§ 130.

THEODICY.

The controversy with the Manichees, whose notions were to some extent adopted by Lactantius,' required a more precise definition of the nature of evil, and such a distinction between physical and moral evil, as would represent the latter as the true source of the former. Hence the evils existing in the world were regarded either (objectively) as the necessary consequence and punishment of sin, or (subjectively) as phenomena which, though good in themselves, assumed the appearance of evil, only in consequence of our limited knowledge, or the corruption of our hearts, or the perverse use of our moral freedom. But the wise and pious, looking forward to that better time which is to come, use those evils as means of advancing in knowledge, and of practicing patience."

1

Inst. Div. ii. c. 8. Here he advances the unsatisfactory notion, which even Augustine seems to have entertained (Enchir. ad Laur. c. 27), that evil would exist, though it were merely for the sake of contrast; as if good were good only by the contrast which it forms with bad, and would cease to be so if there were no contrast.

2 Athan. Contra Gent. c. 7. Basil M. in Hexaëm. Hom. ii. 4. Hom. quod Deus non est auctor malorum (the passage should be read in its connection) Opp. T. ii. p. 78 (al. i. p. 361). Klose, p. 54-59. Greg. Nyss. Orat. Catech. c. 6. Greg. Naz. Orat. xiv. 30, 31, xvi. 5 (quoted by Ullmann, p. 493). Chrys. in 2 Tim. Hom. viii. (Opp. xii. 518, E.). Aug. de Civ. Dei xi. 9: Mali enim nulla natura est, sed amissio boni mali nomen accepit. Comp. c. 22. Fire, frost, wild beasts, poison, etc., may all be useful in their proper place, and in connection with the whole; it is only necessary to make such a use of them as accords with their design: Thus poison causes the death of some, but heals others; meat and drink injure only the immoderate. ... Unde nos admonet divina providentia, non res insipienter vituperare, sed utilitatem rerum diligenter inquirere, et ubi nostrum ingenium vel firmitas deficit, ita credere occultam, sicut erant quædam, quæ vix potuimus invenire; quia et ipsa utilitatis occultatio, aut humilitatis exercitatio est aut elationis attritio; cum omnino natura nulla sit malum, nomenque hoc non sit nisi privationis boni. Sed a terrenis usque ad cœlestia et a visibilibus usque ad Invisibilia sunt aliis alia bona meliora; ad hoc inæqualia, ut essent omnia, etc. Comp. de Vera Rel. c. 12. Evils are beneficial as punishments, ibid. c. 15.. amaritudine pœnarum erudiamur. On the question, why the righteous have to suffer as well as the unrighteous, see de Civ. Dei i. 8-10. Christians rise above all trials only by love to God: toto mundo est omnino sublimior mens inhærens Deo, De Morib. Eccles. Cath. c. 11. This seems to be the turning-point of every theodicy (Rom. viii. 28).

§ 131.

ANGELOLOGY AND ANGELOLATRY.

J. P. Carpzovii Varia Historia Angelicorum ex Epiphanio et aliorum veterum Monumentis eruta. Helmst. 1772, 4. Keil, Opuscula Academica, ii. p. 548, ss.

When the ideas of generation and procession from the Father came to be exclusively applied to the Son and the Holy Ghost, it also began to be stated more and more sharply that the angels are creatures, and not æons emanating from the essence of God.' Nevertheless, they were still regarded as highly endowed beings far superior to mankind. Reverence was paid to them; but Ambrose was the only father during this period-and he did it merely in a passing remark -who recommended the invocation of angels. But both the prohibition of the worship of angels (angelolatry) by the synod of Laodicea (about the middle of the fourth century), and the testimony of Theodoret prove, that such a worship must have been practised in some parts of the East (perhaps coming from earlier ages).* Theodoret, as well as Augustine, opposed the adoration, or at least the invocation, of angels, which was disapproved of even by Gregory I., who would have it that it was confined to the Old Testament dispensation. But the practice of dedicating churches to angels," which was favored by emperors and bishops, would necessarily confirm the people in their belief, that angels heard and answered prayer, notwithstanding all dogmatic explanations. As to other dogmatic definitions concerning the nature of angels, Gregory of Nazianzum asserted that they were created prior to the rest of the world; others, e. g., Augustine, dated their existence from the first day of creation. In the work of Pseudo-Dionysius (De Hierarchia Coelesti), which, though composed during the present period, did not come into general use till the next, the angels were systematically divided, almost in the style of a natural history, into three classes and nine orders.*

7

1 Lact. Inst. iv. c. 8: Magna inter Dei filium et cæteros [sic] angelos differentia est. Illi enim ex Deo taciti spiritus exierunt..... Ille vero cum voce ac sono ex Dei ore processit,

* Basil M. de Spir. S. c. 16, calls the angels déptov пνεvμа, пîρ ävλov according to Ps. civ. 4, and hence ascribes to them a certain corporeity. Gregory af Nazianzum says, Orat. vi. 12, p. 187:.....¢ãç ɛioɩ kaì тɛhɛíov þæτòç ȧπаvуáσμara. According to Orat. xxviii. 31, p. 521, ss., the angels are servants of the divine will, powerful partly by original and partly by derived strength, moving from place to place, every where present, and

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 then rationalia animalia, see Lau, loc. cit. p. 357 sq.

3 Ambrose De Viduis, cap. ix. § 55: Videtis enim quod magno peccatc obnoxia minus idonea sit quæ pro a precetur, certe quæ pro se impetret. Adhibeat igitur ad medicum alios precatores. Egri 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 tc the direct invocation of the Divine physician himself.

4

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: "Or où dεi xploτiavovs ¿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.

5

Theodoret, 1. c. Eusebius (Præp. Evang. vii. 15) already makes a distinction between Tiμãv and σéßeiv. 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).

• Constantine the Great had built a church at Constantinople (Mixańλiov) 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 ópúμɛvos. 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 vóas. 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, iii. 7. ἀρχαί, 8. ἀρχάγ yeλoi, 9. åyyɛλot. 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.

Svvápεis 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.'

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.

2

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 distinc tions, 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 thesisnullus Deus miscetur homini.]