De Moor IX:10: The Angelic Faculty of Power, Part 2

Moreover, with respect to the Object of the Power of Angels, the extent is the same:

α.  They are not capable of All Things:  Indeed, the Power of Angels, as finite spirits, is also finite; the infinite God alone is ὁ παντοκράτωρ, the Almighty, Revelation 1:8.

β.  Nothing against the Will of God, upon which, as in being, so also in operation, Angels always depend and are limited, Job 1:11, 12; 2:4-6; Matthew 8:31.

γ.  They are not able to turn our Heart, which glory is to be relinquished to God alone, according to Proverbs 21:1; 16:1, 9; while man, acting Most Freely, is not to be brought back under servility to another created cause.  Although we are unwilling to deny, that at this point Angels are quite able by persuasions to operate efficaciously with the inclination of man mediating, Acts 5:3; Ephesians 2:2.  Indeed, the same word, ἐνεργεῖν, to work, is used of the operation of the Devil,[1] that the Apostle employs concerning the operation of God, Philippians 2:13:[2]  but from this it does not follow that the mode of operation is the same in both, which mode is far different; one may only conclude from the application of this word to both, that the effect and outcome of the operation is the same in both:  nevertheless, in this respect this identity does not so much arise from the power of Satan, who is not able to act any further than by persuasion, which would be ineffectual, should man wish to resist him; but from the depraved disposition of the subject, because, with Satan instigating, he by his own will rushes headlong to evil.

δ.  Nor to perform true Miracles, in which sense, of course, Miracula/Miracles are wont to be set in opposition to miris/strange and mirandis/amazing things, and to denote works that surpass the power of all created nature, or disturb its order, while otherwise the signification of those terms is identified from their origin.  Angels have abilities, which surpass human strength and capacity, and which to men appear as marvels, but not true Miracles, which surpass the power, not only of a certain second cause, but of all created nature:  these, as requiring infinite power, Scripture claims for God alone, Psalm 72:18.  Angels, if at any time it was pleasing to God to make use of their intervention in the performing of true Miracles, just as is also the case with human Prophets and Apostles, are to be considered only as Moral Instruments, at whose Presence God was working; but not as causes properly so called, which by a physical and real influx concur to the effect:  compare above, Chapter VIII, § 8; and BUDDEUS, de Atheismo et Superstitione, chapter III, § 5, pages 212-214.

