|
W.H. KENT
Transcribed by Rick McCarty
The name commonly given to
the fallen angels, who are also known as demons (see DEMONOLOGY). With the
article (ho) it denotes Lucifer, their chief, as in Matthew 25:41, "the
Devil and his angels". It may be said of this name, as St. Gregory says of
the word angel, "nomen est officii, non naturæ"--the designation of an
office, not of a nature. For the Greek word (from diaballein, "to traduce")
means a slanderer, or accuser, and in this sense it is applied to him of
whom it is written "the accuser [ho kategoros] of our brethren is cast
forth, who accused them before our God day and night" (Apocalypse 12:10). It
thus answers to the Hebrew name Satan which signifies an adversary, or an
accuser.
Mention is made of the Devil in many passages of the Old and New Testaments,
but there is no full account given in any one place, and the Scripture
teaching on this topic can only be ascertained by combining a number of
scattered notices from Genesis to Apocalypse, and reading them in the light
of patristic and theological tradition. The authoritative teaching of the
Church on this topic is set forth in the decrees of the Fourth Lateran
Council (cap. i, "Firmiter credimus"), wherein, after saying that God in the
beginning had created together two creatures, the spiritual and the
corporeal, that is to say the angelic and the earthly, and lastly man, who
was made of both spirit and body, the council continues:
"Diabolus enim et alii dæmones a Deo quidem naturâ creati sunt boni, sed
ipsi per se facti sunt mali." ("the Devil and the other demons were created
by God good in their nature but they by themselves have made themselves
evil.")
Here it is clearly taught that the Devil and the other demons are spiritual
or angelic creatures created by God in a state of innocence, and that they
became evil by their own act. It is added that man sinned by the suggestion
of the Devil, and that in the next world the wicked shall suffer perpetual
punishment with the Devil. The doctrine which may thus be set forth in a few
words has furnished a fruitful theme for theological speculation for the
Fathers and Schoolmen, as well as later theologians, some of whom, Suarez
for example, have treated it very fully. On the other hand it has also been
the subject of many heretical or erroneous opinions, some of which owe their
origin to pre-Christian systems of demonology. In later years Rationalist
writers have rejected the doctrine altogether, and seek to show that it has
been borrowed by Judaism and Christianity from external systems of religion
wherein it was a natural development of primitive Animism (q. v.).
As may be gathered from the language of the Lateran definition, the Devil
and the other demons are but a part of the angelic creation, and their
natural powers do not differ from those of the angels who remained faithful.
Like the other angels, they are pure spiritual beings without any body, and
in their original state they are endowed with supernatural grace and placed
in a condition of probation. It was only by their fall that they became
devils. This was before the sin of our first parents, since this sin itself
is ascribed to the instigation of the Devil: "By the envy of the Devil,
death came into the world" (Wisdom 2:24). Yet it is remarkable that for an
account of the fall of the angels we must turn to the last book of the
Bible. For as such we may regard the vision in the Apocalypse, albeit the
picture of the past is blended with prophecies of what shall be in the
future: "And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels
fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: and they
prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. And that
great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and
Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his
angels were thrown down with him" (Apocalypse 12:7-9). To this may be added
the words of St. Jude: "And the angels who kept not their principality, but
forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting
chains, unto the judgment of the great day" (Jude 1:6; cf. II Peter 2:4). In
the Old Testament we have a brief reference to the Fall in Job 4:18: "In his
angels he found wickedness". But to this must be added the two classic texts
in the prophets: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise
in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the
nations? And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will
exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the
covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the height of the
clouds, I will be like the most High. But yet thou shalt be brought down to
hell, into the depth of the pit" (Isaiah 14:12-15). This parable of the
prophet is expressly directed against the King of Babylon, but both the
early Fathers and later Catholic commentators agree in understanding it as
applying with deeper significance to the fall of the rebel angel. And the
older commentators generally consider that this interpretation is confirmed
by the words of Our Lord to his disciples: "I saw Satan like lightning
falling from heaven" (Luke 10:18). For these words were regarded as a rebuke
to the disciples, who were thus warned of the danger of pride by being
reminded of the fall of Lucifer. But modern commentators take this text in a
different sense, and refer it not to the original fall of Satan, but his
overthrow by the faith of the disciples, who cast out devils in the name of
their Master. And this new interpretation, as Schanz observes, is more in
keeping with the context.
