mer shines the more brightly. Spirits, he further remarks, may exercise themselves in distinguishing between good and evil; how could they know the former, without having some idea of the latter? But in a categorical manner he precludes all further questions: Non enim tu Deum facis, sed Deus te facit. Si ergo opera Dei es, manum artificis tui expecta, opportune omnia facientem: opportune autem, quantum ad te attenet, qui efficeris. Præsta autem ei cor tuum molle et tractabile, et custodi figuram, qua te figuravit artifex, habens in temetipso humorem, ne induratus amittas vestigia digitorum ejus......and further on: Si igitur tradideris ei, quod est tuum, i. e. fidem in eum et subjectionem, recipies ejus artem et eris perfectum opus Dei. Si autem non credideris ei et fugeris manus ejus, erit causa imperfectionis in te, qui non obedisti, sed non in illo, qui vocavit, etc. At all events, the best and soundest Theodicè! To a speculative mind like that of Origen, the existence of evil would present a strong inducement to explain its origin, though he could not but be aware of the difficulties with which this subject is beset. Comp. espec. de princ. ii. 9, Opp. i. p. 97; contra Celsum iv. 62, p. 551 (an extract of which is given by Rössler, vol. i. p. 232, ss.) Different reasons are adduced in vindication of the existence of evil in the world; thus it serves to exercise the ingenuity of man (power of invention, etc.); but he draws special attention to the connection between moral and physical imperfections, evil and sin. Comp. the opinion of Thomasius concerning the Theodicè of Origen, p. 57, 58.

-§ 49.

ANGELOLOGY AND DEMONOLOGY.

Suicer, thesaurus s. v. ayyeλoç. Cotta, Disputationes 2, succinctam doctrinæ de angelis historiam exhibentes, Tüb. 1765, 4. Schmid, Hist. dogm. de angelis tutelaribus, in Illgens histor. theol. Abhandlungen, i. p. 24-27. Keil, de angelorum malorum et dæmoniorum cultu apud gentiles, Opusc. acad. p. 584-601. (Gaab), Ahhandlungen zur Dogmengeschichte der ältesten griechischen Kirche, Jena, 1790, p. 97–136. Usteri, paulin. Lehrbegriff. 4th edit. Appendix 3, p. 421, ss.—Dr. L. Mayer, Scriptural Idea of Angels, in Amer. Biblic. Reposit. xii. 356388. Moses Stuart, Sketches of Angelology in Bibliotheca Sacra, No. I. Knapp, 1. c. p. 180, ss. Walter Scott, The Existence of Evil Spirits proved, Lond, 2nd edit. 1845. Kitto, Cyclop. of Bibl. Liter. arts. Angels, Demons, Satan.]

The doctrine of Good and Evil Spirits forms an important appendix to the chapters on creation, providence, and the government of the world. Concerning angels, the general opinion was, that they constitute a part of the whole creation; some, however, thought that they took an active part in the work of creation, or considered them as the agents of special providence. The doctrine of Satan and demons stands in close connection with the doctrine of the existence of physical and moral evil in the world.

§ 50.

THE ANGELS.

Though the primitive church, as Origen asserts, did not establish any definite doctrine on this subject,1 we nevertheless meet with several declarations respecting the nature of angels. Thus many of the earlier Fathers rejected the notion, that they had taken part in the work of creation,2 and maintained, on the contrary, that they are created beings and ministering spirits. In opposition to the doctrine of emanation and of æons, they even ascribed bodies to them, which were however admitted to be composed of much finer substance than that belonging to human bodies. The idea of guardian angels was connected in part with the mythical notion of geniuses. But no traces are to be found during this period of a true worship of angels within the pale of the Catholic church.7

1 De princ. proœm. 10, Opp. i. p. 49: Est etiam illud in ecclesiastica prædicatione, esse angelos Dei quosdam et virtutes bonas, qui ei ministrant ad salutem hominum consummandam; sed quando isti creati sint, vel quales aut quomodo sint, non satis in manifesto designatur.

2 Iren. i. 22 and 24, (against the opinions of Saturninus and Carpocrates) comp. ii. 2, p. 117: Si enim (Deus) mundi fabricator est, angelos ipse fecit, aut etiam causa creationis eorum ipse fuit.

