According to 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). On the order and rank of the angels in Origen, see Redepenning, ii. p. 348, sq.

§ 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 in a state of holiness, but voluntarily rebelled against his maker. This was also the view taken by the orthodox fathers.' Everything which was opposed to the light of the gospel and its development, physical evils, as well as the numerous persecutions of Christians,' was thought to be the work of Satan and his agents, the demons. The entire system of paganism, its 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."

1

• Concerning the appellatives της, σατᾶν, σατανᾶς, διάβολος, ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, δαίμονες, δαιμόνια, βεελζεβούλ, etc., the origin of the doetrine and its development in the Scriptures, comp. de Wette, biblische Dogmatik, § 142-150; 212-214; 236-238; Baumgarten-Crusius, biblische Theologie, p. 295; Von Cölln, biblische Theologie, p. 420; Hirzel, Commentar zum Hiob, p. 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 ἀν θειστήκει τι τῷ θεῷ, ἐπαύσατο τοῦ εἶναι, λυθείσης αὐτοῦ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμει καὶ ἰσχύϊ τῆς συστάσεως) ἀλλ ̓ ὅτι τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀγαθῷ, δ 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 ipso dæmonium adhaesisse 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 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 Princ. proœm. 6 (Opp. 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, (ecclesia) 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, p. 233, ss. Baur, Gnosis, p. 173, ss. [Neander, Hist. of the Ch. (Torrey) i. 345, comp. Norton, 1. c. iii. p. 57-62.] 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. 553). -As to the extent in which Platonism and Ebionitism participated in the Christian demonology, see Semisch, Just. Mart. p. 387 sq.

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 (dýμoi). Demoniacal possessions were still considered as phenomena 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 δαιμονιόληπτοι, μαινόμενοι, ἐνεργούμɛvot, comp. in particular Const. Apost. lib. viii. c. 7. A rationalistic explanation is already given in the Clementine Hom. ix. § 12: "00εv пoλλoì οὐκ εἰδότες, πόθεν ἐνεργοῦνται, ταῖς τῶν δαιμόνων κακαῖς ὑποβαλλομέναις ἐπινοίαις, ὡς τῷ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῶν λογισμῷ συντίθενται. Comp. moreover, Orig. ad Matth. xvii. 5 (Opp. T. iii. p. 574, ss.), De Princ. iii. 2 (Opp. T. i. p. 138, ss., de contrariis potestatibus). Schnitzer, p. 198, ss.; Thomasius, p. 184, ss., and the passages cited there.

* 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, infes tare, si possis. Justin M. Apol. ii. toward 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: "Отɩ πрò uèv τῆς τοῦ κυρίου παρουσίας οὐδέποτε ἐτόλμησεν ὁ Σατανᾶς βλασφημῆσαι τὸν

Θεὸν, ἅτε μηδέπω εἰδὼς αὑτοῦ τὴν κατάκρισιν (comp. Epiph. in Hær. Seth. ianor. 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, p. 162, ss.); Athen. Leg. c. 26; Tert. Apol. c. 22, De Præser, 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 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.)

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. 822: Пç ovv οὐκ ἄτοπον τὴν ἀταξίαν καὶ τὴν ἀδικίαν προσνέμοντας τῷ διαβόλω, εναρέ του 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; 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 §. Justin M. Apol. ii. c. 5 (Usteri, p. 423)...καὶ εἰς ἀνθρώπους φόνους, πολέμους, μοιχείας, ἀκολασίας καὶ TãOAV KAKíAv čопεiраv. Clem. of Alex. designates as the most malicious and most pernicious of all demons the greedy belly-demon (Kotodaipova xvótaτov), who is related to the one that works in ventriloquists (Tậ ¿Yуaσтρшú0), 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. 434): 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 Princ. iii. 2, 2 (Opp. T. i. p. 139; Redepenning, p. 278 sq.)

§ 52.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

The fathers held different opinions as to the particular sin which caused the apostacy of the demons. Some thought that it was envy and pride, 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. Origen went so far, that, contrary to the general opinion, he allowed to Satan the glimmer of a hope of future grace.

'The fathers do not agree about 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, p. 187 and 196). From the language of Irenæus (comp. note 2), one might 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 imagi nem Dei factum impatienter tulit; inde et periit primus et perdidit.

Iren. Adv. Hær. iv. 40, 3, p. 287: 'Enλwσe тd пλáομа тоν Оεоv, and Cyprian, l. c. Orig. in Ezech. Hom. 9, 2 (Opp. T. iii. p. 389): Inflatio, su perbia, arrogantia peccatum diaboli est et ob hæc delicta ad terras migravit de cœlo. Comp. Phot. Bibl. cod. 324, p. 293 (ed Bekker.): Oi μèv λoiπoi (ἄγγελοι) ἐφ' ὧν αὐτούς ἐποίησε καὶ διετάξατο ὁ θεός ἔμειναν· αὐτὸς δέ (sc. ὁ διάβολος) ἐν ύβρισε.

