Some LDS apologists (e.g., Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks in their 1992 Offenders for a Word [which is a must-read, btw]) claimed that Lactantius (c. 240-320) taught that Jesus and Satan were brothers, similar to Latter-day Saint theology (on this, see the discussion at Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism"). The text they appeal to is from the Schaff series where it appears as Divine Institutes Book 2 chapter 9:
I will therefore set
forth the method of all these things, that difficult and obscure subjects may
be more easily understood; and I will bring to light all these deceptions of
the pretended deity, led by which men have departed very far from the way of
truth. But I will retrace the matter far back from its source; that if any,
unacquainted with the truth and ignorant, shall apply himself to the reading of
this book, he may be instructed, and may understand what can in truth be
"the source and origin of these evils;" and having received light,
may perceive his own errors and those of the whole human race.
Since God was
possessed of the greatest foresight for planning, and of the greatest skill for
carrying out in action, before He commenced this business of the
world,--inasmuch as there was in Him, and always is, the fountain of full and
most complete goodness,--in order that goodness might spring as a stream from
Him, and might flow forth afar, He produced a Spirit like to Himself, who might
be endowed with the perfections of God the Father. But how He willed that, I
will endeavour to show in the fourth book. Then He made another being, in whom
the disposition of the divine origin did not remain. Therefore he was infected
with his own envy as with poison, and passed from good to evil; and at his own
will, which had been given to him by God unfettered, he acquired for himself a
contrary name. From which it appears that the source of all evils is envy. For
he envied his predecessor, who through his stedfastness is acceptable and dear
to God the Father. This being, who from good became evil by his own act, is
called by the Greeks diabolus: we call him accuser, because he reports
to God the faults to which he himself entices us. God, therefore, when He began
the fabric of the world, set over the whole work that first and greatest Son,
and used Him at the same time as a counsellor and artificer, in planning,
arranging, and accomplishing, since He is complete both in knowledge, and
judgment, and power; concerning whom I now speak more sparingly, because in
another place both His excellence, and His name, and His nature must be related
by us. Let no one inquire of what materials God made these works so great and
wonderful: for He made all things out of nothing. (ANF 7:52-53)
In the Migne series, it can be found at PL
6:293-97:
Exponam igitur omnium
istorum rationem, quo facilius res difficiles et obscuræ intelligantur , et has
omnes simulati numinis præstigias revelabo , quibus inducti homines , a
veritatis via longius recesserunt. Sed repetam longe altius; ut si quis ad
legendum veri expers et ignarus accesserit, instruatur, atque intelligat, quod
tandem sit
Caput horum et causa
malorum; et, lumine accepto , suos ac totius generis humani perspiciat errores.
Cum esset Deus ad
excogitandum providentis simus, ad faciendum solertissimus, antequam ordiretur
hoc opus mundi (quoniam pleni et consummati boni fons in ipso erat, sicut est
semper), ut ab eo bonum tamquam rivus oriretur, longeque proflueret, produxit similem
sui spiritum , qui esset virtutibus Dei Patris præditus. Quomodo autem id
voluerit, in quarto libro docere conabimur (scilicet cap. 6). Deinde fecit
alterum, in quo indoles divinæ stirpis non permansit. Itaque suapte invidia
tamquam veneno infectus est, et ex bono malum transcendit; suoque arbitrio,
quod a Deo illi liberum datum fuerat , contrarium sibi nomen adscivit. Unde
apparet cunctorum malorum fontem esse livorem. Invidit enim illi antecessori
suo, qui Deo Patri perseverando, cum probatus, tum etiam charus est. Hunc ergo
ex bono per se malum effectum Graeci διαβολον appellant; nos
crimanatorem vocamus, quod criminal, in quae ipse illicit, ad Deum deferat.
Exorsus igitur Deus fabricam mundi , illum primum et maximum Filium præfecit
operi universo, eoque simul et consiliatore usus est, et artifice in
excogitandis, ornandis, perficiendisque rebus, quoniam is et providentia, et
ratione, et potestate perfectus est de quo nunc parcius , quod alio loco
(scilicet lib. IV, cap. 6 et seqq.) et virtus, et nomen ejus, et ratio
enarranda nobis erit. Nemo quærat, ex
quibus ista materiis tam magna, tam mirifica opera Deus fecerit; omnia enim
fecit ex nihilo.
Here are two more recent
translations (note: in these, it is book 2 chapter 8, not 9):
Since God was most provident for planning and most
skillful for making, even before He began the work of this world, and since the
fount of full and consummate goodness was in Himself as it is always, in order
that goodness, as though a stream, might spring from that fount and flow far,
He produced a Spirit like to Himself which was endowed with the virtues of God
the Father. How He meant this we shall try to explain in the fourth book. Then
He made another in whom the nature of the divine origin did not remain. And so
this creation was infected as though by poison with envy of its own fashioning.
