Henry Ansgar Kelly

[p. 124]
1. Preliminary Observations

 The traditional Christian view of the devil is that he was origina lly an angel named for or likened to the Morning Star described in Is 14,12-15 (Lucifer in the Vulgate), who, before the creation of the world, rebelled against God out of pride and was cast out of heaven; and that, subsequently, as God's enemy, and determined to thwart the divine plan for mankind, he disguised himself as a serpent and induced Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit; and, finally, that all literal references to Satan or the devil in the Old and New Testaments are understood as referring to this rebel angel.
 Biblical scholars in recent times have come to see that the satans of the OT (Job 1-2, Zech 3, I Chr 21) are not enemies but servants of God, like the Angel of Yahweh who functions as a satan in Num 22.  But they have been slower to admit this possibility for the NT.  Even when Jesus's vision of Satan fallen like lightning from the sky (Lk 10,18) is interpreted as referring not to the primordial past but to the messianic present (Schmid, Wikenhauser), and the battle between the Devil and Michael in Rev 12 is recognized as occurring in the eschatological future (Winkelhofer), these passages are often considered to echo a current belief about Lucifer's original rebellion.  The primary evidence for such a belief in NT times has been II Enoch 29,3-5, dated ca. AD 50 by Charles; but if the long recension of II Enoch  is acknowleged as medieval (Vaillant) or 29,3-5 seen as a later interpolation (Andersen), the earliest suggestion of a precosmic fall of Satan seems to be in Origen (Kelly [1964] 203-4, Russell [1981] 130, Forsyth 227-47).  As noted below, Justin and others after him speak of a post-Adamic fall of Satan, sometimes in terms of Is 14, which would establish the devil as a rebel and an enemy of God thenceforwards.  But we must be alert to other interpreters who, even if they associate Satan with the Eden serpent, see him not as a rebel but as the same sort of celestial functionary encountered in Job 1-2, or, though regarded as a enemy of mankind (or at least an enemy of Christians), as still acting with divine authorization.  Such a figure would be far removed from a Zoroastrian principle of radical evil.  But once Satan comes to be regarded as a rebel before the creation of the world, the resemblance to Persian dualism is closer (we may leave open the question of whether there was any direct dualist influence involved).