Thus to Angels is not applicable, 1.  a Change in the Course of the Stars, which received their stable order from God, Jeremiah 31:35, 36.  Nor, 2.  the Resurrection of the Dead, since there is no natural return from total privation to habit, whence this is considered to be an example of divine Power, Romans 4:17.  Therefore, if any are alleged as examples of those that were raised by Demons, either they were fabricated by the historians; or perhaps the corpses of the dead were for a time carried and moved by the Devil; or they were diabolical Phantasms and Specters, in the appearance of deceased men, and by this external appearance making sport of the living, of which sort was the Apparition of deceased Samuel, 1 Samuel 28.  For, whatever is found in Ecclesiasticus 46:20, that Samuel prophesied after his death, and foretold to the King his end, and lifted his voice from the earth;[3] it is sufficiently certain, as our AUTHOR has prolixly shown in his Exercitationibus Juvenilibus, Disputation III-VII, that the true Samuel did not appear here, since this Revelation through the raised Samuel was not from God, who was refusing in any way to give responses to Saul, as abandoned by Himself, and who by no means willed to answer the petitions of Saul with such an extraordinary Oracle:  contrariwise, this manner of prophesying was diabolical, strictly prohibited by God, Isaiah 8:19, just as inquiry was also made before a Pythoness,[4] and it is supplied by the help of her, a woman that was professing a relationship with the Devil, and was boasting of ability to do things of this sort by his help, which were surpassing human strength; to this woman Saul then fled, when God was refusing to give him answers, moving the Underworld, since he was not able to prevail upon the heavens.  But now the pious dead, of which sort was Samuel, neither with respect to the soul taken up into the heavens, nor with respect to the body resting in the earth, fall under the power of the Devil.  Neither are these, who have entered into peace, and rest as it were upon their beds, according to Isaiah 57:2, able to complain with impersonated Samuel of their disquieting by the impious living, of which sort was Saul, 1 Samuel 28:15.  At the same time, our AUTHOR, Exercitationibus Textualibus, Part V, Exercitation XVII, taught it to be no less certain on the other hand, that everything that is narrated here is not to be attributed to the mere frauds and impostures of that woman of Endor, as if no Phantasm had appeared here, but the woman had only devised some such thing to appear:  since there is no indication of fraud of this sort in the text, but the sacred historian expressly affirms that such a Phantasm was seen, both by the woman, verse 12, and not improbably also by Saul, verse 14:  neither should such a diabolical Phantasm be so readily denied in this place, except with the manifold reproach of divine Letters all diabolical Operation in the earth, upon whatever bodies, by Magic, Divination, etc., be altogether repudiated by many:  as if for that it should suffice, that we are not able to comprehend the mode of diabolical Operations of this sort, especially by reason of the hypothesis of Spirit as Mere Cogitation.  Since, a.  this hypothesis is destitute of all solid foundation.  Nor, b.  if we are wise, will we refuse to admit that to us is wanting an adequate and comprehensive understanding of Angelic nature:  but, when we do not have a proper sight of Angelic nature and its strength, it is altogether rash to assert that something surpasses Angelic strength, especially when Scripture, on the contrary, leads us to the Operations of Angels.  Agreeing with our AUTHOR on the impersonation of Samuel in 1 Samuel 28 is ÆGIDIUS STRAUCHIUS,[5] in his Dissertatione, which HASE[6] and IKEN[7] inserted in their Thesauro Novo Dissertationum in Veterem Instrumentum, pages 632-639.  On the other hand, to the human frauds of the Witch of Endor, who was a Pythia furnished with a tripod, JOHANN CHRISTOPH HARENBERG[8] attributes all things here, in his Dissertatione de Pythonissa Endorea 1 Samuel 28, which follows the Dissertation just now mentioned in the same Thesauro, pages 639-651.  Again, BUDDEUS, Historia ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, period II, section III, § 27, tome 2, pages 242-250, shares the exactly same opinion of our AUTHOR concerning the Pythoness of Endor and the Samuel raised by her, and capably defends the same against JEAN-ALPHONSE TURRETIN, who attributes all things here to the human frauds of the woman of Endor, in his Dissertatione Epistolica, subjoined to the same tome of the Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ, pages 1006-1016.  Our AUTHOR is also supported by LILIENTHAL, Oordeelkundige Bybelverklaring, chapter VIII, § 66-77, part 4, pages 108-124.  3.  The Production of New Substance is also removed from Angels, because, since there are only two modes of the Production of new Substance, Creation and Generation, neither falls to them:  not the former, because for that is required infinite power; not the latter, because, since Angels are incorporeal, they are not able to generate.

But they are capable things multitudinous and marvelous, upon other Spirits and upon Bodies, the entire reason and manner of which we by no means grasp:  which from those things that have already been observed in this §, compared with that things that follow concerning the Office of the Angels in § 12, 17, and also concerning Evil Angels in particular in  § 26, it is most clearly evident:  whence the multitudinous and marvelous Operations, which every page of the Sacred Codex attributes to Angels, both Good and Evil, Bekker[9] was able more easily to assail with mockery, than to refute solidly:  neither will he easily draw those that have learned reverently to hold the Word of God according to its worth unto his opinion.  What judgment, as from one class of arguments, and that not from among the least, should be made concerning the rest, our AUTHOR made most solidly and with eminent acumen of disputation evident to everyone, from the Gospel History of the δαιμονιζομένων/ demon-possessed, in his Disputationibus de δαιμονιζομένοις, which are found inserted in his Exercitationibus Textualibus, Part I, in which place see Exercitation XXIX, page 257-324.  How much Power might belong to Angels over whatever Bodies, and also upon other Spirits, WALÆUS clearly shows in his Locis Communibus, pages 196, 197.  Also to be consulted is VOETIUS, Disputationum theologicarum, part I, pages 906-984, where he most copiously discourses concerning the Nature and Operations of Demons; and also in pages 1018-1059, where he disputes concerning the Demon-possessed.

