De Moor IX:15: The Cause of the Goodness of the Good Angels, Part 2

But today they continue in the Goodness and Felicity previously Confirmed, without any further danger or fear of losing their Goodness or Felicity.  We hold this against the Remonstrants, to whom, on account of their hypothesis concerning free Choice, it appears, that the Good Angels are not able to be said formally to obey God, unless they are also able not to obey, as I review this their opinion in § 9.  That the Goodness and Felicity of the Good Angels is already Immutable, we gather, α.  From their several Titles:  they are called the Angels of God, of the Lord, of Christ, as over against the Angels of Satan:  but, as the latter abide in an irreparable state of Fall and Misery, so contrariwise the former are thus set forth as perpetually devoted to the service of God and of Christ.  To Satan they are set in opposition as Angels of Light, that is, who shine with the continual Light of Wisdom and Holiness, in such a way that the Light of perpetual Joy and Glory is also brought forth by them.  In opposition to the Angels that sinned,[1] they are called holy Angels, since their character has proven to be perpetual and immutable Holiness.  They are called οἱ ἄγγελοι τῶν οὐρανῶν, the angels of heaven, from their everlasting abode.  β.  From their Perfection, set forth to us as an example.  For, those that are set forth to us as an example of perfect and constant obedience, are not able to fall from their state; and this is done in Matthew 6:10:  compare below, Chapter XXVI, § 17.  γ.  From their description in Matthew 18:10.  For, those that always see the face of God, are perpetually holy and blessed, Matthew 5:8; Revelation 22:4.  An Exception could be taken, that in Matthew 18:10 is treated, not the beatific Vision, but rather a ministerial Vision, wherein standing they await God’s order.  I Respond, that Coordinate things are not in opposition:  to furnish perpetual Ministry to God is a great part of angelic beatitude and their extraordinary honor, 1 Kings 10:8; Revelation 22:3, 4.  But if they be not constant in God’s holy Ministry, they would also be removed from the beatific Vision of God, and would be cast down from their heavenly abode, the contrary of which the text expressly asserts:  ἐν οὐρανοῖς διὰ παντὸς βλέπουσι, in heaven they do always behold, which wards off all possibility and fear of mutability.  δ.  From the description of the Blessedness promised to us, Matthew 22:30, where those to be raised in blessedness are compared with the Angels, not only in their state of not contracting marriages and not generating children, but also in the enjoyment of that state ἐν οὐρανῷ, in heaven; which hence is set forth as their everlasting abode, the eternal inhabitants of which one day blessed men, enjoying an equal status with the Angels, are going to be.

Neither is this incompatible, 1.  with History; α.  Whether the fabulous and Apocryphal History of Tobit concerning the Lying Angel; concerning which see on Chapter II, § 19, Part I.  β.  Or the true History of Moses concerning the Sons of God, Genesis 6:2.  There has been of old an ill-considered opinion, that by the Sons of God in this passage of Moses are understood Angels, who were seduced by the elegant form of the woman, and were polluted by intercourse with them, with Dæmons born from those unions; in which manner those Angels were also cut off from their heavenly abode, and were made accomplices of the Devil.  Thus already in JOSEPHUS, Jewish Antiquities, book I, chapter IV:  πολλοὶ γὰρ ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ γυναιξὶ συμμιγέντες, ὑβριστὰς ἐγέννησαν παῖδας, for many Angels of God, intermingling with women, begat insolent progeny.  Which tradition the more recent Jews adorn with fabulous circumstances.  But also in this opinion were the Fathers of the ancient Church, many and the most excellent, among whom the same thing was read, although with some variation.  In which manner, after the first Fall of Devils, which preceded that of Man, many others also fell from their Goodness and glorious state.

