De Moor IX:18: The Veneration of Angels, Part 2

[A fundraising update: We are 25% of the way to our fundraising goal 25 new $100/month subscribers! Thanks be to God. If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

β.  To present to them the Religious Honor of Invocation, etc.  That this sort of Worship of Angels everywhere obtained among the Gentiles from the most ancient times, the Most Illustrious ODÉ shows at length, in his Commentario de Angelis, section IX, chapter I, pages 896 and following:  indeed, he observes from the Jew, Joseph Albo,[1] that, according to his opinion, this was the first Idolatry of all, that men set up Worship for Angels, and worshipped them and other creatures, as go-betweens and mediators between them and God, citing his book II (VOSSIUS mentions book III) of עקרים/Ikkarim or Fundamentals, chapter XVIII.  But whether with the Stars or with Spirits began all worship of creatures, our AUTHOR hardly dares to determine, Exercitationibus Miscellaneis, Disputation III, § 13, 14.  GERHARD JOHANN VOSSIUS, book I de Idololatria Gentili, book IX, page 25b, in particular observes, that this was the custom of the Platonists, to invoke Angels as Mediators.  GERARDUS GULIELMUS AB OOSTEN DE BRUYN[2] also treats at length this error of the Heathen, Dissertatione de Philosophia Gentile Doctrinæ moralis, pages 84-91; likewise LELAND, de Utilitate et Necessitate Revelationis Christi, part I, section II, chapter XVI, pages 449-452.  Those that were following this error of the Gentiles in the ancient Church were called Angelici, according to AUGUSTINE, de Hæresibus, chapter XXXIX, The Angelici were inclined to the worship of Angels, whom Epiphanius testifies to have now passed away completely.  Now, it is clear that this denomination is taken from the substance of the error, so that confused EPIPHANIUS speaks nonsense, whether or not the Angelici were so called from a region beyond Mesopotamia, which was called Ἰγγιλίνη/Ingilene/Angelene; see VOSSIUS, book I de Idololatria Gentili, book IX, page 27a.  The Simonians,[3] and their followers the Cainites,[4] were Angelici of this sort; see DANÆUS,[5] ad Augustinum de Hæresibus, chapter I, page 915bB, chapter XVIII, page 937a; and ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section IX, chapter V, pages 951-956.  If the Angelici had already passed away completely in the time of Epiphanius, they were afterwards restored to life again in the Papists, who offer Honor of a completely Religious Nature to Good Angels, as Mediators in the presence of God and Christ, in Feasts, Shrines, Vows, and Prayers dedicated and offered to them.  Thus the Catechismus Tridentinus, ad Parochos, part III, in the Exposition of the first Precept of the Decalogue, § 16, ordains, that the Invocation of Saints, Angels, and Blessed spirits is not repugnant to this Law; and inculcates, § 24, that for this reason they are all the more to be worshipped and invoked, because they pray continually for the salvation of men, and by their merit and grace God confers upon us many blessings.  Bellarmine, book I de Sanctorum Beatitudine, chapter XIX, Controversiis, tome 2, columns 899 and following, takes up this proposition to be proved by himself:  Saints, whether Angels or men, are piously and advantageously invoked by the living.  And so in the Roman Breviary[6] on November 1[7] we have, page 733, And ye blessed hosts of Heavenly spirits drive away evils, Past, Present, and Future, etc.[8]  Moreover, see Natalis Alexander’s[9] Dissertation XXV in Historia Ecclesiastica, Century V, question II, article II, tome 5, pages 409 and following; ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section IX, chapter VII, § 1, 2, pages 975, 976.  Concerning this Angelolatry and its Gentilic origin, consult also GISBERT BONNET’S[10] Specimen historicum de Causis Superstitionum inter Christianos, § XIII, pages 23-26.  That such a Cult of Angels lawfully obtained under the Old Testament, is also falsely maintained sometimes, according to the observation of MARESIUS, Systemate Theologico, common place V, § 43 near the end, by the Socinians, so that in this way they might enervate the argument for the Deity of Christ taken from the offering of divine Worship to Him.  More specifically, the Socinians maintain, that of old the Angels sometimes, with God thus willing, assumed and wore the person of God Himself, whose Legates they were, and at the same time bore His authority, and hence in cases of this sort were also designated by the name of Jehovah; and that divine Honor, offered in the appearances to the uncreated Angel, called Jehovah, was not exhibit to Christ, the Son of God, not yet existing, but to a created Angel, representing God, who is able to communicate that Honor of Invocation even with others:  see Volkelius, book I de Vera Religione, chapter XI, pages 79-82; HOORNBEECK, Socinianismo confutato, tome 2, book I, chapter I, pages 191-195.  