[p. 125]
2. Lucifer and the Origin of Satan

 In the NT, the origin of Satan is not accounted for; he is not included among the fallen Watchers (Jude 6, cf. II Pet 2,4; I Enoch, Jubilees), but rather carries on his functions as Angel of Death (Jud 8 [from the Assumption of Moses], cf. Hebr 2,14).  Only Jesus is likened to the Morning Star/Lucifer (II Pet 1,19; Rev 2,24-28;22,16).  In the hypothetical Q-Gospel, Is 14,13-15 was applied to cities of Galilee (Mt 11,20-24, Lk 10,13-16), but though Lk places this passage next to Jesus's report of Satan's fall like lightning (Lk 10,18), this fall should probably be interpreted as a weakening of the authority which he has been given over the kingdoms of the world (Lk 4,5-6)--an idea added by Lk to the Q-Gospel temptation scene.  But though Satan's power will one day come to an end (Jn 12,31, Rev 12,7-12), for the present he is still being authorized to test men's faithfulness (Lk 22,31-32), and he remains at his post in heaven as "accuser of our brothers" (Rev 12,10), as in the OT (Job 1-2, Zech 3).
 Jesus calls the devil a liar and murderer from the beginning (Jn 8,44), which may refer to his treatment of Job and his family; or it may reflect a view of Satan as tempter of Cain (cf. I Jn 3,8-12), or a collocation of the devil with the serpent of Gen 3.  It is not certain when this last connection was made.  Later writers found it in Wis 2,24, where it is said that death entered the world by the envy of an adversary, phthono diabolou, Vulg. "invidia diaboli"; but in the absence of a definite article it is not likely that Satan is meant.  Josephus (Antiquities 1,1,4) says that the serpent acted out of envy, but does not identify the serpent with Satan.  Sir 25,24 attributes sin and death to the woman (cf. vv. 15-16:  woman is compared to serpent and dragon).  The earliest known interpreter of Wis 2,24 is St. Clement of Rome:  he identifies the adversary as Cain, who killed his brother out of envy (Ep. Cor. 3-4).  Theophilus accepts this idea but sees Cain's envy as fostered by the spite of Satan (also called dragon, drako, for rebelling, apodedrakenai, against God), who had tried to bring immediate death upon Adam and Eve (Auto. 2.28-29).  Cyprian (De zelo 4) sees the devil as becoming envious as soon as he saw man made in God's image.
 Justin specifically attributes Satan's downfall to his intervention in Eden:  the great fall that the devil suffered in misleading Eve is recorded in Ps 82 (Dial.124).  His ultimate defeat by Christ was predicted by Is 27,1 (Dial. 91.112; frag. 4 [Irenaeus, Haer. 5,26,3]), and by Is 14 (if frag. 5, PG 6:1592f, is authentic; cf. CorpAp 3:252).  Ps-Justin, Cohortatio 28 (mid 3rd cent) applies the fall of Is 14 to Satan after his devilry against the human race (PG 6:296).  Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 2,10, sees the devil as placed in Paradise before Adam (Ez 28); he fell (Lk 10,18) after turning man from obedience to God.  But Is 14,13-14 refers to what happened after his fall ("hic erit diabolus"), that is, it portrays his boasting after he took over the power of the air (Eph 2,2):  Adv. Marc. 5,17,8 (cf. 5,11).  Cyprian interprets Is 14,13-15 as referring to the Antichrist (Ep.59.3).
 Athenagoras finds Satan's fault not specifically in connection with Adam and Eve, but rather in his negligence and wickedness in managing the material world that was committed to him (Leg. 24-25)  Irenaeus sees Satan as one of the angels in charge of the pneuma of the air, but the cause of his apostasy from the law of God was his envy of man (Haer. 5,24,4).  A variant of the envy-motivation can be seen in the Latin Vita Adae (ca. 4th cent.) cc. 12-16:  refusing to worship the image of God in the newly created Adam, the devil uttered the words of rebellion of Is 14,13, and he and his angels were cast out of heaven.
 Origen, in contrast with all but Athenagoras, did not connect Satan's fall with mankind; but unlike Athenagoras he placed his apostasy before the creation of the cosmos.  The most elaborate  presentation of his ideas undoubtedly was contained in De principiis, but that work exists only in the Latin of Rufinus (AD 398), who seems to have edited out some of his more radical notions, especially that of restoration (apokatastasis) and even multiple cycles of fall and restoration.  As the text stands in Rufinus's version, Origen says that all rational creatures were originally created as equals, with free will that allowed progress in imitating God or failure through negligence

[p. 126]
(2,9,6); all failed to a greater or lesser degree (2,9,2), "but we think that the goodness of God, through his Christ, will recall his whole creation," referring to Ps 110,1 and I Cor 15,25 (1,6,1).  Rufinus himself (Comm. symb. 39) repudiates the idea that the devil will escape the damnation he deserves.  However, this position would not necessarily contradict Origen's statement, if he were to hold with Justin that angels are able to repent after sinning (Dial.141) but that God has foreseen that Satan will not repent.
 Origen's method is to read deeper meaning into passages addressed to men that do not apply to them, for instance, in Is 14:  "for the man Nabuchodonosor neither fell from heaven, nor was he Lucifer, nor did he arise upon the earth in the morning" (De princ. 4.1.23).  It refers to Satan, who once existed as light before he went astray and fell to this place, as Jesus teaches, Lk 10,18 (De princ. 1,5,5).

3.  The Devil and His Angels

 3.1.  Consensus:  Primordial Multiple Fall; Identification of Demons with Fallen Angels.  Justin and other apologists believed that Satan sinned alone in Eden, and that other angels sinned with women (Gen 6); but, as noted, the Latin Vita Adae considers that other angels shared in Satan's refusal to worship the image of God in man.  Origen seems to consider the angels as having lapsed individually rather than as part of a conspiracy, and not as rebels through pride (in spite of his interpretation of Is 14), but rather per negligentiam.
 Therefore, when Rufinus attributes to Origen a more active and organized understanding of the fall of the angels, he may be speaking rather for himself than for Origen.  He says, ostensibly translating the preface to De principiis:  "Regarding the devil and his angels, and the opposing influences, the teaching of the Church has laid down that these beings exist indeed; but what they are, or how they exist, it has not been explained with sufficient clearness.  This opinion, however, is held by most, that the devil was an angel, and that, having become an apostate, he induced as many of the angels as possible to fall away with him, and these up to the present time are called his angels" (De princ. praef. 6).  This in fact does seem to have become the standard doctrine by the end of the fourth century.  While some Fathers may believe that Gen 6 recounted the mating of women with angels, they judged them to be already fallen angels.  Similarly, while some of the early Fathers identified demons as the offspring of these matings, that was now no longer the case; and, moreover, the possessing demons of the NT were likewise now considered to be fallen angels.

