Turning to Christian writings, we find that various systems of angelology were put forward, but it is difficult to say how far they are inde- pendent of St. Paul. From Hermas ( Vis. iii. 4) we learn that instruction as to the positions of angels (ToiroBealas ras ayyeKiKai) was regarded as teaching for the more perfect. The lists given by the Fathers vary. Thus Origen (on Jn 1**) gives thrones, principalities, dominions, authorities, add- ing that there are other names not so familiarly in use (cf. Eph 1^') ; but in de Principiis (I. v. 3, vi. 2) he gives in an ascending scale a difi'erent order — principalities, authorities, thrones, dominions. Ephrem SyrusjOp. Syr. i. 270) arranges them in three classes: (1) gods, thrones, dominions; (2) archangels, principalities, authorities ; (3) angels, powers, cherubim, seraphim. The same order ap- pears in Basil of Seleucia (Orat. 39). Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. xxviii. 31) mentions angels, arch- angels, thrones, dominions, principalities, authori- ties, splendours, ascents, intellectual powers or intelligences. The pseudo-Dionysius gives (1) thrones, cherubim, seraphim ; (2) authorities, do- minions, powers ; (3) angels, archangels, principali- ties. And Gregory the Great (Horn, in Ezck. xxxiv. 7) has the following classes — angels, arch- angels, powers, authorities, principalities, domin- ions, thrones, cherubim, and seraphim.
These variations will confirm the opinion of St. Augustine when he says (Enc/iir. 58): 'what the organization is of that supremely happy society
274 PRINCIPALITY, PRINCIPALITIES
PRINCIPLES
in heaven : what tlie differences of rank are, . . . and what are the various sijinilications of those four names under which the apostle seems to embraee tlie whole lieavenly company without exce])tion, " whether they be thrones, or dominions, or princi- palities, or powers": — let those who are aide answer these questions, if they can also prove their answers to be true ; but as for me, I confess my ijinorance.' Meyer's conclusion is that for Christian faith there remains and suffices the testi- mony as to diflerent and distinctively designated stages and categories in the anj;elic world (cf. JSlt 18'"), while any attempt to ascertain more than is written in Scripture passes into the fanciful domain of theosophy (on Col 1"*).
Two of the above passages require a more de- tailed examination, viz. Col 2'«, Ko 8^8. In Col 2" (RV ' having put off from himself the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it ' ; AV ' having spoiled ) there is hardly a phrase the meaning of which is undisputed. Tlie Greek is direKdvirdij.d'os rds apx^-i Kai TCLS e^ovcrlas edety fidrLaev iv Trappijaig., 6piafi(3€V(Tas avTovs iv avTif. a.TreK5va6.ij.evos is a rare word which does not ajipear to occur before St. Paul (though Meyer thinks it is the riglit reading in Plato, Eep. 612a) ; and being middle it should mean ' having put off from himself ' (cf. Old Lat. exuens ssprinci- patibus) : so the RV. The older EVV, following the Vulg., give it the active meaning 'having spoiled,' which is preferred by Bengel, Meyer, Moule, and Peake. It is admitted that the middle is a difficulty, but it is explained as implying victorious self-interest (sibi exspnlians). It might ^PP'y to good or bad angels, according to the cjon- text. If, with the RV, we take it in the natural middle meaning, the next questions are — What was put off? and Who is the subject? Many of the Greek Fatliers and others say that the evil angels were put off, that the Lord by His death stripped away all tlie opposing powers of evil which sought to win a victory over Him in His human nature. ' When He died on the cross, when He dissolved that temple into which they, both in earlier, and later and perhaps redoubled efforts of temptation, liad vainly endeavoured to make sacrilegious entry, He reft them away for ever, and vindicated His regal power' (Ellicott). There are two objeetirms to this view. (1) When and in what sense did Christ wear these opposing powers as a robe ? Lightfoot says that 'the powers of evil, which had clung like a Nessus robe about His humanity, were torn off" and cast aside for ever ' ; on which Beet's criticism is : ' I do not know that enemies attack- ing are ever so described : and of such desperate struggle with evil powers we have as yet in this place no hint.' (2) It necessitates a change of subject, of which the context gives no intimation ; in vv.'2. 13. H the subject is God the Father, and no one would think of changing it but for the diffi- culty of otherwise giving to 'principalities and powers' the meaning of evil angels. The common interpretation of the Latin Fathers was ' putting off from Himself His body ' (see RVm), and it found its way into the text of G (ttjj' aapKa Kal tos ef owias, dpxas being omitted ; ' having laid aside His flesh. He made a show of the jjowers'). The introduc- tion of the metaphor is very abrupt, and there is again the change of subject.
But it is possible to keep the middle meaning of djTfKSiiira/iei'O!, and the same subject throughout, if ' principalities and powers ' are good angels. This was first suggested by J. Peirce (in A Paraphrase and Notes on Colossians', 1729) and adopted by Alford, Ritschl, Beet, Findlay, and Peake. It is consistent with 2'° and 1"*, where good angels are meant, and there is no allusion in the Epistle to hostile angels. Peirce's paraphrase is, ' and having