Section XII: The Fall of the Angels, § 58
SECTION XII: ON THE FALL OF THE ANGELS
§ 58. They are no less careful when they ask about the fall of the angels. Thomas argues ([ST,] part 1, q. [63], art. 7) that the devil sinned immediately after the first instant of creation. In art. 2, he tries to prove that the first sin of the angels was pride and, following it, envy. He says:
Sin exists in a person in two ways: either according to guilt [reatus] or according to effect. According to guilt, the evil spirits have all sins because they drive people to sins of every kind. According to effect, they have only those sins that are related to their spiritual nature. But now, a spiritual nature has no relation to good things that belong to the body, but only those that can be found in spiritual things; for something is related only to what befits its own nature in some way. Sin cannot exist in spiritual beings unless in such an affection [that] is not ordered to the rule of the superior. This is the sin of pride. Therefore the first sin of the angel cannot be anything but pride. Consequently, it could have been envy because it is of the same nature, because the affection stretches toward something desirable, and because it resists that to which it is opposed. Moreover, as a result of this, envy mourns someone else’s good, insofar as it believes that another’s good hinders its own.
So much for Thomas. Although evil spirits are incorporeal by nature, yet through assumed bodies they also carry out lusts and other sins according to their affection, about which incubi and succubi give evidence. Concerning them, see Augustine (De civ. Dei, bk. 15, ch. 23, and elsewhere in many places).
§ 59. Now because most of the fathers claim that pride was the devil’s first sin, observe that “pride” is being taken in two ways: first, as it is contempt for obedience and thus is found in every sin; and, second, as it is love or desire for one’s own excellence, and it is used in this sense in this question.
Also, observe that on the basis of Gregory (Moral., bk. 23, ch. 3) there are four types of pride: (1) When someone believes that he has something good from himself. (2) When he believes that he has received what has been given him as extra because of his own merits. (3) When someone boasts that he has what he does not have. (4) And when he despises others and wants to appear exceptional. The devil’s sin falls under the first kind of pride. Bonaventure makes the following distinction: “As regards the beginning, the devil’s sin began with audacity, was consummated in ambition, and was confirmed in the loathing that hatred and envy produce.” (See Augustinus Steuchus, De perpet. philos., bk. 8, ch. 38, where he lists three opinions about the sins of angels.)
Why the evil angels are not received back into grace.
§ 60. Why are the evil angels not received back into grace? The fathers give various reasons for this. It is more profitable to declare the great “philanthropy” and mercy of God’s Son toward the fallen human race—by which He came down from heaven for us and for our salvation and was made man, “saving not angels but the offspring of Abraham” (Heb. 2:16)—than to look beyond the limits of the Word for the reasons of God’s just judgment by which He delivered the angels who opposed Him, “brought down by chains to the lower hell, to be kept for judgment” (2 Pet. 2:4). It is enough to know “that the devil was not made in the creation of his nature but by the working of his will” (Origen, on Job, bk. 2). “The devil was not created as the devil at first, but, after he had received his angelic power, he changed his nature into that of a demon and became a wicked demon” (Basil, Sermon in aliquot Scripturae locos).
§ 61. Nevertheless let us listen to the fathers as they discuss the reasons why the devil’s fall was left without a remedy. Augustine (Enchirid. ad Laurent., ch. 29): “Because the entire multitude of angels had not perished by abandoning God, it pleased God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, that the group that had perished should stay in eternal perdition but that the group that had remained with God, though the others defected, should always firmly know and rejoice in their blessedness. On the other hand, the other rational creation, which was in man, was partly restored because it had been totally ruined by sins and punishments both original and their own, and therefore would supply to the company of angels what that destruction had taken away from them.” Augustine again (on John, tractate 110): “Because we know that the Creator of all good things granted no grace to restore the wicked angels, why do we not rather understand that the more sublime was their nature, the more damnable was their fault? For as much as they were better than we, they ought to have sinned so much less than we; but now, they have revealed themselves as ungrateful for His kindness in offending the Creator as detestably as they were created blessedly. Nor were they satisfied to have deserted Him, but they even came to deceive us.”
Anselm (Cur Deus homo, bk. 2, ch. 21): “Although all of the angels are of the same nature, nevertheless they are not of the same kind; for all of the angels are not from one angel in the same way as all humans are from one man. Moreover, just as man should not have been freed through another man who was not of the same [human] race, though he was of the same nature, so no angel ought to have been saved through another angel. This also takes away their restoration; for just as they fell without another doing them harm to make them fall, so also they ought to rise up again without the help of another, something which is impossible for them.” (See also Gregory, Moral., bk. 4; Isidore, Sent., bk. 1, ch. 12; etc.)
The Scholastics provide these differences: Man sinned at the encouragement of someone else; the devil sinned without anyone’s encouragement. Man sinned under the circumstances as the result of another’s wickedness; the devil, as a result of his own wickedness. Man is of an inferior nature; the devil, of a more perfect nature.