 3.2.  Multiple Devils?  The next logical step, perhaps, would be to speak of "devils" in the plural.  Although "satan" in the OT is a common noun, and though we can speak of plural "satans" when referring to the satan of Job and the satan of Zechariah and perhaps the figure of I Chr 21 (though here it may be a proper name), in LXX the devil is a unique figure.  The same is true of "the devil"/" Satan" in the NT--although when Jesus calls Peter "Satan" (Mk 8,33; Mt 16,23) and Judas "devil" (Jn 6,70) he may be using the term in an extended sense.  But "devils" are spoken of only rarely in early commentaries.  Although Jerome never translates daimonia as diaboli in the Vulgate, he does render the daimoniodes of Jas 3,15 as diabolica, and at one point he suggests that daimonia  are equivalent to devils:  "ut amatoribus suis diabolis et daemoniis placeant," Comm. in Hos.1,13); cf. his disciple Eusebius of Cremona:

p. 127]
"non cum hominibus sed cum diabolis flagellabimini" (De morte S. Hiero. c 20, PL 22,251).  Later authors who speak of devils are Strabo on Ps 74 (PL 113,962), Anselm of Laon (Ps-Haymo) on Ps 77,49 ad v. per angelos malos  (PL 116,464), Abelard, Sic et non c. 113 (PL 178,1511), Peter Lombard on Ps 77,49 (PL 191,738), and Bonaventure (Ps-William of St.-Thierry), Vitis mystica c. 46 (PL 184,732).  Thomas Aquinas uses the plural only when citing other authors (IndThom s.v. diabolos).  But he easily interchanges daemon and diabolus in some contexts (e.g., in Sent. 2,6,1,5:  "ex quo aliquis perfecte de uno vitio daemonem vincit...ille dicitur perfecte diabolum vincere...et ideo a diabolo non tentatur de hoc peccato").
 For Luther, the identification of demon and devil is standard:  e.g., Mt 12,24:  "Er treibt die Teufel nicht anders aus denn durch Beelzebub der Teufel öbersten" (Vulg. "Hic non eicit daemones/daemonia nisi in Beelzebub principe daemoniorum/daemonum").  The same is true of English translations, both from the Latin (Wycliffite,14th cent.; Rheims,1582) and from the Greek (Tyndale,1525; KJV,1611).  In some present-day vernaculars, however, Satan is more often "the demon" than "the devil":  Spanish (el demonio ), French (le démon ), Italian (il demone, il demonio); this usage occurs even German, but never in English.

 3.3.  Augustine.  Various opinions, many of them not attributed to specific authors, can be found in the writings of the Fathers on the nature of Satan and the other fallen angels.  For instance, Augustine agrees with those who believe that the angels who transgressed were not celestial or supercelestial angels but rather inhabitants of the pure air that borders on the celestial region, and that they and their leader--now the devil but then an archangel--were cast down into the lower dense air (caligo, cf. Jud 6; Eph 6,12); but even if they originally had celestial bodies, they may well have been transformed to an airy nature, so that they could suffer from the higher element of fire and remain in the dense air, which serves as a dungeon, until Judgment Day (De Gen. ad litt. 3,10).

 3.4.  Peter Lombard  In the 12th cent., Peter Lombard sets forth the status quaestionis as follows.  Soon after the creation of the angels, some of them turned towards the Creator, and some turned away (Sent. 2,5,1, repeating Hugh of St. Victor, Sum. sent. 2,3, PL 176,82).  Both greater and lesser angels fell, including the worthiest of all, Lucifer, who drew the others with him:  draco de coelo cadens secum traxit tertiam partem stellarum (cf. Rev 12,4.9), and they were forced to live in the aer caliginosus and not on earth with us, lest they infest us too greatly (2,6,1-3; Hugh 2,4).  But it is likely that some of the demons descend to hell daily, to lead the souls there to be tormented; and it is not far from the truth that there are always some demons in hell, perhaps taking turns with those above (alternatis forte vicibus), to detain and torment the souls; and some believe that Lucifer has been bound in hell, from the time that he was defeated by Christ in the desert or at His Passion.  Others, however, believe that he was buried in hell from the time of his original fall, because of the magnitude of his sin; but whether or not he is presently detained in hell, it is credible that he does not now have as great a power to tempt us as he will have in the time of the antichrist (2,6,5-6).  Finally, Lombardus cites via Hugo the view of Origen that demons who are conquered by saints have their power of tempting removed or reduced (2,6,7).