The parallel prophetic passage is Ezekiel's lamentation upon the king of
Tyre:
You were the seal of resemblance, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. You
were in the pleasures of the paradise of God; every precious stone was thy
covering; the sardius, the topaz, and the jasper, the chrysolite, and the
onyx, and the beryl, the sapphire, and the carbuncle, and the emerald; gold
the work of your beauty: and your pipes were prepared in the day that you
were created. You a cherub stretched out, and protecting, and I set you in
the holy mountain of God, you have walked in the midst of the stones of
fire. You were perfect in your wave from the day of creation, until iniquity
was found in you. (Ezekiel 28:12-15)
There is much in the context that can only be understood literally of an
earthly king concerning whom the words are professedly spoken, but it is
clear that in any case the king is likened to an angel in Paradise who is
ruined by his own iniquity.
Even for those who in no way doubt or dispute it, the doctrine set forth in
these texts and patristic interpretations may well suggest a multitude of
questions, and theologians have not been loath to ask and answer them. And
in the first place what was the nature of the sin of the rebel angels? In
any case this was a point presenting considerable difficulty, especially for
theologians, who had formed a high estimate of the powers and possibilities
of angelic knowledge, a subject which had a peculiar attraction for many of
the great masters of scholastic speculation. For if sin be, as it surely is,
the height of folly, the choice of darkness for light, of evil for good, it
would seem that it can only be accounted for by some ignorance, or
inadvertence, or weakness, or the influence of some overmastering passion.
But most of these explanations seem to be precluded by the powers and
perfections of the angelic nature. The weakness of the flesh, which accounts
for such a mass of human wickedness, was altogether absent from the angels.
There could be no place for carnal sin without the corpus delicti. And even
some sins that are purely spiritual or intellectual seem to present an
almost insuperable difficulty in the case of the angels. This may certainly
be said of the sin which by many of the best authorities is regarded as
being actually the great offense of Lucifer, to wit, the desire of
independence of God and equality with God. It is true that this seems to be
asserted in the passage of Isaiah (14:13). And it is naturally suggested by
the idea of rebellion against an earthly sovereign, wherein the chief of the
rebels very commonly covets the kingly throne. At the same time the high
rank which Lucifer is generally supposed to have held in the hierarchy of
angels might seem to make this offense more likely in his case, for, as
history shows, it is the subject who stands nearest the throne who is most
open to temptations of ambition. But this analogy is not a little
misleading. For the exaltation of the subject may bring his power so near
that of his sovereign that he may well be able to assert his independence or
to usurp the throne; and even where this is not actually the case he may at
any rate contemplate the possibility of a successful rebellion. Moreover,
the powers and dignities of an earthly prince may be compatible with much
ignorance and folly. But it is obviously otherwise in the case of the
angels. For, whatever gifts and powers may be conferred on the highest of
the heavenly princes, he will still be removed by an infinite distance from
the plenitude of God's power and majesty, so that a successful rebellion
against that power or any equality with that majesty would be an absolute
impossibility. And what is more, the highest of the angels, by reason of
their greater intellectual illumination, must have the clearest knowledge of
this utter impossibility of attaining to equality with God. This difficulty
is clearly put by the Disciple in St. Anselm's dialogue "De Casu Diaboli"
(cap. iv); for the saint felt that the angelic intellect, at any rate, must
see the force of the "ontological argument" (see ONTOLOGY). "If", he asks,
"God cannot be thought of except as sole, and as of such an essence that
nothing can be thought of like to Him [then] how could the Devil have wished
for what could not be thought of?--He surely was not so dull of
understanding as to be ignorant of the inconceivability of any other entity
like to God" (Si Deus cogitari non potest, nisi ita solus, ut nihil illi
simile cogitari possit, quomodo diabolus potuit velle quod non potuit
cogitari? Non enim ita obtusæ mentis erat, ut nihil aliud simile Deo
cogitari posse nesciret). The Devil, that is to say, was not so obtuse as
not to know that it was impossible to conceive of anything like (i.e. equal)
to God. And what he could not think he could not will. St. Anselm's answer
is that there need be no question of absolute equality; yet to will anything
against the Divine will is to seek to have that independence which belongs
to God alone, and in this respect to be equal to God. In the same sense St.
Thomas (I:63:3) answers the question, whether the Devil desired to be "as
God". If by this we mean equality with God, then the Devil could not desire
it, since he knew this to be impossible, and he was not blinded by passion
or evil habit so as to choose that which is impossible, as may happen with
men. And even if it were possible for a creature to become God, an angel
could not desire this, since, by becoming equal with God he would cease to
be an angel, and no creature can desire its own destruction or an essential
change in its being. These arguments are combated by Scotus (In II lib.
