentiousness and excess which accompany these festivals. (Comp. Keil, De Angelorum malorum s. Dæmoniorum Cultu apud Gentiles; Opusc. Academ. s. 584-601. Münscher, Von Cölln, i. s. 92 ff.)

(5) According to Minuc. Fel. c. 26, the demon of Socrates was one of those evil demons. Clement also says of a sect of Christians, Strom. i. 1, p. 326: Οἱ δὲ καὶ πρὸς κακοῦ ἂν τὴν φιλοσοφίαν εἰσδεδυκέναι τὸν βίον νομίζουσιν, ἐπὶ λύμῃ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, πρός τινος εὑρετοῦ πονηροῦ, which is manifestly nothing but an euphemism for diaßóλov; comp. Strom. vi. 882 : Πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἄτοπον τὴν ἀταξίαν καὶ τὴν ἀδικίαν προσνέμοντας τῷ διαβόλῳ, ἐναρέτου πράγματος, τοῦτον τῆς φιλοσοφίας, Swτnра πоLεiv; comp. also Strom. i. 17, p. 366, and the note in the edition of Potter. Astrology, etc., was also ascribed to demoniacal influence; comp. the same note.

(6) Comp. Justin M. Apol. i. 56, 58. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiæ, p. 105: Hæreses invenit (diabolus) et schismata, quibus subverteret fidem, veritatem corrumperet, scinderet unitatem, etc.

(7) Hermas, ii. 6, 2, comp. the preceding section. Justin M. Apol. ii. c. 5 (Usteri, s. 423)... kaì eis åv¤púπovs þóvovs, πολέμους, μοιχείας, ἀκολασίας καὶ πᾶσαν κακίαν ἔσπειραν. Clem. Alex. designates as the most malicious and most pernicious of all demons the greedy belly-demon (Koiλiodaíμova Mxvóτaτov), who is related to the one that works in ventriloquists (T èyуаσтρiμúl), Pæd. ii. 1, p. 174. Origen follows Hermas in classifying the demons according to the vices which they represent, and thus unconsciously prepares the way for more intelligible views, gradually resolving these concrete representations of devils into abstract notions.

Comp. Hom. 15, in Jesum Nave (Opp. t. ii. p. 333): Unde mihi videtur esse infinitus quidem numerus contrariarum virtutum, pro eo quod per singulos pene homines sunt spiritus aliqui, diversa in iis peccatorum genera molientes. Verbi causa, est aliquis fornicationis spiritus, est iræ spiritus alius, est avaritiæ spiritus, alius vere superbiæ. Et si eveniat esse aliquem hominem, qui his omnibus malis aut etiam pluribus agitetur, omnes hos vel etiam plures in se habere inimicos. putandus est spiritus. Comp. also the subsequent part, where it is said, not only that every vice has its chief demon, but also that every vicious person is possessed with a demon who is in the service of the chief demon. Others refer not only crimes, but also natural desires, as the sexual impulse, to the devil. Origen, however, objects to this, De Princip. iii. 2, 2 (Opp. t. i. p. 139, Redepenning, p. 278 ss.).

$ 52.

The same Subject continued.

The Fathers held different opinions as to the particular sin which caused the apostasy of the demons (1). Some thought that it was envy and pride (2), others supposed lasciviousness and intemperance (3). But it is of practical importance to notice, that the Church never held that the devil can compel any soul to commit sin without its own consent (4). Origen went so far, that, contrary to the general opinion, he allowed even to Satan the glimmer of a hope of future pardon (5).

(1) The Fathers do not agree as to the time at which this took place. On the supposition that the devil seduced our first parents, it is necessary to assign an earlier date to his apostasy than to the fall of man. But, according to Tatian (Orat. c. 11), the fall of Satan was the punishment which was inflicted upon him in consequence of the part he had taken in the first sin of man (comp. Daniel, s. 187, 196). From the language of Irenæus (comp. note 2), one might suspect that he