Express are the words of Wolzogen upon this matter, Commentario on Matthew 4:10, opera, tome I, page 190, As far as those are concerned, who have obtained some power over men, but which is far inferior to divine power, and which lasts only a brief time, such were formerly the Angels, especially at that time, when they were sent with a specific power to accomplish certain works.  Of which sort was that Angel, who was sent by God, so that he might lead the Israelites into the land of Canaan, concerning whom God warned the people, saying:  Beware of him, etc., Exodus 23:21.  Which Angel appears to have been the same as the one Joshua worshipped, and who said to him:  I am the captain of the hosts of the Lord; and he commanded Joshua to take off his shoes, etc.[11]  Which certainly was not common and civil adoration and reverence, but also divine.  That Angel also demanded the same of Moses, Exodus 3:5, who there stood in the place of God, and spoke in His name.  We also have a similar example in the case of Balaam, who worshipped the Angel, Numbers 22:31.  See also Judges 13:20.  But today, after the man Christ Jesus has been exalted above the Angels, and has become their Lord and head, and together with Christ men have been exalted in such a way that they must at length be made equal to the Angels, Luke 20:36; indeed, in such a way that they must be set upon the throne of Christ, before which the Angels now stand with the greatest reverence:  the Angels are not now willing to be worshipped by men in that way; seeing that they no longer have any power over them, but acknowledge themselves to be their fellow-servants, as it is seen in Revelation 19:10; 22:9.  But yet it is not to be altogether denied, that even today Angels are able to be worshipped, when they stand in the place of Christ, and thus speak, as if He Himself were present, that is, in that way in which they were previously wont to stand in the place of God, etc.  Such appears to have happened to John, Revelation 1:17.  Yet in such a case, he adds, God or Christ was properly worshipped, but the person of the Angel only incidentally:  compare ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section IX, chapter VII, § 15-17, pages 985, 986.  At this point Episcopius, as he frequently does, flatters and fawns over the Socinians, whom HOORNBEECK, in Socinianismo confutato, tome 2, book I, chapter I, pages 195, 196, and in Theologia practica, book VIII, chapter I, tome 2, page 20, and likewise LEYDEKKER, in Vire Veritatis, book V, controversy IX, page 222, 223, tax, because he wrote in his Institutionibus Theologicis, book IV, section II, chapter XXXV, opera, tome 1, page 342b, But there is one manner under the Old Testament, another under the New.  Under the former, that God either willed or permitted His Angels to be worshipped, or a certain Angel, sometimes, that is, when he was representing the person of God, and was ordained to execute some particular ministry in the name and authority of God, is evident from some passages:  Exodus 3:5; 23:21; Joshua 5:14, 15; Judges 13:19; etc.  But under the New Testament, it is manifest that it was not lawful out of Revelation 19:10; 22:8, 9.  Nevertheless, that John is said to have fallen down to worship the Angel sent to him in the first instance, is able to appear to proceed from ignorance, because he did not know that the usual custom under the Old Testament was now abrogated, etc.  See what things are observed against Episcopius by HOORNBEECK, Socinianismo confutato, tome 2, book I, chapter I, pages 195, 196; and by ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section IX, chapter VII, § 18, pages 986, 987.  With that altogether erroneous hypothesis of Episcopius, compare the even less prudent words of JAMES CAPPEL[12] concerning the distinction between the Old and New Testaments in this, that Saints under the Old Testament, bowing down before Angels, were not rebuked, as indeed under the New Testament, which words our AUTHOR notes in his Exercitationibus Textualibus XLVI, Part II, § 8, where he, disputing against those asserting an ancient Dominion of Angels over the Church, writes:  And, that this hypothesis leads to absurdities, James Cappel shows by his own example, thus concluding his notes (namely, on the text of Hebrews 2:5, in JAMES CAPPEL’S Observationibus in Epistolam ad Hebræos, which is found in Bibliis Criticis):  But not to be despised is that distinction which we see between the eras of the Old and New Testaments; under the old Abraham, Joshua, and Daniel, falling down before Angels, are not rebuked, but under the new John, doing the same twice, is rebuked.  To which our AUTHOR then subjoins:  How far these things might differ from the Socinian hypothesis, and to what extent they favor the idolatry of the Papists, and of the ancient Gentiles and Heretics, let even those with a little expertise judge.

