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. Hær. iv. 40, 3, p. 207: 'EGńλwσe tò Tλáoμa TOD OEOû, 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): Oi pèv λoiπoi (ayyeλoL) ἐφ ̓ ὧν αὐτοὺς ἐποίησε καὶ διετάξατο ὁ θεὸς ἔμειναν· αὐτὸς δὲ (sc. ὁ διάβολος) ἐνύβρισε.

(3) The passage in Gen. vi. 2 (according to the reading oi ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ instead of οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ) 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, Von Cölln, s. 89, 90. Suicer, s.v. ayyeλos, i. p. 36, and eypýyopos, 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). With him lust is unknown; see Semisch, ii. s. 380. Concerning the apparent parachronism, comp. Münscher, Handb. ii. s. 30, 31. In accordance with this notion, Clement, Strom. iii. 7, p. 538, designates ȧxpaoía and movμía as the causes of the fall.-The above-mentioned views of 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.

C. F. Keil in the Engelhardt in the

xxi. p. 389; also in his essays, “Eruvin." Zeitschrift f. luth. Theol. 1855 and 1859; same (against Keil), 1856, for the angels. Kurtz's Essay on the subject, 1856, and in his Hist. of the O. T., and Delitzsch in reply to Kurtz, in Reuter's Repertorium, 1857; also in his Comm. on Genesis.]

(4) 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 by which 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, Archbishop Wake's transl.] Comp. Tatian, c. 16: Δαίμονες δὲ 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 Princip. iii. 2, 4; Contra Cels. i. 6, and viii. 36 (Opp. i. p. 769): 'AXX' où Xpioτiavos, ó ἀληθῶς χριστιανὸς καὶ ὑποτάξας ἑαυτὸν μόνῳ τῷ θεῷ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ πάθοι τι ἂν ὑπὸ τῶν δαιμονίων, ἅτε κρείττων Saiμóvæv тvyxávwv, and in lib. Jesu Nave, xv. 6. In the former passage, De Princip., Origen calls those 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 magical 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 afterwards a mechanical opus operatum.

(5) Even Clement, Strom. i. 17, p. 367, says: 'O Sè diáβολος αὐτεξούσιος 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 : Ἡ τῶν δαιμόνων ὑπόστασις οὐκ ἔχει μετανοίας τόπον. Justin M. Dialog. c. Tryph. c. 141.-Origen himself did not very clearly propound his views; De Princip. iii. c. 6, 5 (Opp. i. p. 154): Propterea etiam novissimus inimicus, qui mors appellatur, destrui dicitur (1 Cor. xv. 26), ut neque ultra triste sit aliquid ubi mors non est, neque adversum sit ubi non est inimicus. Destrui sane novissimus inimicus ita intelligendus est, non ut substantia ejus, quæ a Deo facta est, pereat, sed ut propositum et voluntas inimica, quæ non a Deo sed ab ipso processit, intereat. Destruitur ergo non ut non sit, sed ut inimicus non sit et mors. Nihil enim omnipotenti impossibile est, nec insanabile est aliquid factori suo. § 6. Omnia restituentur ut unum sint, et Deus fuerit omnia in omnibus (1 Cor. xv. 28). Quod tamen non ad subitum fieri, sed paulatim et per partes intelligendum est, infinitis et immensis labentibus sæculis, cum sensim et per singulos emendatio fuerit et correctio prosecuta, præcurrentibus aliis et velociori cursu ad summa tendentibus, aliis vero proximo quoque spatio insequentibus, tum deinde aliis longe posterius: et sic per multos et innumeros ordines proficientium ac Deo se ex inimicis reconciliantium pervenitur usque ad novissimum inimicum qui dicitur mors, et etiam ipse destruitur ne ultra sit inimicus. He here speaks of the last enemy, death, but it is evident from the context that he identifies death with the devil (this is signified, as cited, e.g. Münscher, Handbuch, ii. s. 39, by the use of the parenthesis); he speaks of a substance which the Creator would not destroy, but heal. Comp. § 3, and Schnitzer in the passage; Thomasius, s. 187. On the possibility of the conversion of the other demons, comp. i.

6, 3 (Opp. i. p. 70; Redep. p. 146): Jam vero si aliqui ex his ordinibus, qui sub principatu diaboli agunt, militiæ ejus obtemperant, poterunt aliquando in futuris sæculis converti ad bonitatem, pro eo quod est in ipsis liberi facultas arbitrii (?)...

THIRD DIVISION,

ANTHROPOLOGY.

§ 53.

Introduction.

To bring man back to himself and to the knowledge of his own nature, was the essential object of Christianity, and the condition of its further progress (1). Hence the first office of Christian anthropology must be to determine, not what man is in his natural life in relation to the rest of the visible creation, but what he is as a spiritual and moral being in relation to God and divine things. But since the higher and spiritual nature of man is intimately connected with the organism of both body and soul, a system of theological anthropology could be constructed only on the basis of physical and psychical anthropology, which, in the first instance, belongs to natural science and philosophy, rather than to theology. The history of doctrines, therefore, must also consider the opinions held as to man in his natural relations (2).

(1) Comp. Clem. Pæd. iii. 1, p. 250: Hv åpa, is čoike, πάντων μεγίστων μαθημάτων τὸ γνῶναι αὑτόν· ἑαυτὸν γάρ τις ἐὰν γνώη, θεὸν εἴσεται.

(2) At first sight it might appear indifferent, so far as theology is concerned, whether man consists of two or three parts; and yet these distinctions are intimately connected with the theological definitions of liberty, immortality, etc. This is the case also with the doctrine of pre-existence, in