Sent., dist. vi, Q. i.), who distinguishes between efficacious volition and
the volition of complaisance, and maintains that by the latter act an angel
could desire that which is impossible. In the same way he urges that, though
a creature cannot directly will its own destruction, it can do this
consequenter, i.e. it can will something from which this would follow.
Although St. Thomas regards the desire of equality with God as something
impossible, he teaches nevertheless (loc. cit.) that Satan sinned by
desiring to be "as God", according to the passage in the prophet (Isaiah
14), and he understands this to mean likeness, not equality. But here again
there is need of a distinction. For men and angels have a certain likeness
to God in their natural perfections, which are but a reflection of his
surpassing beauty, and yet a further likeness is given them by supernatural
grace and glory. Was it either of these likenesses that the devil desired?
And if it be so, how could it be a sin? For was not this the end for which
men and angels were created? Certainly, as Thomas teaches, not every desire
of likeness with God would be sinful, since all may rightly desire that
manner of likeness which is appointed them by the will of their Creator.
There is sin only where the desire is inordinate, as in seeking something
contrary to the Divine will, or in seeking the appointed likeness in a wrong
way. The sin of Satan in this matter may have consisted in desiring to
attain supernatural beatitude by his natural powers or, what may seem yet
stranger, in seeking his beatitude in the natural perfections and reflecting
the supernatural. In either case, as St. Thomas considers, this first sin of
Satan was the sin of pride. Scotus, however (lo. cit., Q. ii), teaches that
this sin was not pride properly so called, but should rather be described as
a species of spiritual lust.
Although nothing definite can be known as to the precise nature of the
probation of the angels and the manner in which many of them fell, many
theologians have conjectured, with some show of probability, that the
mystery of the Divine Incarnation was revealed to them, that they saw that a
nature lower than their own was to be hypostatically united to the Person of
God the Son, and that all the hierarchy of heaven must bow in adoration
before the majesty of the Incarnate Word; and this, it is supposed, was the
occasion of the pride of Lucifer (cf. Suarez, De Angelis, lib. VII, xiii).
As might be expected, the advocates of this view seek support in certain
passages of Scripture, notably in the words of the Psalmist as they are
cited in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "And again, when he bringeth in the
first-begotten into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of God adore
Him" (Hebrews 1:6; Psalm 96:7). And if the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse
may be taken to refer, at least in a secondary sense, to the original fall
of the angels, it may seem somewhat significant that it opens with the
vision of the Woman and her Child. But this interpretation is by no means
certain, for the text in Hebrews, i, may be referred to the second coming of
Christ, and much the same may be said of the passage in the Apocalypse.
It would seem that this account of the trial of the angels is more in
accordance with what is known as the Scotist doctrine on the motives of the
Incarnation than with the Thomist view, that the Incarnation was occasioned
by the sin of our first parents. For since the sin itself was committed at
the instigation of Satan, it presupposes the fall of the angels. How, then,
could Satan's probation consist in the fore-knowledge of that which would,
ex hypothesi, only come to pass in the event of his fall? In the same way it
would seem that the aforesaid theory is incompatible with another opinion
held by some old theologians, to wit, that men were created to fill up the
gaps in the ranks of the angels. For this again supposes that if no angels
had sinned no men would have been made, and in consequence there would have
been no union of the Divine Person with a nature lower than the angels.
As might be expected from the attention they had bestowed on the question of
the intellectual powers of the angels, the medieval theologians had much to
say on the time of their probation. The angelic mind was conceived of as
acting instantaneously, not, like the mind of man, passing by discursive
reasoning from premises to conclusions. It was pure intelligence as
distinguished from reason. Hence it would seem that there was no need of any
extended trial. And in fact we find St. Thomas and Scotus discussing the
question whether the whole course might not have been accomplished in the
first instant in which the angels were created. The Angelic Doctor argues
that the Fall could not have taken place in the first instant. And it
certainly seems that if the creature came into being in the very act of
sinning the sin itself might be said to come from the Creator. But this
argument, together with many others, is answered with his accustomed
acuteness by Scotus, who maintains the abstract possibility of sin in the
first instant. But whether possible or not, it is agreed that this is not
what actually happened. For the authority of the passages in Isaiah and
Ezekiel, which were generally accepted as referring to the fall of Lucifer,
might well suffice to show that for at least one instant he had existed in a
state of innocence and brightness. To modern readers the notion that the sin
was committed in the second instant of creation may seem scarcely less
incredible than the possibility of a fall in the very first. But this may be
partly due to the fact that we are really thinking of human modes of
knowledge, and fail to take into account the Scholastic conception of
angelic cognition. For a being who was capable of seeing many things at
once, a single instant might be equivalent to the longer period needed by
slowly-moving mortals.