[p. 128]
 3.5.  Thomas Aquinas.  Thomas in his commentary on these questions says that all Catholics hold for certain that angels sinned and became demons; but it is difficult to see how they sinned, except that it somehow involved seeking equality with God, and that the first sin was pride (In Sent. 2,5,1,1-3).  Although Augustine left undetermined the question of whether Lucifer was the highest angel, Gregory decided in the affirmative; this is the common view, and it is reasonable (2,6,1,1).  His sin was the cause of the others' sins (2,6,1,2).  The fallen angels can be located in space, not according their essence (since they are incorporeal), but according to their operation:  the middle air and hell suits them as places of punishment, and so does the earth as the site of their activity concerning us; but they are constantly tormented in a spiritual way by hellfire (2,6,1,3; ad 6).  It is reasonable to suppose that there is a hierarchy among demons; it is probable the some angels fell from each order (2,6,1,4; exp. text.).  Everyone agrees that when a demon is conquered, his temptation ceases to some extent, but it is not clear in what way (2,6,1,5).

4.  Hades, Baptism, and Redemption

 4.1  Satan and the Underworld.  The allegorical interpretation of Satan as Lucifer embraced only Lucifer's prideful ascent and his fall from heaven (Is 14,12) and not his humiliation in Sheol (Is 14,15-19).  In early texts, Sheol has no one in charge, except for
Sheol personified (LXX Hades, Vulg. Infernus), to whom Death is sometimes joined; e.g., Hos 13,14:  "De manu Mortis liberabo eos; de Morte redimam eos.  Ero mors tua, O Mors!  Ero morsus tuus, Inferne!" (cf. Rev 6,8; 20,13-14).  In the first Christian centuries, the devil has no role as the guardian or punisher of souls in the underworld at the time of Christ's death (Bauckman 157).  The watery abyss of the OT sea monsters was not identified with Sheol, nor was Sheol the fiery abyss where the lustful angels were to be cast at the end of the world (as in I Enoch 10,13) or where the dragon-devil will be temporarily detained (Rev 20,2-3).
 Fire is prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25,41), but only in the future, and perhaps as punishers of men, as in the Similitudes of I Enoch (ca. 1-3 cent. AD),esp. 53,3; elsewhere in the NT Satan has a punitive function in this world (I Cor 5,5; I Tim 1,20, cf. 3,6-7).  In the Apocalypse of Zephaniah (ca. 1 cent. BC-2 cent. AD, OTP 1,497), the Satan-figure appears as the Accuser, who is "upon the earth," or "over the earth"; his angels write down the sins of men, and they sit at the gate of heaven and inform the Accuser, so that he may accuse them when they go down out of the world (3,8-9).  But though the Accuser (a horrific angel with hair of lionesses and women, bear-like teeth, and serpentine body) confronts Zephaniah with a list of his sins amidst the fires of Hades, it is a glorious angel, Eremiel, who presides over the abyss and Hades, and he identifies the Accuser as "the one who accuses men in the presence of the Lord" (6,17).  Cf. IV Esd. (late 1st cent. AD), where the archangel Jeremiel or Remiel is in charge of Hades.(4,36).  In Rev 1,18, the son of Man holds the keys of Death and Hades, to be distinguished from the bottomless pit of Rev 9, inhabited by the woman-headed horse-locusts, presided over by the angel Abaddon/Apollyon (its key will be held by a fallen star).
 Even in the Descensus ad inferos, added in the 6th cent. or later to the Gospel of Nicodemus (NTApoc), Satan's sphere of operation is the world; he comes to the underworld to warn Hades to secure Jesus, whom he has just put to death,

[p. 129]
but Jesus orders Hades instead to hold Satan fast until His second coming.  But the idea of Christ's binding Satan at the time of His defeat of Death and Hades can be seen in Melito, Pasch. Hom. 102, referring to Mt 12,29, binding the strong one (see SC 123 for parallel refs.).