We observe with out AUTHOR against all Angelici:

α.  That express Passages stand against the Religious Worship of Angels,

              1.  General Passages, a.  Matthew 4:10, in which the Lord, through the addition of the little word μόνῳ/alone/only, teaches that the Worship here proposed by the Wicked one, and the Worship commended in Deuteronomy 6:13; 10:20, is applicable to God alone.  The distinction between δουλείαν/dulia and λατρείαν/latria does not help the Papists here,[13] as if in the place cited Christ were claiming only the latter for God alone, but is to be supposed to allow the former to be offered to Angels and Saints.  For, that this distinction is inane, our AUTHOR will show at length, chapter XI, § 1.  That προσκύνησιν/ worship has regard to λατρείαν/latria applicable to God alone, the Lord teaches clearly enough in the passage cited:[14]  for otherwise the Devil had been able to respond, that he was not seeking λατρείαν/latria, but only προσκύνησιν/worship, verse 9.[15]  And so the Papists incorrectly comprehend προσκύνησιν/worship under δουλείᾳ/dulia, lawfully to be offered to various creatures.  b.  So that our AUTHOR might close the path to this inane flight, he adds another passage, in which Religious Worship, also under the name of δουλείας/dulia, is forbidden to be offered to anything that is devoid of a divine Nature, namely, Galatians 4:8; here, τὸ δουλεύειν τοῖς μὴ φύσει οὖσι θεοῖς, to do service unto them which by nature are no gods, is condemned as the grand crime in the Pagan Galatians.

