§ 51.

SATAN 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; but, in accordance with the doctrine of One God, it speaks of him as a creature, viz., an angel who was created by God in a state of purity and innocence, but voluntarily rebelled against 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, as well as the numerous persecutions of the Christians,3 was thought to be a work of Satan and his agents, the demons. The entire system of paganism, of mythology, and worship, and, according to some, even philosophy, were supposed to be subject to the influence of demons. Heresies 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 y σατᾶν, σατανᾶς, διάβολος, ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, δαιμονες, δαιμόνια, βεελζεβούλ, etc., the origin of the doctrine and its development in the Scriptures, comp. de Wette, biblische Dogmatik, § 145-150; 212–214; 236– 238; Baumgarten-Crusius, biblische Theologie, p. 295; Von Cölln, biblische Theologie, p. 420: Hirzel, Commentar. zum Hiob, p. 16; [Knapp, 1. c. p. 190–203. Storr and Flatt, biblic. Theol. transl. by Schmucker, sect. 50, 51; Lawrence, E. A., in Kitto, Cyclop. of Bibl. Lit. sub voce.] 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, κατειλήμ μεθα περὶ τὴν ὕλην ἐχούσας καὶ δι' αὐτῆς, μίαν μὲν τήν ἀντίθεον, κ. τ. λ. 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 ipso dæmonium adhesisse a pueritia dicatur, dehortatorium plane a bono. Dæmonas sciunt poëtæ, et jam vulgus indoctum in usum maledicti frequentat; nam et Satanam, principem hujus mali generis, proinde de propria conscientia animæ eadem execramenti voce pronunciat; 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 princ. procem. 6, Opp. T. i. p. 48; according to him it is sufficient to believe that Satan and the demons really exist-quæ autem sint aut quo modo sint, (ecclesia) non clare exposuit. It was not until the following period that the Manichæans developed the dualistic doctrine of an 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, p. 233, ss. Baur, Gnosis, p. 173, ss. [Neander, Hist. of the Ch. transl. ii. p. 98, ss., comp. Norton, 1. c. iii. p. 57–62.] In opposition to this dualistic view, Origen maintains that the devil and his angels are creatures of God, though not created as devils, but as spiritual beings. Contra Cels. iv. 65. Opp. i. p. 553.

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, 65. He calls the evil spirits the executioners of God (Snμio). Demoniacal possessions were still considered as a phenomenon of special importance (as in the times of the New Test.) Minuc. Fel. c. 27: Irrepentes etiam corporibus occulte, ut spiritus tenues, morbos fingunt, terrent mentes, membra distorquent. Concerning these Sapoviόληπτοι, μαιμόνενοι, ἐνεργούμενοι, comp. in particular Const. apost. lib. viii. c. 7. A rationalistic explanation is given in the Clementine Hom. ix. § 12: Οθεν πολλοὶ οὐκ εἰδότες πόθεν ἐνεργοῦνται, ταῖς τῶν δαιμόνων κακαῖς ὑποβαλλομέναις ἐπινοίαις, ὡς τῷ τῆς Yuxis avτŵv Xoyoμ σVVтÍÐεvтal. Comp. moreover, Orig. ad Matth. xvii. 5, Opp. T. iii. p. 574, ss., de princ. iii. 2, Opp. T.

L

i. p. 138, ss. (de contrariis potestatibus). Schnitzer, p. 198, ss.; Thomasius, p. 184, ss., and the passages cited there; Knapp, p. 201; Denham in Kitto, 1. c. sub. Demoniacs.]

3 Justin M. Apol. c. 5, 12, 14 (quoted by Usteri, 1. c. p. 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, ascribes the procedures against Socrates also 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: "Οτι πρὸ μὲν τῆς τοῦ κυρίου παρουσίας οὐδέποτε ἐτόλμησεν ὁ Σατανᾶς βλασφημῆσαι τὸν Θεὸν, ἅτε μηδέπω εἰδὼς AνTοÛ TηV KATÁкpiσw; (comp. Epiph. in hær. Sethianor. p. 289), thus the efforts of the powers of darkness against the rapidly spreading Christian religion could be explained the more satisfactorily.

4

Ep. Barn. c. 16, 18; Justin M. Apol. i. 12, and elsewhere; Tatian, c. 12, 20, and elsewhere (comp. Daniel, p. 162, ss.;) Athen. leg. c. 26. Tert. Apol. c. 22. 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 sip in 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. p. 584-601. Münscher edit. by Von Cölln, i. p. 92, ss.