Response:  a.  The Fathers were misled by an error in the Greek Version, which in the place of ‎בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, the sons of God, Genesis 6:2, already of old in many exemplars read, not υἱοὶ/sons, but ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, angels of God, which error thence crept also into the Latin Version in ancient times.  That in this manner also many Jews read it, is evident out of PHILO the Jew, libro de Gigantibus, page m. 284, where the text is thus cited:  ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων, etc., the angels of God, seeing the daughters of men, etc.:  and for the sake of explication Philo adds,  οὕς ἄλλοι φιλόσοφοι δαίμονας, ἀγγέλους Μωσῆς εἴωθεν ὀνομάζειν·  ψυχαὶ δ᾽ εἰσὶ κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα πετόμεναι, what other philosophers call demons, Moses is wont to call angels; and they are spirits hovering in the air.  Moreover, undoubtedly the Apocryphal Book of Enoch has imposed upon man, in which were found a great many things written upon this matter concerning the ἐγρηγόροις, or Watchers (by which name they were wont of old to indicate Angels).

b.  Other Fathers no less celebrated observed the absurdity of this opinion, and hence painstakingly refuted the same, as was done by CHRYSOSTOM and AUGUSTINE, understanding by the Sons of God the pious sons of Seth.  While THEODORET calls the patrons of this opinion concerning Angels stupid and brutish, and PHILASTRIUS numbers it among the Heresies.

c.  Everyone senses that that opinion is not able easily to be admitted, α.  According to the manner and method, whereby God willed men to be propagated.  For, if it is true, what the Apostle affirms in Acts 17:26; it is clearly evident, that no men descended from Angels having intercourse with women; it is vain assertion, that, not men, but Demons, were born of this congress.  β.  This opinion stands in tension with the condition and state of Angels:  for, since in the Resurrection men are going to be like the Angels, and in this also, that they are not going to take wives, Matthew 22:30; it is sufficiently evident that it is foreign to the condition of Angels to take wives, or to have intercourse with the daughters of men.  γ.  That the spiritual nature of Angels is not accommodated to the generation of offspring, Chrysostom and Augustine already observed in refutation of this opinion:  therefore, in assumed bodies would they have had to come together with woman; but it is not permissible to think this:  since God would not have joined bodies to Angels for this evil end; nor, when He willed mankind to be propagated from one blood through the union of male and female, would He have allowed Angels, even the good, with bodies adjoined for this, to apply themselves to the generation of children:  and how would we conclude Angels to be furnished with such power, that they might according to their own will form bodies for themselves, apt for the procreation of children?  δ.  The words of Moses in Genesis 6:2 lead us to a stable union and lasting cohabitation of the Sons of God with the Daughters of men:  but who would believe, that Angels not only had affairs with women in bodies assumed for a brief time; but after the likeness of husbands entered into marriage and cohabitated in an abiding manner with women?  ε.  In Genesis 6, Moses relates that this very crime was the cause of the universal corruption of mankind, and the reason on account of which the Lord sent the Flood upon the world:  but, if the giants were the sons of Angels, they would not in every way have pertained to the human race descended from Adam and Eve.  But in what manner could it be reconciled with the divine virtues, that He so severely punished mankind on account of a crime and fault of Angels, who do not pertain to that?

d.  Truly, by the Sons of God in Moses are we hardly able to understand any others than the pious Sethites, so called because they were adhering to God in pure worship, and hence were in turn pleasing to God, and were cared for by Him after the likeness of sons.  While the Daughters of men will be the mundane women of this world, which sort were the daughters of the Cainites, who were estranged from the true worship of God, separated from the communion of the Church, and following human customs.  And, although these that were going in to the Daughters of men were not fulfilling the emphasis of the title Sons of God in their own person, nor were they experiencing it fulfilled; yet they go by the common name of the pious, both from the state in which they were, before they took those wives to themselves, and from external society, which they improved with the true Church of God even after the admission of the crime, Isaiah 1:2.  While אָדָם/adam/man also elsewhere denotes an impious man, a stranger to the fellowship of the Church, Psalm 124:2;[2] etc.  Unless with SELDEN,[3] MERCERUS,[4] and others, you wish by בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, the sons of God, to understand the Sons of Princes, and by ‎בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, the daughters of Man, the daughters of commoners, which the sons of the nobles took by rape, and whence were born נְפִלִים/ Nephilim/robbers, which is by no means unusual in children of illicit intercourse:  provided that this opinion is able to be reconciled with the expression of Moses, ‎וַיִּקְח֤וּ לָהֶם֙ נָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר בָּחָֽרוּ׃, and they took them wives of all which they chose.  See more things concerning the interpretation of this passage of Moses in MARCKIUS’ Exercitationibus Miscellaneis III, § 5-7; and especially in ODÉ’S Commentario de Angelis, section III, chapter I, § 14-19, pages 322-331.  Add the Anonymously published Conjectures sur la Genese, Remark VI, § 5, pages 341-345; STAPFER’S[5] Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 2, chapter X, § 252-258, pages 1048-1054; FINDLAY’S Defensionem Sacræ Scripturæ adversus Voltaire, pages 381-388.  The question, whether a Man is able to be begotten by the Devil or Demons? see thoroughly treated by VOETIUS, Disputationum theologicarum, part I, pages 785, 935-938.