2.  And Specific Passages also,

Theodoret

                             a.  Colossians 2:18, 19, in which the Apostle teaches, α.  That by θρησκείαν τῶν ἀγγέλων, the worshipping of Angels, καταβραβεύεσθαι, one is defrauded of his reward, is seduced from his race-course; those, running it lawfully, were able to expect a βραβεῖον/reward; while that τῶν ἀγγέλων θρησκεία, worshipping of Angels, was not able to please our Lord Jesus βραβευτῇ, the Judge.  β.  He mentions more reasons for this matter:  a.  Because it was ἐθελοθρησκεία/will-worship, θέλων/willing;[16] but all this is hateful to God and Christ, verses 22, 23.  b.  Because the Angelici were indeed rendering the appearance of modesty and humility in the Worship of Angels, as the Papists do to this day; but in actuality they were betraying proud spirits, in arrogating to themselves the ability to institute Worship not commanded by Christ, ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ, etc., in humility, etc., εἰκῆ φυσιούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.  THEODORET on this passage, opera, tome 3, page 355:  Τοῦτο τοίνυν συνεβούλευον ἐκεῖνοι γίνεσθαι, ταπεινοφροσύνῃ δῆθεν κεχρημένοι, καὶ λέγοντες ὡς ἀόρατος ὁ τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς, ἀνέφικτός τε καὶ ἀκατάληπτος, καὶ προσήκει διὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τὴν θείαν εὐμένειαν πραγματεύεσθαι. τοῦτο λέγει, ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων. Τὸ δέ γε, φυσιούμενος, τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ ἐναντίον οὐκ ἔστι·  τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἐσκήπτοντο, τοῦ δὲ τύφου τὸ πάθος ἀκριβῶς περιέκειντο, Therefore, those people were advising this to happen, feigning humility, and saying that the invisible God of all things is both inapproachable and incomprehensible, and that it is fitting to procure divine favor through the angels:  This is what he means by in humility and worshipping of angels:  Now, the expression puffed up is not contrary to the humility; for they pretended humility, but they were completely clothed in the passion of pride.  But now Ὁ Θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσι χάριν, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble, James 4:6.  c.  Because such a one was οὐ κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν, not holding fast the head, verse 19:  not that the Angelici were altogether neglecting Christ, the Head of the Church, in Worship; but that in Religious Worship they were joining many associates with Him from the order of creatures, in which manner they were denying by deeds Christ as the sole Head of the Church:  just as those that were seeking justification by the Law, at least in part, although they were at the same time professing Christ, are nevertheless said to be cut off from Christ and His grace, Galatians 5:4.  Hence also believers ought not to have allowed anyone καταβραβεύῃ, to defraud, them in another sense, in obtruding the Worship of Angels upon them; that is, anyone in this matter to treat them imperiously, to bring them into subjection to himself as βραβευτῇ/judge, to make them liable to his judgment and rule.  There are indeed those, among whom is WOLF in his Curis philologicis-criticis, who in Colossians 2:18 take θρησκείαν τῶν ἀγγέλων, the worshipping of Angels, not of Worship offered to Angels, but of Angelic Worship, that is, of such Worship and demeanor as is found among Angels, which befits Angels, which displays and imitates Angels; and they expound it simply of such ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ/will-worship and ταπεινοφροσύνῃ/humility as is greater than the ordinary, and is able to appear to the unfit to exceed the human condition:  since θρησκεία/ worship elsewhere either is posited simply, as in Acts 26:5;[17] James 1:27;[18] or with a subjective genitive, as in James 1:26;[19] but it is not wont to have an objective genitive attached.  Nevertheless, I do not see this last option to be repugnant to the genius of the language, seeing that HERODIAN[20] more than once mentions θρησκεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, the worship of God, Roman History, book IV, chapter VIII, page 197, and book V, chapter VII, page 245; and the Author of the Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom 14:27, has ἡ γὰρ τῶν ἀνωνύμων εἰδώλων θρησκεία παντὸς ἀρχὴ κακοῦ καὶ αἰτία καὶ πέρας ἐστίν, for the worshipping of idols not to be named is the beginning, the cause, and the end, of all evil.  2.  The Worship befitting Angels, in which one imitates and displays Angels, is not able to be called False Worship.  3.  Unless the text be explained of Worship offered to Angels as the object of Worship, Paul sets forth no example of the spoiling of believers διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας, through philosophy, of which he warns them to beware, verse 8:  compare GOMARUS in his Explicatione Epistolæ ad Colossenses, opera, part II, pages 236, 237; ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section IX, chapter IV, § 1-9, pages 936-949; WESSELIUS, Dissertationibus Academicis XVIII, § 5, pages 554, 555.