III. 8, 3: Quoniam enim sive angeli, sive archangeli, sive throni, sive dominationes ab eo, qui super omnes est Deus, et constituta sunt et facta sunt per verbum ejus. Comp. also iv. 6, 7: Ministrat ei (patri) ad omnia sua progenies et figuratio sua i. e. Filius et Spir. S., verbum et sapientia, quibus serviunt et subjecti sunt omnes angeli. Comp. Duncker, p. 108, ss., and Baur, Dreieinigk. lehre, p. 175. The latter thinks, that from the manner in which the earliest Fathers frequently bring the angels into close connection with the persons of the Trinity, it follows that their views respecting this great mystery itself were yet very indefinite.

3 "Justin M. regards the angels as personal beings who possess a permanent existence," Semisch, ii. p. 341. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 128: ̔́Οτι μὲν οὖν εἰσὶν ἄγγελοι, καὶ ἀεὶ μένοντες, καὶ μὴ ἀναλυόμενοι εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ἐξ οὗπερ γεγόνασιν, ἀποδέδεικται...... Athen. leg. c. 10: Πλῆθος ἀγγέλων καὶ λειτουργῶν φαμεν, οὓς ὁ ποιητὴς καὶ δήμιουργὸς κόσμου θεὸς διὰ τοῦ παρ ̓ αὐτοῦ λόγου διένειμε παὶ διέταξε περί τε τὰ στοιχεῖα εἶναι καὶ τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ Év AνTÊ KAÌ TηV TOÚTOV Evтažiav. Comp. c. 24, and Clem. Strom. vi. 17, p. 822, 824; according to him the angels have received charge over provinces, towns, etc. Clement, however, distinguishes the ayyelos, from the other angels, and connects him ἄγγελος, π

in some degree with the Logos, though he assigns to him an inferior rank. Comp. Strom. vii. 2, p. 831-833. He also speaks of a mythical Angelus Jesus, Pæd. i. 7, p. 133, comp. G. Bulli Def. fidei nic. sect. 1, cap. 1, (de Christo sub angeli forma apparente). Opp. Lond. 1703, fol. p. 9. [Pye Smith, Script. Test. to the Mess. i. p. 445-464.] On the employments of angels comp. Orig. contra Cels. v. 29. Opp. i. p. 598, and Hom. xii. in Luc. Opp. iii. p. 945. [Knapp, l. c. p. 187.]

Philo had already converted those angels who are individually mentioned, (e. g. the Cherubim) into Divine powers, see Dähne, p. 227, ss. Justin M. also informs us that in his time some had compared the relation in which the angels stand to God, to that which exists between the sun and its beams: but he decidedly rejects this opinion, Dial. c. Tryph. c. 128. Comp. Tert. adv. Prax. c. 3, (in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity): Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est, millies millia adsistebant ei, et millies centena millia apparebant ei: nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta millia virtutum procuratur,

etc.

5 Justin M. attaches great importance to the body of angels which is analogous to that of man. Their food is manna, Psal. lxxviii. 25; the two angels who appeared to Abraham, (Gen. xviii. 1, ss.) differed from the Logos who accompanied them, in partaking of the meat set before them, in reality and after the manner of men, comp. dial. c. Tryph. c. 57, and Semisch, ii. p. 343. As regards their intellectual powers and moral condition, Justin assigns an inferior position to the angels, Semisch, p. 344, 345. Tertullian points out the difference between the body of Christ and that of the angels, de carne Christi, c. 6: Nullus unquam angelus ideo descendit, ut crucifigeretur, ut mortem experiretur, ut a morte suscitaretur. Si nunquam ejusmodi fuit causa angelorum corporandorum, habes causam, cur non nascendi acceperint carnem. Non venerant mori, ideo nec nasci......Igitur probent angelos illos, carnem de sideribus concepisse. Si non probant, quia nec scriptum est, nec Christi caro inde erit, cui angelorum accommodant exemplum. Constat, angelos carnem non propriam gestasse, utpote naturas substantiæ spiritalis, et si corporis alicujus, sui tamen generis; in carnem autem humanam transfigurabiles ad tempus videri et congredi cum hominibus posse. Igitur, cum relatum non sit, unde sumpserint carnem, relinquitur intellectui nostro, non dubitare, hoc esse proprium angelicæ potestatis, ex nulla materia corpus sibi sumere. Tatian, Or. c. 15: Δαίμονες δὲ πάντες σαρκίον μὲν οὐ κέκτηνται, πνευματικὴ δέ ἐστιν αὐτοῖς ἡ σύμπηξις, ὡς πυρὸς és dépos. But these ethereal bodies of the angels can be perceived by those only in whom the Spirit of God dwells, not by the natural man. In comparison with other creatures they might be designated incorporeal beings, and Ignat. ad Trall. calls them dowμáтovs púσeis. Clement also says, Strom. vi. 7, p. 769, that they μάτους φύσεις. have neither ears, nor tongues, nor lips, nor entrails, nor organs of respiration, etc. Comp. Orig. princ. in procem. § 9. On the question, whether the Fathers taught the spiritual nature of the angels at all, see Semisch, II. p. 342.