This dispute, as to the time taken by the probation and fall of Satan, has a
purely speculative interest. But the corresponding question as to the
rapidity of the sentence and punishment is in some ways a more important
matter. There can indeed be no doubt that Satan and his rebel angels were
very speedily punished for their rebellion. This would seem to be
sufficiently indicated in some of the texts which are understood to refer to
the fall of the angels. It might be inferred, moreover, from the swiftness
with which punishment followed on the offense in the case of our first
parents, although man's mind moves more slowly than that of the angels, and
he had more excuse in his own weakness and in the power of his tempter. It
was partly for this reason, indeed, that man found mercy, whereas there was
no redemption for the angels. For, as St. Peter says, "God spared not the
angels that sinned" (II Peter 2:4). This, it may be observed, is asserted
universally, indicating that all who fell suffered punishment. For these and
other reasons theologians very commonly teach that the doom and punishment
followed in the next instant after the offense, and many go so far as to say
there was no possibility of repentance. But here it will be well to bear in
mind the distinction drawn between revealed doctrine, which comes with
authority, and theological speculation, which to a great extent rests on
reasoning. No one who is really familiar with the medieval masters, with
their wide differences, their independence, their bold speculation, is
likely to confuse the two together. But in these days there is some danger
that we may lose sight of the distinction. It is true that, when it fulfils
certain definite conditions, the agreement of theologians may serve as a
sure testimony to revealed doctrine, and some of their thoughts and even
their very words have been adopted by the Church in her definitions of
dogma. But at the same time these masters of theological thought freely put
forward many more or less plausible opinions, which come to us with
reasoning rather than authority, and must needs stand or fall with the
arguments by which they are supported. In this way we may find that many of
them may agree in holding that the angels who sinned had no possibility of
repentance. But it may be that it is a matter of argument, that each one
holds it for a reason of his own and denies the validity of the arguments
adduced by others. Some argue that from the nature of the angelic mind and
will there was an intrinsic impossibility of repentance. But it may be
observed that in any case the basis of this argument is not revealed
teaching, but philosophical speculation. And it is scarcely surprising to
find that its sufficiency is denied by equally orthodox doctors who hold
that if the fallen angels could not repent this was either because the doom
was instantaneous, and left no space for repentance, or because the needful
grace was denied them. Others, again, possibly with better reason, are
neither satisfied that sufficient grace and room for repentance were in fact
refused, nor can they see any good ground for thinking this likely, or for
regarding it as in harmony with all that we know of the Divine mercy and
goodness. In the absence of any certain decision on this subject, we may be
allowed to hold, with Suarez, that, however brief it may have been, there
was enough delay to leave an opportunity for repentance, and that the
necessary grace was not wholly withheld. If none actually repented, this may
be explained in some measure by saying that their strength of will and
fixity of purpose made repentance exceedingly difficult, though not
impossible; that the time, though sufficient, was short; and that grace was
not given in such abundance as to overcome these difficulties.
The language of the prophets (Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28) would seem to show that
Lucifer held a very high rank in the heavenly hierarchy. And, accordingly,
we find many theologians maintaining that before his fall he was the
foremost of all the angels. Suarez is disposed to admit that he was the
highest negatively, i.e. that no one was higher, though many may have been
his equals. But here again we are in the region of pious opinions, for some
divines maintain that, far from being first of all, he did not belong to one
of the highest choirs--Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones--but to one of the
lower orders of angels. In any case it appears that he holds a certain
sovereignty over those who followed him in his rebellion. For we read of
"the Devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), "the dragon and his angels"
(Apocalypse 12:7), "Beelzebub, the prince of devils"--which, whatever be the
interpretation of the name, clearly refers to Satan, as appears from the
context: "And if Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his
kingdom stand? Because you say that through Beelzebub I cast out devils"
(Luke 11:15, 18), and "the prince of the Powers of this air" (Ephesians
2:2). At first sight it may seem strange that there should be any order or
subordination amongst those rebellious spirits, and that those who rose
against their Maker should obey one of their own fellows who had led them to
destruction. And the analogy of similar movements among men might suggest
that the rebellion would be likely to issue in anarchy and division. But it
must be remembered that the fall of the angels did not impair their natural
powers, that Lucifer still retained the gifts that enabled him to influence
his brethren before their fall, and that their superior intelligence would
show them that they could achieve more success and do more harm to others by
unity and organization than by independence and division.