2.  Or the Conditional Proposition of Paul, Galatians 1:8.  Response:  a.  It is a Conditional proposition, which posits nothing into being.  b.  The Impossibility of the Thing, rather than the possibility, is thus signified.  So that Paul might all the more and the more powerfully confirm the altogether certain truth of his Gospel, he asserts, that if even an Angel of those that stood in the truth should announce another Gospel, which is impossible, trust would not be afforded to him, but he would rather be accursed.  But that a heavenly Angel should be accursed was absurd:  but it would also be equally absurd, if another Gospel should be announced by an Angel of light.

3.  Or the double passage of Job 4:18; 15:15.  I Respond with our AUTHOR, that a Holiness is indicated, Dependent upon God, and not to be compared with the divine Holiness, so that it might be altogether vile and vanishing, if it be compared with the infinite divine Holiness.  But to this Dependent Holiness of Angels, which they possess, not of themselves, but by divine grant, and which is not worthy to be compared with the divine Holiness, is not at all repugnant their Confirmation, already made, in a holy and happy state; for, notwithstanding, they will always possess Holiness and Steadfastness by divine grant, and their Perfection shall remain as finite, so also as dependent.  The Most Illustrious SCHULTENS is able to be considered on these passages, from whose Commentario it is agreeable to relate these few things.  Indeed, on the prior passage he has:  The origin of the Root אָמַן is to be characterized by a firm and stable advance.  To it is opposed to waver, to slip, to go astray.  Hence הֶאֱמִין, he believed, he trusted, properly, he reckoned it firm and stable….  According to the internal force of the tongue,‎בַּ֭עֲבָדָיו לֹ֣א יַאֲמִ֑ין , in His servants He does not discern stability.  This is able to be restricted more specifically, so that it might be He does not believe in them, or He does not trust in them; for it is able to be taken in a broader sense, that however immortal, however holy and separate from the contagion and blemish of men, indeed, confirmed in heavenly glory, the Angels may be; yet in themselves they have no stability; no stable, solid, enduring power of Holiness, or of perfection, on account of which they might be able to arrogate anything to themselves, or to contend with God; since all the virtue, perfection, righteousness, purity, holiness, be it the very greatest, of those heavenly beings is but a shadow, compared to the infinite radiance of the divine Holiness and Righteousness, or if anything is able to be thought less substantial or solid than a cloud.  On the second passage he advises, that, while the first clause manifestly agrees with Job 4:18, in the second member, the Heavens are not clean in the eyes of God, some expound it of Heavenly Spirits, but others of the altogether pure Æther, and the clear and translucent body of the Heavens.  This latter, says the Most Illustrious SCHULTENS, I myself would not exclude, but in my judgment it is to be made subservient to a more sublime sense, concerning the Angels; so that in this way the infinite splendor of the Divine purity might shine forth from this twofold aspect of the Heavens with a double brightness.

[1] See 2 Peter 2:4.

[2] Psalm 124:2:  “If it had not been the Lord who was on our side, when man rose up against us (‎בְּק֖וּם עָלֵ֣ינוּ אָדָֽם׃)…”

[3] John Selden (1584-1654) was one of the most learned men of his age.  His mastery of Rabbinic literature was profound.  He sat as a lay member of the Westminster Assembly and was perhaps the Assembly’s most powerful proponent of Erastianism.

[4] John Mercerus (c. 1510-1572) was a French Catholic Hebraist, successor to Francis Vatablus as Professor of Hebrew and Chaldean at the Hebrew College, Paris (1549), a scholar and lecturer of great reputation in his day, although suspected of having Calvinistic sympathies.  Mercerus wrote a commentary on the Book of Genesis.

[5] John Frederick Stapfer (1708-1775) was a Swiss Reformed divine of the first order.  He served as a Pastor in the canton in Berne.  His Institutiones theologicæ, polemicæ, universæ, ordine scientifico dispositæ ranks among the best elenctic theologies.