 4.2.  The Devil and Baptism.  Interpretations of early baptismal rites as involving a descent into a diabolical or demonic world are anachronistic (Kelly [1985] 71-73).  However, the devil came to the fore in the administration baptism at an early date, in the ceremony of renunciation that took place before the confession of Christ.  Perhaps a germ of this ceremony is to be seen in Christ's commission to Saul (Act 26,18), to open the eyes of the Gentiles, "so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God"; see also the Qumran-like passage of II Cor 6,14ff. (cf. I QS 1-2).  In formulas that emerge around the turn of the third century, in Hippolytus, Trad. Ap. (c. 21), Tertullian (De spectac. 4,1-3, etc.), and Cyprian (De habitu virginum 7, etc.), there is a threefold rejection of the devil, his pomps, and his angels (or his works), signifying the abandonment of the practices of pagan religion, in keeping with the notion that the deities were none other than the devil and other fallen angels and demons.
 The systematic exorcism of candidates before baptism was probably originally inspired by the theory of sin-demons--the idea that addiction to various sins entailed the parasitic indwelling of evil spirits that stimulated such sins, as is found in TestXII (Ash. 1,5-9, Reub. 2,2ff., etc.) and Hermas (mand 5,1-2, 6,2)--even though the notion was emphatically rejected by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 2,20) and ignored by most of the other Fathers.  In contrast, though Origen accepted the theory, his writings show no sign of a practice of pre-baptismal exorcism, and in general the practice found less favor in the East than in the West (Kelly 1985, 50.123-57), before the great elaboration of exorcistic formulas in the Byzantine and West-Syrian liturgies.  Though the exorcisms may have begun as a kind of orthodox parallel to the beliefs and practices of the Valentinian gnostics, the literal acceptance of sin-demons seems to have been quickly displaced by an allegorical interpretation, referring to a protecting of the candidates from the malign influence of Satan or his angels, identified with the Pauline Principalities and Powers.  The same is doubtless true also of the exorcisms of water, oil, and salt used in the baptismal ceremonies.  Originally the word exorcizo had a non-demonic sense and signaled only a solemn blessing, but the Fathers added a demonic interpretation (Bartsch).
 Luther eliminated the exorcisms of the material elements, but he took over most of the other demonological elements of the Latin ritual in his first Taufbuchlin (1523), but reduced them in his second version (1526).  By the end of the century, the efficacy of exorcism was called into question, and it was finally eliminated; but the renunciation of Satan remained.  Even after the doubts of Schleiermacher and neo-Protestantism of the 19th cent., it survived, except among the Swedish Lutherans.  Meanwhile, the Calvinists had rejected all of the ceremonies that had collected around baptism.  The Anglican Church was influenced by both Lutherans and Calvinists, and it finally kept only the renunciation (Brightman 1,cxii-cxxii; 2,724-77).
 The Catholic Church eliminated the exorcisms in 1969 (infant form) and 1972 (adult form);

[p. 130]
and though the latter has some brief exorcistic prayers during the catechumenal services, all "imprecatory" forms (direct addresses to Satan) have been avoided (Fischer).

 4.3.  The Devil's Ransom.  St. Augustine complements his concept of inherited original sin with the notion that there was a certain justice in mankind's being consigned to the devil, but he believes that the race was justly extricated when the devil inflicted death on a man who did not deserve it, namely, Jesus (De Trin. 13,11-15, PL 42,1025-29; CCL 50A, 401-08).  Leo the Great adds that Jesus accomplished this by concealing his true identity from the devil (serm. 62,3, PL 54,351).  Gregory of Nyssa (Oratio catechetica magna, cc/22-25. PG 45,59-68; Opera 3:4 [1996] 56-64), intimates that Christ's death constituted a ransom paid to the devil.
 Medieval Latin authors, like Peter of Poitiers (d. 1205), in Sent. 4,19 (PL 211,1211), seem to have come to the ransom idea through Augustine, De Trin. 13,15, "In hac redemptione tanquam pretium pro nobis datus est sanguis Christi, quo accepto diabolus non ditatus est sed ligatus" (PL 42,1029); that is, even though a ransom was paid, it did not enrich the devil but restricted him.  But other authors, following Anselm (d. 1109), denied that a ransom was paid to the devil at all, since his hold over mankind had been acquired unjustly; rather, Christ made satisfaction to God.  Not all later authors followed this solution, but it came to prevail, even among some who still believed that Jesus deliberately concealed His divinity from the devil (Marx 43-45).