Besides exercising this authority over those who were called "his angels",
Satan has extended his empire over the minds of evil men. Thus, in the
passage just cited from St. Paul, we read, "And you, when you were dead in
your offenses and sins, wherein in times past you walked according to the
course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of
the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief" (Ephesians 2:1, 2).
In the same way Christ in the Gospel calls him "the prince of this world".
For when His enemies are coming to take Him, He looks beyond the instruments
of evil to the master who moves them, and says: "I will not now speak many
things to you, for the prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not
anything" (John 14:30). There is no need to discuss the view of some
theologians who surmise that Lucifer was one of the angels who ruled and
administered the heavenly bodies, and that this planet was committed to his
care. For in any case the sovereignty with which these texts are primarily
concerned is but the rude right of conquest and the power of evil influence.
His sway began by his victory over our first parents, who, yielding to his
suggestions, were brought under his bondage. All sinners who do his will
become in so far his servants. For, as St. Gregory says, he is the head of
all the wicked--"Surely the Devil is the head of all the wicked; and of this
head all the wicked are members" (Certe iniquorum omnium caput diabolus est;
et hujus capitis membra sunt omnes iniqui.--Hom. 16, in Evangel.). This
headship over the wicked, as St. Thomas is careful to explain, differs
widely from Christ's headship over the Church, inasmuch as Satan is only
head by outward government and not also, as Christ is, by inward,
life-giving influence (Summa III:8:7). With the growing wickedness of the
world and the spreading of paganism and false religions and magic rites, the
rule of Satan was extended and strengthened till his power was broken by the
victory of Christ, who for this reason said, on the eve of His Passion: "Now
is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast
out" (John 12:31). By the victory of the Cross Christ delivered men from the
bondage of Satan and at the same time paid the debt due to Divine justice by
shedding His blood in atonement for our sins. In their endeavours to explain
this great mystery, some old theologians, misled by the metaphor of a ransom
for captives made in war, came to the strange conclusion that the price of
Redemption was paid to Satan. But this error was effectively refuted by St.
Anselm, who showed that Satan had no rights over his captives and that the
great price wherewith we were bought was paid to God alone (cf. ATONEMENT).
What has been said so far may suffice to show the part played by the Devil
in human history, whether in regard to the individual soul or the whole race
of Adam. It is indicated, indeed, in his name of Satan, the adversary, the
opposer, the accuser, as well as by his headship of the wicked ranged under
his banner in continual warfare with the kingdom of Christ. The two cities
whose struggle is described by St. Augustine are already indicated in the
words of the Apostle, "In this the children of God are manifest and the
children of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this
purpose the Son of God appeared, that He might destroy the works of the
devil" (John 3:10, 8). Whether or not the foreknowledge of the Incarnation
was the occasion of his own fall, his subsequent course has certainly shown
him the relentless enemy of mankind and the determined opponent of the
Divine economy of redemption. And since he lured our first parents to their
fall he has ceased not to tempt their children in order to involve them in
his own ruin. There is no reason, indeed, for thinking that all sins and all
temptations must needs come directly from the Devil or one of his ministers
of evil. For it is certain that if, after the first fall of Adam, or at the
time of the coming of Christ, Satan and his angels had been bound so fast
that they might tempt no more, the world would still have been filled with
evils. For men would have had enough of temptation in the weakness and
waywardness of their hearts. But in that case the evil would clearly have
been far less than it is now, for the activity of Satan does much more than
merely add a further source of temptation to the weakness of the world and
the flesh; it means a combination and an intelligent direction of all the
elements of evil. The whole Church and each one of her children are beset by
dangers, the fire of persecution, the enervation of ease, the dangers of
wealth and of poverty, heresies and errors of opposite characters,
rationalism and superstition, fanaticism and indifference. It would be bad
enough if all these forces were acting apart and without any definite
purpose, but the perils of the situation are incalculably increased when all
may be organized and directed by vigilant and hostile intelligences. It is
this that makes the Apostle, though he well knew the perils of the world and
the weakness of the flesh, lay special stress on the greater dangers that
come from the assaults of those mighty spirits of evil in whom he recognized
our real and most formidable foes--"Put you on the armour of God, that you
may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is
not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against
the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness
in the high places . . . Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with
truth, having on the breastplate of justice, and your feet shod with the
preparation of the gospel of peace; in all things taking the shield of
faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the
most wicked one" (Ephesians 6:11, 16).
Resource List - Entry
taken verbatim from the original source:
(v)
http://www.newadvent.org/ The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II.
Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition
Copyright © 2003 by Kevin Knight. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley,
Archbishop of New York
|