* This idea had already occurred in the Shepherd of Hermas, lib. ii. mand. vi. 2: Δύο εἰσὶν ἄγγελοι μετὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, εἰς τῆς δικαιοσύνης καὶ εἰς τῆς πονηρίας· καὶ ὁ μὲν τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἄγ γελος τρυφερός ἐστι καὶ αἰσχυντηρὸς καὶ πρᾶος καὶ ἡσύχιος. Οταν οὖν οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν σοῦ ἀναβῇ, εὐθέως λαλεῖ μετὰ σοῦ περὶ δικαιοσύνης, περὶ ἁγνείας, περὶ σεμνότητος καὶ περὶ αὐταρκείας, καὶ περὶ παντὸς ἔργου δικαίου, καὶ περὶ πάσης ἀρετῆς ἐνδόξου. Ταῦτα πάντα ὅταν εἰς τὴν καρδίαν σοῦ ἀναβῇ, γίνωσκε

ὅτι ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς δικαιοσύνης μετὰ σοῦ ἐστιν· τούτῳ οὖν πίστευε καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐγκρατὴς αὐτοῦ γενοῦ. Ὅρα οὖν καὶ τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῆς πονηρίας τὰ ἔργα. Πρῶτον πάντων ὀξύχολός ἐστι καὶ πίκρὸς καὶ ἄφρων, καὶ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ καταστρέ φοντα τοὺς δούλους τοῦ θεοῦ· ὅταν αὐτὸς ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν σοῦ ἀναβῆ, γνῶθι αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ. (Fragm. ex doctr. ad Antioch.) We have already seen, (note 3), that Clement -and also Origen-assigned to the angels the office of watching over provinces and towns, in accordance with the notion of individual guardian-angels; comp. Clem. Strom. v. p. 700, and vii. p. 833, and the passage quoted above from Origen.

7 Col. ii. 18, mention is made of a θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων which the apostle disapproves. The answer to the question, whether Justin M. numbered the angels among the objects of Christian worship, depends upon the interpretation of the passage, Apol. i. 6: Αθεοι κεκλήμεθα καὶ ὁμολογοῦμεν τῶν τοιούτων νομιζομένων θεῶν ἄθεοι εἶναι, ἀλλ ̓ οὐχὶ τοῦ ἀληθεστάτου καὶ πατρὸς δικαιοσύνης καὶ σωφροσύης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν, ἀνεπιμίκτον τε κακίας θεοῦ· ἀλλ ̓ ἐκεῖνόν τε καὶ τὸν παρ ̓ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν ἐλθόντα καὶ διδάξαντα ἡμᾶς ταῦτα καὶ τὸν τῶν ἄλλων ἐπου μένων καὶ ἐξομοιουμένων ἀγαθῶν ἀγγέλων στρατὸν, πνεῦμα τε τὸ προφητικὸν σεβόμεθα καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν, λόγῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ τιμῶντες. The principal point in question is, whether the accusative τὸν τῶν ἄλλων...στρατὸν is governed by σεβόμεθα καὶ προςκυνοῦμεν, or by διδάξαντα. Most modern writers adopt the former interpretation, which is probably the more correct one. Thus Semisch, p. 350, ss. Möhler (Patrologie, p. 240) finds in this passage as well as in Athen. Leg. 10, a proof of the Romish adoration of angels and saints. But Athenagoras (c. 16) rejects this doctrine very decidedly in the following words: Οὐ τὰς δυνάμεις τοῦ θεοῦ πρασίοντες θεραπεύομεν, ἀλλὰ τὸν ποιητὴν αὐτῶν καὶ δεσπότην. Comp. Clem. Strom. vi. 5, p. 760. Orig. contra Cels. v. 4, 5, Opp. i. p. 580, and viii. 13, ib. p. 751, quoted by Münscher, ed. by Von Cölln, i. p. 84, 85. (Comp. Knapp, 1. c. p. 190. Gieseler, i. § 99, and note 33. *Burton, Testimonies of the Anten. Fath. to the Trinity, etc., p. 15-23. On the Gnostic worship of angels, comp. Burton, Bampton Lect., note 52.] In the opinion of Origen, the angels rather pray with us and for us, comp. contra Cels. viii. 64, p. 789. Hom. in Num. xxiv. (Opp. iii. p. 362).