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, πρὸς τινος εὑρετοῦ πονηροῦ, which is manifestly nothing but an euphemism for diaẞólov, comp. Strom. vi. 822: Пws ovv ovк ἄτοπον τὴν ἀταξίαν καὶ τὴν ἀδικίαν προσνέμοντας τῷ διαβόλῳ, ἐναρέτου πράγματος, τοῦτον τῆς φιλοσοφίας, δωτῆρα ποιεῖν; comp. also Strom. i. 17, p. 366, and the note in the edit. of Potter. Astrology, etc., was also ascribed to demoniacal influence.

6 Comp. Justin M. Apol. i. 56, 58. Cyprian de unitatate eccle

siæ, p. 105: Hæreses invenit (diabolus) et schismata, quibus subverteret fidem, veritatem corrumperet, scinderet unitatem, etc.

Hermas, ii. 6, 2, comp. the preceding §. Justin M. Apol. ii. c. 5 (Usteri, p. 423)...καὶ εἰς ἀνθρώπους φόνους, πολέμους, μοιχείας, ἀκολασίας καὶ πᾶσαν κακίαν ἔσπειραν. Clem of Alex. designates as the most malicious and most pernicious of all demons the greedy belly-demon (kotλodaíμova λixvótatov), who is related to the one who is effective in ventriloquists (τῷ ἐγγαστριμύθῳ), Pæd. ii. 1, p. 174. Origen follows Hermas in classifying the demons according to the vices which they represent, and thus prepares the way for more moderate views, gradually to convert these concrete representations of devils into abstract notions. Comp. Hom. 15, in Jesum Nave Opp. T. ii. p. 434: Unde mihi videtur esse infinitus quidem numerus contrariarum virtutem, 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 respective chief demon, but also that every vicious person is possessed with a demon who is in the service of the chief demon. Others refer both moral defects and physical impulses, as the sexual impulse, to the devil; Origen, however, objects to this notion, de princ. iii. 2, 2, Opp. T. i. p. 139.

§ 52.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

The Fathers differed in their opinions respecting the particular sin which caused the apostacy of the demons.1 Some thought that it was envy and pride,2 others supposed lasciviousness and intemperance. 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 general opinion, he did not even take from Satan all hope of future pardon.5

1 The Fathers did not agree with regard to the time at which this event took place. On the supposition that the devil seduced our first parents, it is necessary to assign an earlier date to his apostacy 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, p. 187 and 196). From the language of Irenæus (comp. note 2), one might almost suspect that he entertained similar views; but it is more probable that he fixed upon the period which elapsed between the creation of man and his temptation as the time when the devil apostatized. Thus Cyprian says, de dono patient. p. 218: Diabolus hominem ad imaginem Dei factum impatienter tulit; inde et periit primus et perdidit.

2 Iren. adv. har. iv. 40, 3, p. 287: Εζήλωσε τὸ πλάσμα τοῦ Ocou, and Cyprian, 1. c. Orig. in Ezech. Hom. 9, 2. Opp. T. iii. p. 389: Inflatio, superbia, arrogantia peccatum diaboli est et ob hæc delicta ad terras migravit de cœlo. Comp. Phot. Bibl. Cod. 324, p. 293 (ed. Bekker): Οἱ μὲν λοιποί (ἄγγελοι) ἐφ ̓ ὧν αὐτούς ἐποίησε καὶ διετάξατο ὁ θεος ἔμειναν· αὐτὸς δὲ (sc. ὁ διάβολος) ἐνύβρισε.

3 The passage in Gen. vi. 2 (according to the reading oi ǎyyeλot τοῦ θεοῦ instead of οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ) had already been applied to the demons, and their intercourse with the daughters of men [thus by Philo, de gigant. p. 286, C. Josephus, Antiq. i. 3, 1:... for many angels of God..., and the (apocryphal) book of Enoch.] (Comp. Wernsdorf, Exercitatio de commercio Angelorum cum filiabus hominum ab Judæis et Patribus platonizantibus credito. Viteb. 1742, 4. Keil, opusc. p. 566, ss. Münscher edit. by Von Cölln, p. 89, 90. Suicer s. v. ayyeλos i. p. 36, and ẻypýyopos p. 1003). All the Fathers of the first period (with the exception of Julius Africanus, see Routh, reliquiæ sacræ ii. p. 127, ss.) referred the passages in question to the sexual intercourse of the angels with the daughters of men. This, however, can refer only to the later demons who became subject to the devil, and not to the apostacy of Satan himself, which falls in an earlier period (note 1). Concerning the apparent parachronism, comp. Münscher, Handb. ii. p. 30, 31. In accordance with this notion, Clement, Strom. iii. 7, p. 538, designates the axparía and èπiovμía as the causes of the fall. The before-stated views on pagan worship and the temptation to sensuality (§ 51, and ibid. note 7) were connected with the notions respecting the intercourse of the demons with