Hence the Synod of South-Holland, in the year 1693, Article V, drew up six theses concerning the Errors of Bekker regarding the Operations of Angels, to be set forth to each in his Exams, so that it might avert Bekker’s opinions injurious to Sacred Scripture:  namely,

1.  Whether Spirits be not able to operate, upon each other, or upon Bodies, unless they be united with a body?

2.  Whether the Devil and Evil Angels, after the seduction of our first parents, were shut up in the prison of hell, in such a way that they were no longer able in any respect to seduce men on earth, or to harm them?

3.  Whether what things the Scripture everywhere relates concerning Evil Angels, and more particularly what things the Gospels narrate concerning evil and unclean Spirits and Devils, and what things the Church has been accustomed to received concerning Evil Spirits properly so called, are only to be explained of evil men, or of the intemperate state of the body or mind?

4.  Whether what things the Sacred Page contains concerning Good Angels, which the Church is wont to expound of ministering Spirits properly and κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, pre-eminently, so called, are only to be understood of human messengers, or very majestically set forth the work of God Himself in a human manner of speaking?

5.  Whether, with the position of the Church preserved intact in this matter, it is not able to be demonstrated, that Jehovah is God, Jesus is the Messiah, or the Sacred Codex is θεόπνευστον/God-breathed?[10]

6.  And, since from all these pernicious theses it follows, that the sense of Scripture is perverted and turned out of the way with a stumbling block, and the Word of God is handled too impudently and sardonically; should you not altogether detest these, and take it upon thyself to repudiate and opposes as heterodox the theses just now mentioned, all and each?

Similarly, to the detestation of Bekker’s errors concerning the nature and operations of Angels, both Good and Evil, tends Article V of the Addition imposed upon the Formula of Subscription by the Classis of Walcheren in 1693,[11] which the Reverend BRAHÉ[12] illustrated with commentary under the title, Aanmerkingen over de vyf Walcherse Artikelen, in which, 1.  with one observation and a second concerning this fifth Article set down by way of preface, § 106, 107, pages 195-199, 2.  he shows the weight of this Article, both with respect to the theoretical doctrine of Religion, § 108, pages 199-202, and with respect to the practice of the same, § 109, pages 202-204; 3.  and demonstrates, finally, that this article is like our Church’s Formulæ of Union, § 110, 111, pages 204-212.  The history of the erroneous doctrine of Balthasar Bekker, Minister of the Word of God at Amsterdam, on account of which he was deservedly removed from office, concerning Evil Angels and their operations on this earth, with its worst consequences; together with associated errors of Daillonius, Malebranche,[13] Anton van Dale,[14] and others:  is related by WEISMANN,[15] Historia Ecclesiastica Novi Testamenti, part II, Century XVII, § 29, pages 737-744:  see his work.