5.  Diabolical Possession and Diabolical Witchcraft

 In Mt, Mk, Lk, and Acts, the demons and unclean spirits seem to be part of the troubles that that are part of Satan's trials of mankind (cf. Lk 3,11-16; Acts 10,38).  But Satan was identified (eventually, at least) with Beelzebul, prince of demons (Mt 12,24ff).  His entering into Judas (Lk 22,3; Jn 13,27), however, is not taken to be corporeal possession.  But once the demons were elevated to the status of fallen angels and began to be considered "devils" like Satan, every demonic possession could be seen as diabolic possession, and every demon could be considered not only "a devil," but "the devil."  Thus, too, every baptismal candidate is assumed to be controlled by Satan himself, as in the formulas, Ergo maledicte diabole and Audi maledicte Satanas (Sac. Gel. 292, 294).  Exorcisms designed for the metaphorically possessed catechumens were freely exchanged with those intended for the truly possessed.
 Magic was easily associated with demonic possession, as is shown by Simon Magus, who is won over to belief in Jesus because of Philip's miracles of healing and driving out of demons (Acts 8,9-13).  After Simon repents for having wished to purchase the gift of imparting the Holy Spirit (vv 18-24), no more is heard of him, but he is "demonized" and then "diabolized" in later writings.  First, Justin alleges that he did great deeds of magic in Rome, where he was worshiped as a god, by virtue of the demons operating in him (I Apol. 26).  According to the Acts of Peter (late 2 cent.), Simon himself is an angel of Satan, and one of his feats is to fly up to heaven (cc 18.32, cf. 5), whereas Acts of Peter and Paul (3 cent.?) has Simon being lifted up by angels of Satan, and when Peter "exorcizes" them (horkizo hymas), they drop him (c. 56, AAAp 1,166).
 The Christian view concerning non-Christian wonders is summed up by Augustine, De doct. christ. 2,88-89 (= the canon Illud quod est, Gratian, Decr. C26 q2 c6):  either they are false, or, if real, they are are the results of pacta between men and demons.  Another canon in Gratian (Episcopi, C26 q5 c12, taken from Regino of Prüm, 9th cent.) denounces women's claims to ride through the night with the pagan goddess Diana as delusions, but delusions caused by Satan.  In 1254, Alexander IV warned the newly established papal inquisitors of heretical depravity not to deal with witchcraft (divination and sortilege) unless it was specifically connected with heresy (Liber sextus 5,2,8, CIC(L)).  But eventually the infidelity or defective faith that was detected in all witches was considered to be the equivalent of heresy, even in those who did not make an explicit pact with the devil.  This can be seen in the bull of Innocent VIII, Summis desiderantes affectibus , in 1484, confirming the authority of Heinrich Institor and Jacob Sprenger, inquisitores hereticae pravitatis in Germany, to prosecute culprits who make use of demons--incubi and succubi--and who practice supersticia and sortilegia; they have sacrilegiously renounced their baptismal faith and, instigante humani generis inimico, they dare to commit abominable crimes, to the peril of their souls (Hansen 24-27).  Institor and Sprenger went on to elaborate upon the satanic basis of witchcraft in their Malleus maleficarum.
 Catholic and Protestant views of the devil and witchcraft were similar enough to permit the mass persecution of witches when other circumstances encouraged it (Clark 526-45).  Prosecutions of witches ceased by the 18th cent., thanks in great part to a greater insistence on the rules of evidence, but belief in the devil remained intact, for the time being.  As for cases of possession, which had already fallen off among those Protestants who had discarded the rituals of exorcism, they were also reduced in Catholic circles after 1614 upon the publication of the new manual for priests, the Rituale romanum.  The manual insisted that superhuman (and malevolent) manifestations be witnessed before exorcism could begin--thereby anticipating the call in witchcraft cases for hard evidence.  It is true that one of the instructions admits the reality of witchcraft-caused possession:  the exorcist is to ask the demon if it is held in the body ob aliquam operam magicam aut malefica signa vel instrumenta;  if the possessed person has swallowed anything of the sort, he is to vomit it up, or if they are somewhere else, they are to reveal them and they are to be burned (tit. 90, no. 19).  In the next century, these notions are dismissed as devil-induced delusions by Giralomo Baruffaldo, the celebrated priest-poet of Ferrara (1675-1755), who was also a jurist and consultor for the Sacred Inquisition (Ad Rituale Romanum Commentaria, Venice 1731, 1752, 1763, 1792; Florence, 1847).  "The modern view," he says, "is different" (praxis modernorum sentit aliter, ed. 1731, p. 367).  The instruction, however remained in place into "postmodern" times, until the frecent revision of the rite:  De exorcismis et supplicationibus quibusdam, Rituale romanum ex decreto sacrosancti oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Iohannis Pauli pp. II promulgatum, Vatican City 1999).  The new instructions reinforce earlier emphases on the possibility of natural causation of possession-like symptoms (cf. Oesterreich, Tonquédec) but still firmly assert the existence of diabolical possession in theory and reality.