                             b.  Revelation 19:10, in which John fell upon his face before the Angel, wanting to offer to him the honor of προσκυνήσεως/worship; either because he was mistaken in the person, thinking this to be the Uncreated Angel, to whom that Worship was due:  whence the Angel informed him of his nature and condition, lest he, although merely a servant, might be thought to be their common Lord.  Or even because through a powerful perturbation of mind and eminent joy, which he had conceived in his heart upon the announcement of the celebration of the marriage of the Lamb, through human infirmity not attending closely enough to what he was doing, he exceeded the due measure in Veneration, which he otherwise knew was to be offered to Angels.  In any event, that the honor of προσκυνήσεως/worship is not applicable to Angels, this Angel teaches, 1.  therefore reproving John, who was wishing προσκυνεῖν, to worship, by saying, ὅρα μή, see thou do it not.  2.  With a reason added, whereby he shows that the honor of Worship is not to be offered to Angels, not only by John on account of the prophetic spirit granted to him, but neither by any of the faithful:  σύνδουλός—τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, a fellow-servant…of Jesus, especially in comparison with Revelation 22:9.  Therefore, the Angels are themselves δοῦλοι/servants, upon whom, together with all the faithful, it is incumbent jointly δουλεύειν τῷ Θεῷ, to serve God; hence the offering of all religious δουλεία/service/dulia ought to have been kept at a distance.  3.  The true object of προσκυνήσεως/worship, in opposition to Angels, he indicates, τῷ Θεῷ προσκύνησον, worship thou God:  consult BULL[21] in his primitiva et Apostolica Traditione de Jesu Christi Divinitate, chapter VI, § 5, pages 30, 31; ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section IX, chapter VII, § 12-14, pages 981-985.

β.  A reason is added, sought from the Want of true Omnipresence, Omniscience, and Omnipotence, according to those things that were said in § 5, 8, 10:  at the same time, these Attributes are assumed in Him, who is the worthy object of Invocation and Religious Worship.

γ.  Common reason also militates to the contrary, which never permits the Honor of a King to be offered to his Legates.  As a Legate is not able to assume the person of his King without the crime of treason against majesty, by saying without preface, for example:  I, the King of Britain or France, shall holily keep the covenant made with you, etc.; I will that ye obey me and render tribute, etc.:  see WESSELIUS’ Dissertationes Leidenses I, § 12-15:  so, on the other hand, it is not lawful to offer the Honor truly suitable for the King to his Legate.  Angels, sent by the command of God, look after the salvation of believers, completely depending upon the divine command and will:  therefore, these ministers are not to be invoked to bestow good upon us; but rather the Lord of all Angels, without whose will they are able to supply nothing:  hence, although Paul in Hebrews 1:14 acknowledges the λειτουργίαν/ ministry of Angels, yet he condemns the θρησκείαν/worshipping of the same, Colossians 2:18.

δ.  We add, that this religious Veneration of Angels rests upon a false hypothesis, which we have already overthrown in § 17, namely, as if to each person a Guardian Angel were given, who would be perpetually present with him, and intercede before God for him, and offer the man’s prayers to God.

ε.  Let me not now appeal to the Consent, 1.  of the Fathers of the Ancient Church, who quite frequently in their writings proscribe and forbid the religious Veneration or Idolatrous Worship of Angels:  see TURRETIN’S Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus VIII, question IX, § 20; GERHARD JOHANN VOSSIUS’ de Idololatria Gentili, book I, chapter IX; ODÉ’S Commentarium de Angelis, section IX, chapter VI, pages 956-974.  2.  And also of the more recent Jews, who pronounce an anathema upon anyone invoking an Angel or attributing religious Worship to them, since he commits Idolatry:  see JOHANN À LENT, de moderna Theologia Judaica, chapter VIII, § 18, 19, Pages 282-287, in comparison with ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section IX, chapter II, pages 919-928.