With respect to what our AUTHOR holds concerning Angels Communicating in Spiritual utterance with other Spirits:  concerning this it is indeed sufficiently evident in general, that to Angels is applicable the faculty of communicating their thoughts with each other and with men, Isaiah 6:3; Luke 1:13, 19, 28, 30:35; 2:10, 13, 14; Revelation 14:18:  as in assumed Bodies they present this through the use of Speech; so, should one wish to call the mutual Communication of Angelic thoughts, which obtains in the heavens without the intervention of bodies, Spiritual Speech, there will be no resistance from us.  This sort of mutual spiritual commerce among Angels appears all the less to be denied, since with utmost probability similar spiritual Communication is assigned also to the spirits of deceased men, which appears to make and be required for the consummation of their proper blessedness, and for their mutual incitements to the praises and glorification of God.  But it is difficult and presumptuous to define the mode of this spiritual communication.  Whether Paul leads the way in understanding this spiritual communication by γλώσσας τῶν ἀγγέλων, the tongues of Angels, 1 Corinthians 13:1, has received less investigation.  That this opinion did indeed stand, is evident in certain Fathers of the first age, whom others follow, and of our men, for example, ZANCHI, writing, opera, tome 3, part I, book III, chapter XIX, column 155:  It is more probable, and more agreeable with the spiritual nature of Angels; and not at all repugnant to the Scriptures is the opinion of those that teach that the tongue and speech of Angels, wherewith they are said to speak to each other, is nothing other than a certain spiritual insinuation, instilling, and communication of that which everyone experiences and knows in his own understanding, unto the understanding of the another Angel, etc.  Others think that the Apostle has regard to Angels in appearing to men in assumed bodies and conversing with them:  whether now by γλώσσαις/tongues he understands dialects or languages of various kinds, of which Angels make use as occasion dictates; or he has regard to the faculty of speech, wherewith in their legations they were found to have been furnished, and he especially wants to signify eloquence, wherewith Angels, as Ambassadors of God, were found to be far superior to men in whatever Tongue:  just as the face and understanding of an Angel is elsewhere used of a superior human face and understanding, Acts 6:15; 2 Samuel 14:20, concerning which the Most Illustrious ODÉ is again able to be consulted, Commentario de Angelis, section III, chapter I, § 30, pages 363-369.

[1] Ephesians 2:2:  “Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh (τοῦ νῦν ἐνεργοῦντος) in the children of disobedience…”

[2] Philippians 2:13:  “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do (τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν) of his good pleasure.”

[3] Ecclesiasticus 46:20:  “And after his death he prophesied, and shewed the king his end, and lifted up his voice from the earth in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people.”

[4] In Greek mythology, Python was a great serpent, offspring of Gaia, with prophetic powers.  Apollo (god of prophecy) killed Python at Delphi, and cast its body into a deep crevice.  A shrine was erected there, and the vapors ascending from Python’s carcass were thought to put the priestess as Delphi (the Pythia) into a prophetic ecstasy, under the power of which she would deliver prophetic oracles.

[5] Ægidius Strauch (1632-1682) was a German Lutheran mathematician, philosopher, and theologian.  He served as Professor of Philosophy at Wittenberg (1653), and later as Professor of Theology (1666).

[6] Theodor Hase (1682-1731) was a Reformed theologian and philologist.  He served as Professor of Theology at Bremen from 1708 to 1731.

[7] Conrad Iken (1689-1753) was a Reformed theologian and philologist.  He served as Professor of Theology at Bremen from 1723 to 1753.

[8] Johann Christoph Harenberg (1696-1774) was an evangelical German Lutheran theologian and historian.  He served as Professor of History and Antiquities at Brunswick (1745-1774).

[9] Balthasar Bekker (1634-1698) was a Dutch minister, although ultimately deposed.  He was a proponent of Cartesian Rationalism, arguing that philosophy and theology must be kept in separate spheres, the former for the exploration of natural truths, and the latter for the exploration of supernatural truths of Scripture.

[10] 2 Timothy 3:16:  “All scripture is given by inspiration of God (θεόπνευστος), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…”

[11] The Five Walcheren Articles (1693) were adopted by the Dutch Classes of Walcheren to resist the encroachment of the Rationalistic view of Röell and Bekker.

[12] Jan Jacob Brahé (1726-1776) was a Dutch Reformed minister.

[13] Nicolas Malebrache (1638-1715) was a French Oratorian priest.  As a philosopher, he sought a synthesis between Augustine and Descartes.  He was a proponent of a sort of Occasionalism, in which creatures do not operate as efficient causes upon one another, but are simply occasions for efficient operations of God, the First and only true Cause.

[14] Anton van Dale (1638-1708) was a Dutch Mennonite pastor and physician.  He was an opponent of superstition in general, and of the superstition involved in witch-hunting in particular.

[15] Christian Eberhard Weismann (1677-1747) was Professor of Theology at the University of Tubingen.