6.  Modern Debates and Portrayals

 6.1.  Does the Devil Exist?  If so, Which Devil?  Liberal Protestant doubts about the existence of the devil began with the vigorous attack

[p. 132]
of Schleiermacher; see especially Christian Faith (1821-22), §§44-45 (Haag [1974] 52ff).  At the same time, however, what might be called "amateur Satanists" began to make their appearance--especially Eliphas Lévi, né abbé Aphonse Louis Constant (1810-75), and Charles Beaudelaire (1821-67)--and instances continue to be seen in the 20th cent. (Russell [1986] 200-10, 253-57).
 Existential doubts about the devil in Catholic circles did not surface until the 1960s (Cini Tassinario).  The usual question is whether the devil is a real supernatural person or a symbol of sin or a fictitious character developed in the world-view of the Hebrew imagination.  In these discussions, and in debates over whether the Fourth Lateran Council defined or merely presupposed the existence of the devil and other demons (DS 800), it is invariably taken as a given that the Patristic analysis of the devil as the Luciferian enemy of God accurately portrays the Satan of the NT.  But if the satans of the OT are recognized as unfallen ministers of God, and if a similar characterization is seen to carry over to the NT, the question changes:  should the harsh postbiblical devil, whose fate was sealed at the beginning of time, give way to a more biblically informed assessment (Kelly [1990])?
 A primordial sin of Satan is assumed by Pope Paul VI in his allocution, "Liberaci dal male" (OR 16 Nov. 1972), but he describes the fall as "un dramma infelicissimo" about which we know very little.  However, the traditional view of the prideful Morning Star of Is 14 is still very strong among Catholics, and it is unquestioned in more evangelical circles, represented, for instance, by Hal Lindsay's Satan Is Alive and Well on Planet Earth (1972).

 6.2  The Devil Fictionalized.  Various speculations about the devil can be found in works of fiction, beginning with the medieval biblical plays and Milton's Paradise Lost, which portray the fall of Lucifer. The figure of Mephistopheles is elaborated in Marlowe's and Goethe's renditions of the Faust legend, and his portrayal on the stage in the operas of Berlioz, Boito, and Gounod have doubtless done more to fix the picture of the devil in the modern mind than anything else.  (For illustrations of the devil throughout history, see examples in Russell's books; for the Middle Ages to Counter-Reformation, see Grübel.)
 In later works, Thomas Mann produces an imaginary devil in Doktor Faustus (1947), and so does Jean-Paul Sartre in Le diable et le bon Dieu (1951), like Dostoevsky before them in The Brothers Karamazov (1880).  A traditional devil makes his appearance in Bernanos's Sous le soleil de Satan (1926).  C. S. Lewis also follows tradition for his comical devils in The Screwtape Letters (1942) and for a serious treatment in his science-fiction trilogy, Out of the Silent Planet (1938), Perelandra (1943), and That Hideous Strength (1945).  Nikos Kazantzakis too is traditional in his treatment of the Tempter in ëO teleutaîos peirasmós  (1951); so also is William Peter Blatty in The Exorcist (1971), and the same might even be said of Ira Levin's eschatologically oriented Rosemary's Baby (1967), all three of which have been made into popular motion pictures.  An effort to rehabilitate the image of the devil can be seen in Giovanni Papini's Il Diavolo (1953), which speculates about the possibility of Satan's eventual salvation.  More recently, Anne Rice in Memnoch the Devil (1995) has incorporated her world of vampires into the Judeo-Christian cosmos, but she features a Lucifer who is exiled from heaven for virtuous reasons.  Finally, a virtuous Lucifer, whose negative portrayals are

[p. 133]
due to human error, figures in Andrew Greeley's angel trilogy:  Angel Fire (1995), Angel Light (1996), and Contract with an Angel (1998).