Objection α:  Examples of the Adoration of Angels are found under both the Old Testament and the New, Genesis 18; 32; 48; Revelation 1:4; 19:10.  We Respond, that here is worshipped either,

1.  Christ, as

              a.  In Genesis 18, since in Chapter V, § 16 it was abundantly evinced, that One of the three Men appearing to Abraham was worshipped with religious Veneration by Abraham, and by Invocation was honored above the others; and that this was the Son of God, who not only quite often goes under the name of ‎אֲדֹנָי/Adonai/ Lord with a Qametz ( ָ  )[22] there in the context, but also is indicated a number of times by the name ‎יְהוָה/Jehovah/LORD, indeed, whom Abraham contemplates as the Judge of all the earth, verse 25.

              b.  In Genesis 32, in which the Man, with whom Jacob wrestles, verse 24, is undoubtedly a Divine Person:  whence Jacob, in conducting himself as a prince with the Angel, has conducted himself as a prince with God, Hosea 12:4, 5.  This is confirmed by the name of Israel, Genesis 32:28, and by the name put on the place of wrestling by Jacob, ‎פְּנִיאֵל/Peniel, with the reason added in verse 30,[23] whence Jacob for good reason seeks Blessing from Him, verse 26.  But, if it be a Divine Person, no other is more agreeably to be understood than the Son of God.  This is defended against the Jews, Hackspan, and Le Clerc by BUDDEUS, Historia ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, period I, section III, § 12, tome I, pages 259-261a.

              c.  In Genesis 48:16, where this mention made by Jacob of one singular Angel the Papists with Becanus[24] are wont to draw to the particular Guardian Angel of each of the believers; but at the same time from this passage the Papists conclude, as much the truly divine help that we have from Angels, as the religious Invocation of them, which rests upon that foundation, as Leonardus Marius,[25] among others, writes:   From the present passage two useful things are able to be gathered against the adversaries of our faith.  The first is, that Angels are able to bless us, that is, are able to confer benefits upon us, and to help us….  The second is, that this blessing or this help is able to be asked of the Angels, and so Angels are able to be invoked:  For Invocation is nothing other than a petition for help, etc.  But compare what things were said in § 11, where I have already proven, that by this Angelic Goel/Redeemer ought to be understood the Uncreated Angel, the Son of God:  and in addition see the Illustrious ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section IX, chapter VII, § 4-9, pages 976-979, and likewise section X, where he painstakingly shows, that Jehovah, who is adored in Genesis 18, was the Uncreated Angel, the Son of God, appearing to Abraham with two created Angels, § 2-8, pages 1000-1008; likewise, that the Angel, with whom Jacob was wrestling in Genesis 32, was the Son of God, § 11, pages 1053-1056; and that the same was the Angel invoked by Jacob in Genesis 48:16, § 12-14, pages 1016-1021.

2.  Or the Holy Spirit, as in Revelation 1:4; compare what things are said in Chapter V, § 17.

3.  Or John desires to worship the created Angel, Revelation 19:10, but at the same time this sort of Worship of Angels is expressly prohibited and condemned, as we have recently seen.

Objection β:  the Obtestation of Paul, 1 Timothy 5:21.  Our AUTHOR rightly responds, that this differs much from Invocation.  For I am able to obtest through men, indeed, through inanimate objects, and through whatever anyone holds as dear and precious.

Objection γ:  That the great excellence of the Angels requires this.  Again, a Response is found in our AUTHOR:  By no means, since it is not Infinite.  The diversity of the Excellence of the subjects does indeed require a diversity of Worship, but not a diversity of Religious Worship:  for, as the latter only has Infinite and uncreated Excellence as its object, it is not able to be manifold, but it ought to be one; neither is one Religious Worship to be attributed to God, and another to Angels.  More specifically, what is due to God alone is the Worship of religious Adoration:  but what is exhibited to any by reason of a particular ὑπεροχῆς/excellence/superiority and dominion, which he has over the other, is the Worship of Civil Subjection; thus we worship parents, magistrates, etc.:  there is also a Worship of moral Reverence, which is exhibited to persons because of their excellence considered in themselves, without the dominion of the one honored, or the servitude of the one honoring; now, this last sort of Worship is applicable to Angels.  That is, as we worship and honor holy men, excelling us in virtue, indeed, also the learned, even if they have no rule over us, so likewise the Angels, but the Angels more reverently:  but with the same sort of Worship, even if in a somewhat disparate degree.  Now, this Worship due to Angels is threefold.  One is of the intellect, whereby we acknowledge the excellence of angelic nature.  Another is of the will, whereby we are ready to fulfill duties to so excellent a nature.  The third is of the body, whereby, if the occasion arise, we bear an external witness to our humility.  Against ἀγγελολατρείαν/angelolatry consult CALVIN’S Institutes of the Christian Religion, book I, chapter XIV, § 10-12.

