1237. He rejects an error when he says, I came not of myself. And first, he rejects the error of Sabellius, who said that Christ did not have his origin from another, for he said that the Father and the Son were the same in person. In regard to this he says, I came not of myself, i.e., according to Hilary, I came, not existing of myself, but in a way as sent by another, that is, the Father. Thus he adds, but he sent me: God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law (Gal 4:4). 1237. Errorem autem excludit cum dicit neque enim a meipso veni: et primo excludit errorem Sabellii, qui Christum non ab alio originem habuisse dicit, sed idem esse Patrem et Filium in persona finxit. Et quantum ad hoc dicit neque enim a meipso veni; idest, secundum Hilarium, ego veni non a meipso existens, sed quasi ab alio missus, scilicet a Patre, unde subdit sed ille me misit; Gal. IV, 4: misit Deus Filium suum natum ex muliere, factum sub lege. Second, he rejects an error of the Jews who said that Christ was not sent by God, but was a false prophet, of whom we read: I did not send the prophets, yet they ran (Jer 23:21). And in regard to this he says, according to Origen, I came not of myself, but he sent me. Indeed, this is what Moses prayed for: I beseech thee, Lord send whom thou wilt send (Exod 4:13). Secundo vero errorem Iudaeorum, qui dicebant Christum non esse missum a Deo, sed falsum prophetam: de quibus dicitur: non mittebam eos, sed ipsi currebant. Et quantum ad hoc dicit, secundum Origenem, neque enim a meipso veni, sed ille me misit. Hunc petebat Moyses: obsecro, Domine, mitte quem missurus es. 1238. He shows that they lack this sign when he says, why do you not know my speech? For as was stated above, to love Christ is the sign of being a child of God; but they did not love Christ; therefore it is obvious that they did not have this sign. That they do not love Christ is shown by the effect of love: for the effect of loving someone is that the lover joyfully hears the words of the beloved; thus we read: let me hear your voice, for your voice is sweet (Song 2:14). And again, my companions are listening for your voice; let me hear it (Song 8:13). Therefore, because they did not love Christ, it seemed tedious to them even to hear his voice: this saying is hard, and who is able to accept it? (John 6:61); the very sight of him is a burden to us (Wis 2:15). 1238. Ostendit autem eos ab hoc signo deficere, cum dicit quare loquelam meam non cognoscitis? Nam, sicut dictum est supra dilectio Christi est signum filiationis divinae: isti autem Christum non diligebant: unde manifestum est eos ab hoc signo deficere. Quod autem non diligunt, manifestant per effectum: nam effectus dilectionis alicuius est quod diligens libenter audit verba dilecti. Unde Cant. II, 14: sonet vox tua in auribus meis; vox enim tua dulcis. Et Cant. ult., 13: fac me audire vocem tuam: amici auscultant te. Quia ergo isti Christum non diligebant, durum videbatur eis etiam vocem eius audire; supra VI, 61: durus est hic sermo: quis potest eum audire? Sap. II, 15: gravis est nobis etiam ad videndum. It sometimes happens that a person is not glad to hear the words of another because he cannot weigh them and for that reason does not understand them, and so he contradicts them: answer, I beseech you, without contention . . . and you shall not find iniquity on my tongue (Job 6:29). Therefore he says, why do you not know my speech? For you asked earlier, what is this that he said, where I go, you cannot come? (John 8:21). I say that you do not understand because you cannot bear to hear my word, i.e., your heart is so hardened against me that you do not even want to hear me. Contingit autem quod aliquis non libenter audit verba alicuius, quia ea examinare non potest nec per consequens cognoscere, et ideo eis contradicunt; Iob VI, 29: respondete, obsecro, absque contentione . . . et non invenietis in lingua mea iniquitatem. Et ideo dicit quare loquelam meam non cognoscitis? Dicentes et interrogantes: quid est hoc quod dixit: quo ego vado vos non potestis venire? Et hoc ideo, inquam, non cognoscitis, quia non potestis audire sermonem meum; idest, ita durum cor habetis ad me, quod nec sermonem meum audire vultis. Lecture 6 Lectio 6 The father of lies Pater mendaciorum ^8:44 You are of your father the devil, and you will do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he did not stand in the truth, because the truth is not in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar and the father of lies. [n. 1239] ^8:44 Vos ex patre diabolo estis, et desideria patris vestri vultis facere. Ille homicida erat ab initio, et in veritate non stetit, quia non est veritas in eo: cum loquitur mendacium, ex propriis loquitur, quia mendax est, et pater eius. [n. 1239] 1239. After showing that the Jews had a certain spiritual origin, and after rejecting the origin they presumed they had, our Lord here gives their true origin, ascribing their fatherhood to the devil. 