Literature

Francis I. Andersen, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch. OTP 1,91ff. -  Elmar Bartsch, Die Sachbeschwörung der römische Liturgie, LQF 1967. - Richard Bauckman, Descent to the Underworld. AncBibDict. (1992) 2,145-59. - Frank Edward Brightman, The English Rite, 2 v.  London 1915. -  George Bradford Caird, Principalities and Powers. A Study in Pauline Theology. Oxford 1956. -  Robert Henry Charles, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch. Oxford 1896. -  Ders. (Hg.), APOT, 1913. - Agnese Cini Tassinario, Il diavolo secondo l'insegnamento recente della Chiesa. Rome 1984. - Stuart Clark. Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe. Oxford1997. - Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium. Revolutionary Messianism in Medieval and Reformation Europe and Its Bearing on Modern Totalitarian Movements. London 1957 (31990). - Ders., Europe's Inner Demons. An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch-Hunt. NY 1975. - Ders., Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come. The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith. New Haven 1993. - Adolf Darlapp, Dämonen. SM. - Franz Josef Dölger, Der Exorzismus im altchristlichen Taufritual. Paderborn 1909. - Christian Duquoc, Symbole ou réalité? LV (L) 15 no. 78 (1966) 95-105. - Cécile Ernst, Teufelaustreibungen. Die Praxis der katholischen Kirche im16.und 17. Jahrhundert. Bern 1972. - Balthasar Fischer, Baptismal Exorcism in the Catholic Baptismal Rites after Vatican II. StLi 10 (1974) 48-55. - Neil Forsyth, The Old Enemy. Satan and the Combat Myth. Princeton 1987. - Isabel Grübel, Die Hierarchie der Teufel. Studien zum christlichen Teufelsbild und zur Allegorisierung des Bösen in Theologie, Literatur und Kunst zwischen Frühmittelalter und Gegenreformation. München 1991. - Herbert Haag, Abschied vom Teufel. ThMed. Einsiedeln1969. - Ders. (et al.), Teufelsglaube. Tübingen 1974. -  Joseph Hansen, Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Hexenwahns und der Hexenverfolgung im Mittelalter. Bonn 1901. -   Henry Ansgar Kelly, The Devil in the Desert. CBQ (1964) 190-220. - Ders.,  Towards the Death of Satan. London 1968 (= The Devil, Demonology, and Witchcraft. NY 1968; 21974). - Ders.,  The Devil at Baptism. Ithaca NY 1985. - Ders., Satan the Old Enemy. A Cosmic J. Edgar Hoover. JAF 103 (1990).77-84. - Hans Kirsten, Die Taufabsage. Berlin 1960. -  Hartmut Lehmann u. Otto Ulbricht (Hg), Vom Unfug des Hexen-Processes. Gegner der Hexenverfolgung von Johann Weyer bis Friedrich Spee. Wiesbaden 1992. - Hal Lindsay, Satan Is Alive and Well on Planet Earth. Grand Rapids 1972. - Sönke Lorenz u. Dieter R. Bauer (Hg), Das Ende der Hexenverfolgung.  Stuttgart 1995. -  C. William Marx, The Devil's Rights and the Redemption in the Literature of Medieval England. Cambridge 1995 - H. C. Erik Midelfort:  Witch Hunting in Southwestern Germany, 1562-1684. Stanford 1972. -  Traugott Konstantin Oesterreich:  Die Besessenheit.  Langensalza 1921. - Karl Rahner, Der Teufel.  SM. - Joseph Ratzinger, Abschied vom Teufel? Dogma und Verkündigung (München 1973) 225-34. -  Adolf Rodewyk, Die dämonische Besessenheit in der Sicht des Rituale romanum, Zurich 1963. -Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil. Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity.Lucifer, Ithaca NY 1977. - Ders., Satan. The Early Christian Tradition, Ithaca

[p. 134]
NY 1981. - Ders., Lucifer. The Devil in the Middle Ages, Ithaca NY 1984. - Ders., Mephistophiles. The Devil in the Modern World, Ithaca NY 1986. - Ders., The Prince of Darkness. Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History, Ithaca NY 1988 - Satan, 1948 (EtCarm 27). -Josef Schmid, Das Evangelium nach Lukas. RNT 1955. -  Peter Schoonenberg, God's World in the Making. Pittsburgh1964. - Joseph de Tonquédec, Les maladies nerveuses ou mentales et les manifestations diaboliques. Paris 1938. -  André Vaillant, Le Livre des secrets d'Hénoch. Paris 1952. -  Bastiaan M. F. Van Iersel et al., Engelen en duivels. Hilversum 1968. -  Heinrich Wey, Die Funktionen der bösen Geister bei den griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts nach Christus. Winterthur 1957. -  Alfred Wikenhauser, Die Offenbarung des Johannes. RNT 1959. -  Alois Winkelhofer, Traktat über den Teufel. Frankfurt 1961. - Ders., Zur Frage nach der Existenz des Teufels. SKZ 136 (1969) 473-75.