The latter one passed from goodness to evil by its own will, and that which had
been given it free by God, took up a name contrary to itself. Whence it is clear
that ill will (or envy) is the source of all evils. There was in that one envy
of his predecessor, who by persevering was then approved of by God the Father
and is still dear to Him. The Greeks call this one, who became evil from good
through himself, the devil. We call him the Criminator (Blamer), because the
evils and reproaches into which he himself seduces, he blames on God. God, then
commencing the making of the world, placed that first and greatest son over the
whole work, and at the same time used him as His counselor and artificer in
planning, ordering, and completing things, since he was perfected with
foresight and reason and power. This will be touched upon now but slightly,
because in another place we will have to expound his virtue and his name and
his reason. (Lactantius, The
Divine Institutes, Book 2 chapter 8, in Lactantius: The Divine Institutes,
Books I-VII [trans. Mary Francis McDonald; The Fathers of the Church: A New
Translation 49; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press,
1964], 125-26)
6f Because it was not
right for evil to proceed from God – God will not act against himself – he set
up this inventor of evils, and when he created him, he gave him the talent and
wit to think up evil things, so that he should be the home of depravity of will
and of perfect wickedness. God wanted him to be the source of all that was the
opposite of his own virtues, and he wanted competition with him over whether he
himself could cause more good than the other could cause evil. 6g But then
again, since there can be no successsful fight against God supreme, he passed
control of his own good to his champion, who we said above was good and
perfect. So he set up a pair to fight, and equipped them, but the one of them
he loved like a good son and the other he disowned as a bad son. Later he
created many more agents to carry out his tasks, whom the Greeks call angels
and.. 6h Though corruptible, they were not corrupted straightaway, from the
moment of their creation; they opted out of the strength of their heavenly
being perversely and deliberately after the world had been made and organised,
as I will explain shortly, but in the beginning they were all equal, and
existed with God on equal terms, and were therefore all angels, but led by the
two above. 6i When God had put one of these two in charge of good and the other
in charge of evil, then he started on the fabric of the world, with all those
he had created serving him in specific offices as arranged. 7 When he had thus
begun the making of the world, he put his eldest and most important son in
charge of the whole work, using him as his adviser and craftsman in thinking
things out and in arranging and completing them, since he was perfect in
foresight, planning and power. I will be brief on the topic here, since his
virtue, name and purpose are to be set out elsewhere. (Lactantius, The Divine
Institutes, Books 2 Chapter 8, in Lactantius: Divine Institutes [trans.
Anthony Bowen and Peter Garnsey; Translated Texts for Historians 40; Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press, 2003], 140-41)
Let me conclude by quoting from a non-LDS scholar:
The Devil, Brother of the Word?
The Moorish writer Lucius Caecilius Firmianus, best known under his nickname of Lactantius, who lived in the second half of the third and early part of the fourth-centuries, has no great authority as theologian, but in his Patrologia, Tixéront says of him: “his was a calm, considered peace-loving nature, he was a sincere Christian who unobtrusively did his duty.”
In his big apologetic work we find a truly astounding statement, (Divinae Institutiones, II, 9), the origin of which we are not very sure of. According to Lactantius, Lucifer would have been nothing less than the brother of the Logos, of the Word, i.e., of the Second Person of the Trinity. Here is his amazing statement:
“Begore creating the world, God produced a spirit like Himself, replete with the virtues of the Father. Later he made another, in whom the mark of divine origin was erased, because this one was besmirched by the poison of jealousy and turned therefore from good to evil. . . . He was jealous of his older Brother who, remaining united with the Father, insured his affection unto Himself. This being who from good became bad is called Devil by the Greeks.”
The first born spirit, filled with every divine virtue and beloved by God above all other spirits, can easily be recognized as the Word, that is, the Son. But Lactantius’ story leads one to think that the other Spirit, also endowed with every grace, was the second son of the Father: the future Satan would be, no less, the younger brother of the future Christ. And Satan would not have become jealous of men, as St. Cyprian, St. Irenaeus and St. Gregory of Nyssa argued, but jealous of his own brother. Cain’s jealousy of Abel would have been prefigured in heaven at the beginning of time, in Lucifer’s jealousy of the Logos.
Lactantius’ extraordinary opinion has not, to my knowledge, been accepted and restated by any Christian theologian. Perhaps, in his thinking, it sprang from the exaggeration of a doctrine, then and later quite widely diffused, according to which Lucifer was the most luminous and perfect of the angels, therefore the nearest to God and, perhaps, the first to have been created. But the highest of the angels is still very far, both in nature and essence, from the one and triune God.
It is curious that a sincere and learned Christian could teach, in the fourth century, that Satan was not only the first of the Archangels but actually the brother of God. (Giovanni Papini, The Devil: Notes for a Future Diabology [trans. Adrienne Foulke; London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1955], 61-62)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