1239. Postquam Dominus Iudaeos ostendit originem aliquam spiritualem habere et exclusit ab eis originem praesumptam, hic astruit veram, ascribens eis paternitatem diaboli, et First, he makes his statement; primo proponit intentum; second, he gives its reason; at and you will do the desires of your father; secundo rationem eis assignat, ibi et desideria patris vestri vultis facere; third, he explains this reason, at he was a murderer from the beginning. tertio positam rationem manifestat, ibi ille homicida erat ab initio. 1240. He says: you are of your father the devil, and you will do the desires of your father, that is, by imitating him: your father was an Amorite, and your mother a Hittite (Ezek 16:3). 1240. Dicit ergo vos facitis opera diaboli, ergo vos ex patre diabolo estis, scilicet per imitationem; Ez. XVI, 3: pater tuus Amorrhaeus, et mater tua Cethaea. Here one must guard against the heresy of the Manicheans who claim that there is a definite nature called ‘evil,’ and a certain race of darkness with its own princes, from which all corruptible things derive their origin. According to this opinion, all men, as to their flesh, have come from the devil. Further, they say that certain souls belong to that creation which is good, and others to that which is evil. Thus they said that our Lord said, you are of your father the devil, because they came from the devil according to the flesh, and their souls were part of that creation which was evil. Cavenda est hic haeresis Manichaeorum, qui dicunt esse quamdam naturam ‘mali,’ et gentem quamdam tenebrarum cum principibus suis, a qua corruptibilia omnia originem trahunt; et secundum hoc omnes homines secundum carnem ex diabolo processisse. Ponebant autem quasdam animas ad bonam creationem pertinere, et quasdam ad malam; unde dicebant hoc dictum a Domino vos ex patre diabolo estis, quia ab eo secundum carnem processistis, et animae vestrae sunt de mala creatione. But as Origen says, to suppose that there are two natures because of the difference between good and evil seems to be like saying that the substance of an eye which sees is different from that of an eye that is clouded or crossed. For just as a healthy and bleary eye do not differ in substance, but the bleariness is from some deficient cause, so the substance and nature of a thing is the same whether it is good or has a defect in itself, which is a sin of the will. And so the Jews, as evil, are not called the children of the devil by nature, but by reason of their imitating him. Sed, ut Origenes dicit, introducere duas naturas propter differentiam boni et mali, simile videtur ei qui diceret alteram esse oculi videntis substantiam, alteram caligantis vel se avertentis. Quemadmodum enim oculi sani et lippi non differunt substantia, sed quaedam contingit causa deficiens, scilicet quae facit eum caligare; ita eadem est substantia et natura rei, sive sit bona, seu habeat in se defectum, quod est peccatum voluntatis. Non ergo Iudaei ut mali, dicuntur filii diaboli natura, sed imitatione. 1241. Then when he says, and you will do the desires of your father, he gives the reason for this, for their being of the devil. It is like saying: you are not the children of the devil as though created and brought into existence by him, but because by imitating him you will do the desires of your father. And these desires are evil, for as he envied and killed man—through the devil’s envy death entered the world (Wis 2:24)—so you too envy me and but now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you (John 8:40). 1241. Consequenter cum dicit et desideria patris vestri vultis facere, rationem assignatam exponit; quasi dicat: non estis filii diaboli tamquam ab eo creati, et in esse producti sed quia eum imitantes, desideria patris vestri vultis facere, quae quidem mala sunt: nam sicut ille invidit homini, et occidit, Sap. II, 24: invidia diaboli mors intravit in orbem terrarum, ita et vos mihi invidentes, quaeritis me interficere hominem, qui veritatem locutus sum vobis. 1242. Then when he says, he was a murderer from the beginning, he explains the reason he gave. 1242. Consequenter cum dicit ille homicida erat ab initio, positam rationem manifestat, et First, he mentions the characteristic of the devil that they imitate; primo ponit diaboli quam imitantur conditionem; second, he shows that they are truly imitators of that, at but if I say the truth, you do not believe me (John 8:45). secundo ostendit eos esse imitatores conditionis illius, ibi ego autem si veritatem dico, non creditis mihi. With respect to the first it should be noted that two sins stand out in the devil: the sin of pride towards God, and of envy towards man, whom he destroys. And from the sin of envy towards man, because of which he injures him, we can know his sin of pride. And so Sciendum est circa primum, quod in diabolo duplex peccatum maxime pollet: scilicet peccatum superbiae ad Deum, et invidiae ad hominem, quem occidit. Sed ex peccato invidiae ad hominem quo infert nocumenta hominibus, cognoscitur a nobis peccatum superbiae et ideo first, he mentions the devil’s sin against man; primo ponit peccatum Daemonis contra hominem; second, his sin against God, he did not stand in the truth. secundo peccatum eius contra Deum, ibi et in veritate non stetit. 1243. His sin of envy against man lies in the fact that he kills him. So he says, he, that is, the devil, was a murderer from the beginning. 1243. Peccatum autem invidiae contra hominem est quod occidit eum; unde dicit: ille, scilicet diabolus, homicida erat ab initio. Here it should be noted that the devil kills man not with the sword, but by persuading him to do evil. Through the devil’s envy death entered the world (Wis 2:24). First, the death of sin entered: the death of the wicked is very evil (Ps 33:22); then came bodily death: sin came into the world through one man and death through sin (Rom 5:12). As Augustine says: do not think that you are not a murderer when you lead your brother into evil. Ubi sciendum est quod non ferro accinctus diabolus occidit hominem, sed mala persuasione; Sap. II, 24: invidia diaboli mors introivit in orbem terrarum. Et primo quidem introivit mors peccati, Ps. XXXIII, 22: mors peccatorum pessima, deinde vero mors corporalis, Rom. V, 12: per unum hominem peccatum intravit, et per peccatum mors. Et, ut dicit Augustinus, noli putare te non esse homicidam, quando fratri tuo mala persuades. However, it should be noted with Origen, that the devil is not called a murderer with respect to only some particular person, but with respect to the whole race, which he destroyed in Adam, in whom all die (1 Cor 15:22). Thus he is called a murderer because that is a chief characteristic, and he is so indeed from the beginning, that is, from the time that a man existed who could be killed, who could be murdered; for one cannot be murdered unless he first exists. Attendendum est autem, secundum Origenem, quod ille homicida dicitur non propter aliquem singulariter tantum, sed pro toto genere, quod peremit in Adam, in quo cuncti moriuntur, ut dicitur I ad Cor. XV, 22. Unde antonomastice homicida dicitur; et hoc ab initio, ex quo scilicet fuit homo, qui occidi poterat, ex quo potuit fieri homicidium: non enim posset occidi homo, nisi prius homo fieret. 1244. Then when he says, he did not stand in the truth, he mentions the devil’s sin against God, which consists in the fact that he turned away from the truth, which is God. 1244. Consequenter cum dicit et in veritate non stetit, ponit peccatum Daemonis contra Deum, quod consistit in hoc quod avertit se a veritate, quae Deus est, et First, he shows that he is turned from the truth; primo ostendit eum a veritate aversum; second, he shows that he is contrary to the truth, at when he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own. secundo ostendit eum veritati contrarium, ibi dum loquitur mendacium, ex propriis loquitur. As to the first he does two things: Circa primum duo facit. first, he shows that the devil is turned from the truth; Primo ostendit eum a veritate aversum; second, he explains what he has said, because there is no truth in him, at because the truth is not in him. secundo manifestat quod dixit, ibi quia veritas in eo non est. 1245. He says, he did not stand in the truth. 1245. Dicit ergo et in veritate non stetit. Here it should be noted that truth is of two kinds, namely, the truth of word and the truth of deed. The truth of word consists in a person saying what he feels in his heart and what is in reality: therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with his neighbor (Eph 4:25); he who speaks truth from his heart, who does not slander with his tongue (Ps 15:3). The truth of deed, on the other hand, is the truth of righteousness, i.e., when a person does what befits him according to the order of his nature. Concerning this it says above: but he who practices truth comes to the light, so that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God (John 3:21). Speaking of this truth our Lord says, in the truth, namely, the truth of righteousness, he did not stand, because he abandoned the order of his nature, which was that he be subject to God, and through him acquire his happiness and the fulfillment of his natural desire. And so, because he wanted to obtain this through himself, he fell from the truth. Unde sciendum est, quod duplex est veritas: scilicet vocis et operis. Veritas quidem vocis est qua quis profert ore quod gerit corde, et est in rerum natura; Eph. IV, 25: deponentes mendacium, loquimini veritatem unusquisque cum proximo suo; Ps. XIV, 3: qui loquitur veritatem cum proximo suo, qui non egit dolum in lingua sua. Veritas iustitiae, quando scilicet quis agit quod convenit sibi secundum ordinem suae naturae: de qua supra III, 21, dicit: qui fecerit veritatem, veniet ad lucem, ut manifestentur opera eius, quia in Deo sunt facta. De hac ergo veritate Dominus loquens dicit et in veritate, scilicet iustitiae, non stetit, quia deseruit ordinem suae naturae, qui erat ut Deo subiiceretur, et per eumdem beatitudinem suam et naturalis desiderii complementum consequeretur. Unde dum hoc per se consequi voluit, a veritate cecidit. 1246. The statement, he did not stand in the truth, can be understood in two ways. Either he never had anything to do with the truth, or that he once did, but did not continue in it. 1246. Hoc autem quod dicit in veritate non stetit, potest dupliciter intelligi: vel quod numquam in veritate steterit; vel quod aliquando steterit, sed in ea non permansit. Now never to have anything to do with the truth of righteousness has two meanings. One is according to the Manicheans, who say that the devil is evil by nature. From this it follows that he was always evil, because whatever is present by nature is always present. But this is heretical, for we read: God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them (Ps 146:6). Therefore, every being is from God; but everything which is from God, insofar as it is, is good. Sed hoc quod numquam fuerit in veritate iustitiae, potest habere duplicem sensum. Unum quidem secundum Manichaeos, qui dicunt diabolum naturaliter malum esse: ex quo sequitur quod semper malus fuerit. Nam quod inest naturaliter, semper inest. Sed hoc est haereticum, quia in Ps. CXLV, 6, dicitur, quod Deus fecit caelum et terram, mare et omnia quae in eis sunt. Ergo omne ens est a Deo; omne autem quod est a Deo, inquantum est, bonum est. Consequently, others have said that the devil was created good in his nature by God, but became evil in the first instant by his own free choice. And this opinion differs from that of the Manicheans who say that the devils were always and by nature evil, whereas this opinion claims that they were always evil by free choice. Et ideo alii dixerunt, quod Daemon ex sui natura bonus est a Deo creatus, sed in primo instanti factus est malus per liberum arbitrium. Et differunt isti a Manichaeis: quia illi dicunt Daemones semper fuisse malos, et naturaliter; isti vero semper malos, sed per liberum arbitrium. Someone might suppose that since an angel is not evil by nature but by a sin of his own will—and sin is an act—it is possible that at the beginning of the act the angel was good, and at the end of the evil act he became evil. For it is plain that the act of sin in the devil is subsequent to his creation, and that the terminus of creation is the existence of an angel; but the terminus of the act of sin is that he is evil. Consequently, according to this explanation, they conclude that it is impossible that an angel be evil in the first instant in which the angel came to exist. Sed posset alicui videri quod quia angelus non est malus per naturam, sed per peccatum propriae voluntatis, peccatum autem est actus quidam, potuit fieri ut angelus in principio actus fuerit bonus, sed in termino actus mali fuerit malus effectus. Manifestum est autem quod actus peccati in Daemone est creatione posterior, terminus autem creationis est ipsum esse angeli: terminus vero operationis peccati est quod sint mali. Et sic ex hac ratione volunt quod impossibile sit quod in primo instanti quo angelus esse coepit, fuerit malus.