[1] Joseph Albo (c. 1380-c. 1444) was a Jewish Rabbi and philosopher.  He is best known for his Sefer ha-Ikkarim, which presents the fundamental principles of Judaism, beginning with three doctrines (God’s existence, revelation, and justice), and then drawing a series of derivatives.

[2] Gerardus Gulielmus ab Oosten de Bruyn (1727-1797) was a Dutch merchant and lawyer, and Reformed scholar, engaging in matters of history, philosophy, and theology.

[3] The Simonians were a Gnostic sect, thought to be adherents of Simon Magus.  They were known for their beliefs in magic, emanations (semi-divine angelic beings), and the veneration and invocation of these spirits.

[4] The Cainites were a Gnostic sect, venerating Cain, Esau, Judas, and others as just rebels against the evil Demiurge, and bearers of secret knowledge (gnosis), mediated by angelic beings.

[5] Lambert Danæus (c. 1530-1596) was a French minister and theologian.  He labored as a pastor and Professor of Divinity at Geneva, and then at Leiden.

[6] The Roman Breviary is a liturgical book, containing public or canonical prayers, hymns, and readings.

[7] November 1 is the Feast of All Saints.

[8] From the hymn, “Christe, Redemptor omnium”.

[9] Noël Alexandre (1639-1724) was a French Dominican.  He taught philosophy, theology, and canon law at the Sorbonne.

[10] Gijsbert Bonnet (1723-1805) was a Dutch Reformed Theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1761-1804).

[11] Joshua 5:13-15.

[12] James Cappel (1570-1614) was the older brother of Louis Cappel.  He was Professor of Hebrew and Theology at the Academy of Sedan.

[13] Roman Catholic doctrine makes a distinction between latria, the highest form of worship and honor, due to God alone; and dulia, a lower form of honor and respect, which can be rendered to creatures.

[14] Matthew 4:10:  “Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan:  for it is written, Thou shalt worship (προσκυνήσεις) the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve (λατρεύσεις).”

[15] Matthew 4:9:  “And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship (προσκυνήσῃς) me.”

[16] Colossians 2:18:  “Let no man beguile you of your reward, willing (θέλων) in a humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind…”

[17] Acts 26:5:  “Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion (τῆς ἡμετέρας θρησκείας) I lived a Pharisee.”

[18] James 1:27:  “Pure religion and undefiled (θρησκεία καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος) before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

[19] James 1:26:  “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain (τούτου μάταιος ἡ θρησκεία).”

[20] Herodian of Syria (c. 170-240) wrote a history of the Roman Empire covering the years between 180 and 238.

[21] George Bull (1634-1710) was an Anglican theologian and Bishop of St. David’s.  He was fully orthodox with respect to his Trinitarian theology, but heterodox with respect to his assertion of the necessity of good works for justification, and therefore sometimes accused of Socinianism.

[22] On the other hand, ‎אֲדֹנַי/Adonai/ Lord with a Patach ( ַ ) normally refers to a human master.

[23] Genesis 32:30:  “And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel (‎פְּנִיאֵל , face of God):  for I have seen God face to face (‎אֱלֹהִים֙ פָּנִ֣ים אֶל־פָּנִ֔ים), and my life is preserved.”

[24] Martinus Becanus (1563-1624) was a Flemish Jesuit priest and controversialist.  He taught theology at Würzburg, Mainz, and Vienna.

[25] Leonardus Marius (1588-1652) was a Dutch Roman Catholic priest, theologian, and missionary in Amsterdam, while Roman Catholicism was being suppressed in the Netherlands.