3

The passage in Gen. vi. 2 (according to the reading of ayyeλo Tov bεov instead of oi vioì Tov Oɛov) had already been applied to the demons, and their intercourse with the daughters of men. (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. äyyɛλoç i. p. 36, and ¿yphyopos p. 1003). Thus Philo wrote a special treatise De Gigantibus; and 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, holds only of the later demons, who became subject to the devil, and not of the apostasy 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 ȧxрaoía and έTIOνμía as the causes of the fall.-The above mentioned

views about pagan worship, and the temptation to sensuality (§ 51, and ibid. note 7), were connected with these notions respecting the intercourse of the demons with the daughters of men. The fallen angels betrayed the mysteries of revelation to them, though in an imperfect and corrupt form, and the heathen have their philosophy from these women. Comp. Clem. Strom. vi. 1, p. 650. [Comp. on Gen. vi. 1–4 S. R. Maitland, on False Worship, 1856, p. 19 sq., and in British Magazine, vol. xxi. p. 389. C. F. Keil, in the Zeitschrift f. luth. Theol. 1855 and 1859; Engelhardt, in the same (against Keil) 1856, for the angels. Kurtz's Essay on the subject, 1856, and in his Hist. of the Old Test., and Delitzsch in reply to Kurtz, in Reuter's Repertorium, 1857. Bibliotheca Sacra, 1850, p. 167. Journal of Sacred Lit. (Lond. 1858, Oct., for the angels.]

Hermas, lib. ii. mand 7: Diabolum autem ne timeas, timens enim Dominum dominaberis illius, quia virtus in illo nulla est. In quo autem virtus non est, is ne timendus quidem est; in quo vero virtus gloriosa est, is etiam timendus est. Omnis enim virtutem habens timendus est; nam qui virtutem non habet, ab omnibus contemnitur. Time plane facta Diaboli, quoniam maligna sunt: metuens enim Dominum, timebis, et opera Diaboli non facies, sed abstinebis te ab eis. Comp. 12. 5: Potest autem Diabolus luctari, sed vincere non potest. Si enim resistitur, fugiet a vobis confusus.-[For as a man, when he fills up vessels with good wine, and among them puts a few vessels half full, and comes to try and taste of the vessels, does not try those that are full, because he knows that they are good; but tastes those that are half full, lest they should grow sour: so the devil comes to the servants of God to try them. They that are full of faith resist him stoutly, and he departs from them because he finds no place where to enter into them: then he goes to those that are not full of faith, and because he has a place of entrance, he goes into them, and does what he will with them, and they become his servants. Hermas, 12. 5, Archbp. Wake's transl.] Comp. Tatian, c. 16: Aaíμoves dè οἱ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐπιτάττοντες, οὐκ εἰσιν αἱ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ψυχαί κ. τ. λ. Iren. ii. c. 32, 4, p. 166. Tert. Apol. c. 23: [Omnis hæc nostra in illos dominatio et potestas de nominatione Christi valet, et de commemoratione eorum quæ sibi a Deo per arbitrum Christum imminentia exspectant. Christum timentes in Deo, et Deum in Christo, subjiciuntur servis Dei et Christi.] Orig. De Princ. iii. 2, 4; Contra Cels. i. 6, and viii. 36 (Opp. i. p. 769): ̓Αλλ ̓ οὐ χριστιανὸς, ὁ ἀληθῶς χριστιανὸς καὶ ὑποτάξας ἑαυτὸν μόνῳ τῶ θεῷ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ πάθοι τι ἂν ὑπὸ των δαιμονίων, ἅτε κρείττων daóvav Tvуxávov, and in lib. Jesu Nave, xv. 6. In the former passage, De Princ., Origen calls those the simple (simpliciores) who believe that sin would not exist if there was no devil. Along with the moral power of faith, and the efficacy of prayer, the magic effects of the sign of the cross, etc, were relied on. But what was at first nothing more than a symbol of the power of faith itself, became afterward a mechanical opus operatum.

Even Clement, Strom. i. 17, p. 367, says: 'O dè diáẞoλoç avтežOVOLOS ὢν καὶ μετανοῆσαι οἷός τε ἦν καὶ κλέψαι, καὶ ὁ αἴτιος αὐτὸς τῆς κλοπῆς, οὐχ ὁ μὴ κωλύσας κύριος, but from these words it is not quite evident whether he means to say that the devil is yet capable of being converted. The general opinion as earlier held, is expressed by Tatian, Orat. c. 15: