De Moor IX:3: The Existence of Angels

[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.]

That there are Angels, 1.  Is apodictically evident out of Sacred Scripture, which, everywhere speaking of Angels and their operations, supposes their Existence.  Many Passages might be gathered that speak of Angels in such a way that they expressly and sufficiently distinguish the same both from God and from men, and guide our thoughts to a third sort of Spirits truly subsisting, Job 38:4, 7; Psalm 104:4; Matthew 4:6, 11; 18:10; 22:30; 24:36; Luke 2:15; 1 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:21; Hebrews 1:13, 14; Acts 23:9.  Neither are they able to be excused intolerable temerity or falsehood, who write:  Who has ever read, that the Lord Jesus opposed this as an error (that there are no Spirits), or approved that there are Spirit; a resurrection indeed, when He was driven to that point, but of Angels and Spirits there was no word.  Since we find that the Lord discoursed most amply concerning these ministering Spirit, and quite frequently made mention of the same as occasion required; see Matthew 13:39, 41; 16:27; 24:31, 36; 26:53; Luke 9:26; 15:10; 16:22:  and in response to the Sadducees concerning the Resurrection we also find Angels asserted, Matthew 22:30; see our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes Textuales XXIX, Part I, § 33.

2.  Our AUTHOR believes that the same is sufficiently Probable from Nature, from which, nevertheless, Philosophers deny that an apodictic argument for the Existence of Angels is able to be sought; neither à Priori, because Angels do not have a necessary, but a contingent, Existence:  nor à Posteriori, because concerning the Effects, from which as from certain experience the Existence of Angels is believed in other respects to be proven, some manner of doubt appears always to remain, as to whether those could be attributed to another Spirit, God or human souls separated from their bodies, if not also to the the deceits of living men in many cases.  Thus VRIESIUS declares, Determinationibus pneumatologicis, section I, chapter IV, § 3, 4:  That, in addition to God and human Souls, there is another sort of dependent spirits, existing separately from a body, which they call Angel, it does not appear, with Revelation set aside, to be able to be demonstrated with apodictic arguments.  For, that separated human souls are not able to suffice for the production of certain preternatural actions sometimes encountered in bodily things (which are to be referred to Angelic Spirits, according to the dictates of the Faith), reason alone does not appear to teach.  Yet Learned Men try to render the Existence of Angels Probable from Nature; and that with à Priori and à Posteriori argumentation sought in equal measure, which latter, however, is of greater validity than the former.

α.  They reason à Priori from the Perfection of the Universe:  for, as, say they, in His Universe God has made creatures only corporeal, which meet the senses; others, partly corporeal and visible, partly spiritual and invisible, which sort are men:  so it was agreeable to the Perfection of the World that things only Spiritual be created also, which sort are Angels.  Again:  as there are creatures furnished with sense alone like brutes, and others furnished with intellect and sense like men; so they believe it to be fitting, that there are also creatures furnished with intellect alone.  Nevertheless, that this appears to be a weak foundation upon which to build, everyone sees.

Vossius

β.  More à Posteriori arguments are set forth by VOSSIUS, de Origine et Progressu Idololatriæ, book I, chapter VI, whereby having been persuaded, the Gentiles recognized the Existence of separated Spirits and Demons.  Such an argument is supplied, 1.  by the Oracles of the Gentiles, which were emitted either from hollows of the earth, or from images; and that, says VOSSIUS, indeed with human craft and cunning, but often also diabolical.  For they did indeed consist in the frauds of the prophets, but not only in those; since they foretold many things, to which by no means was the acumen of the human mind able to reach.  And these things were also granted by those, who had come to inquire of the oracles, cunning men, and not prone to credulity.  In which, moreover, he shows that what causes of the Oracles others advance are not at all sufficient for the production of all the Oracles, whether it be melancholic humor with Aristotle; or vapor drawn from the earth by the Sun and received into a body well tempered, which would agitate the human mind, with Plutarch[1] and others; or the mere frauds of men:  and so he advises that recourse is to be had to Demons, with STEPHANUS MORINUS[2] ὁμόψηφον/ homologating, Dissertationibus octo, last difficulty, pages 389-410.  2.  Apparitions are added, the possibility of which is shown by, among others, NIEUWENTYT,[3] Gronden van Zekerheid, part V, chapter III, § 6, page 404.  For example, we know by experience, that our Spirit moves the body united with it, and converts it into other forms, whether to cause it to stand, to sit, to lie down.  Hence it is gathered, that it does not appear altogether impossible, that one Spirit might move another body, whether a mass of air or some other fluid or solid, in a manner similar to the way the human soul moves its own body.  And so a notable mass of air is able to enter any chamber through the smallest fissure by the help of its fluidity, and to be heaped together there, which then some Spirit might gather into one and solidify, in such a way that thence a body is formed, in the appearance of a man, or of this or that animal, or even some monster, by the help of which airy body other bodies are also able to be variously affected and moved.  That the Gentiles believed in Apparitions, VOSSIUS observes in the passage previously cited, and not just the common folk, but even the very flower of the people.  He grants that those were not ignorant, the men would sometimes counterfeit Apparitions, whether enfeebled by idleness, who take please from this, if they might be a terror to others; or malevolent, avaricious, ambitious, wanton, who study these arts for their own profit.  That others merely imagined Apparitions, they were aware, of which sort, for example, were the melancholic and mad, in whom dark bile corrupts the imagination; or women, children, or the like, who are vexed with excessive fear.  But, nevertheless, he mentions that even men grave and cultivated in philosophy have been most vehemently shaken by Apparitions, and concludes his own argument concerning Specters in this way:  They relate so many things, which have judicious men as witnesses, that the taking of confidence from the individuals does not appear to be the practice of anyone other than one who, conscious of his own vanity, measures others even by himself, and is unwilling that others be found honest and trustworthy:  consult VOETIUS,[4] discoursing at greater length de Spectris, Disputationum theologicarum, part I, pages 985-1017; add BUDDEUS, who defends the possibility of Apparitions against Jean-Alphonse Turretin,[5] in his Dissertatione Epistolica de Phthonissa Endorea, after tome 2, Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, page 1010-1016.  3.  Our AUTHOR especially appeals to the various Activities of the Demon-possessed, for example, speaking in foreign tongues, and setting forth such things as are not able to be attributed to the proper spirit of those wretches, nor appear to be available to the souls of other deceased men, whether pious or impious:  and which, like those things mentioned before, lead us to separated Spirits, and first to evil ones, more swiftly than to God Himself:  which is certainly evident to us concerning the Demon-possessed from the Gospel history; see below, § 10, 26.  To this observation of our AUTHOR concerning Oracles, Specters, and the various Operations of the Demon-possessed, leaving us to evil Spirits rather than to God, are able to be compared what things STEUCHUS EUGUBINUS[6] has in de perenni Philosophia, book VIII, chapter XXXVII, where he, after he had denied out of PLUTARCH, that the Oracle of Apollo was to be recalled by God, because that prophetic Spirit, through whom the Pythia was giving her responses, ascending from beneath, was coming up into this woman’s genitals and belly, and thus filling this prophetic woman with inspired frenzy; subjoins:  And it shall be found to be true, what the same Plutarch added, that with great difficulties are men freed, who had set up Demons between God and men, unto whom should be referred those things that are evidently not able to be effected by human power, and that, when it is necessary to return them to a greater than human power, but some other reason hinders them from being referred to the Most High God, or to other similar Spirits belonging to Him, are traced back to that power, which excels human ability, but the things produced testify that it is not God, nor a pure mind and divine authority.  Signs of greater than human ability have they, with our men, collected in great numbers:  there was especially divination itself, besides bewitchings, vexations of bodies, diseases sent, and many other things known to everyone.  But signs of wicked power also, inasmuch as they rarely affected men beneficially, and the very mode and manner of the prophesying declared its nature polluted.

Whence, adds our AUTHOR in his Compendio, namely, for this, that the arguments just now produced, even naturally and by Experience itself, render the Existence of Angels probable enough:  among the Gentiles you see so many things related concerning Spirits and Intelligences, sometimes rashly assumed by Christians; although the Tradition of the Ancestors, and the doctrine of the Jews disseminated now and then, on these things, are readily added to reason.  From the Philosophers of the Gentiles, according to the observation of VOSSIUS, book I de Idololatria, chapter VI, Democritus[7] does not acknowledge any Spirits; neither does Aristotle recognize any others than the movers of the celestial orbs, although Eugubinus thinks otherwise concerning Aristotle.  Pythagoras,[8] on the other hand, posited Demons, and was indeed the first of the Philosophers, if Simplicius[9] is to be believed; in whom Pythagoras is believed walked in the path of the Thracians, Egyptians, Persians, Chaldeans, and others, of whom he made use as teachers.  Now, Plato and his disciples followed this opinion of the Pythagoreans.  But, in addition to these things which Experience taught them concerning Angels according to the things mentioned above; VOSSIUS also observes in the passage cited, that it is not doubtful, that it was delivered by tradition from the first Noahides, that there are Spirits, of whose ministry God makes us in the administration of the world.  According to the same, each was able to receive this from the founders of his nation:  the Moabites and Ammonites from Lot, whom Angels had led out of Sodom;[10] the Ishmaelites from Hagar, to whom an Angel showed water;[11] afterwards this opinion was confirmed among the Moabites, when the Angel of the Lord set Himself in the of Balaam riding with the prince of Moab, in order to curse the Israelites.[12]  Besides additional similar Apparitions of Angels perhaps unknown to us, diverse others, which happened to the Fathers, have also been narrated to us by Moses:  see LEYDEKKER’S Dissertationem contra Bekkerum, section IX, § 17, pages 132-144.

Nevertheless, the Sadducees deny it, Acts 23:8, etc.:  The Sadducees were constituting one of those better known sects of Religion that were thriving among the Jews in the time of the Lord and His Apostles; whether they had their name from Zadok, one of the disciples of Antigonus of Sokho, whose fellow-pupil was Bœthus;[13] or from another source.  These are considered to have abused the innocent statement of their Teacher, Antigonus of Sokho, that God is not to be served for reward, which others attribute to the disciples of Zadok; whence consequently they denied rewards and punishments after this life, and hence the immortality of souls; but also that there are Spirits or a Resurrection.  At the same time, PRIDEAUX,[14] in his History of the Jews, part II, book V, column m. 1109, 1110, does not think that these errors were attached to this sect from the beginning:  but, while at first they only rejected the ἀγράφους/unwritten traditions of the Pharisees, thereafter, when men addicted to this sect became eminent for power and riches, and at the same time gave themselves up to luxury; deadly heresies of this sort were adopted by them, according to PRIDEAUX, so that they might all the more avidly give themselves to luxury, and not thereupon feel the persistent stings of conscience.  However this may be, since the Sadducees admitted, if not πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα, all that has been written, at least the Pentateuch of Moses, in which is found such clear reference to Angels and Apparitions, whether you have regard to the Uncreated Angel or Created Angels; learned Men are of the opinion, that the Sadducees did not fall to such a degree of impudence that they absolutely denied angelic Spirits and whatever the Sacred Page relates concerning them:  but, that the saying of Luke, that Σαδδουκαῖοι λέγουσι μὴ ἄγγελον, the Sadducees say that there is no angel, is to be understood with some restriction, they suppose; whence our AUTHOR says, they appear only not to have admitted the permanent Subsistence of these after Appearances or Operations:  but to have denied either their abiding Permanence even after Appearances, or their true Subsistence, in opposition both to bodily Operations, and to the Imagination of men.  Thus VOSSIUS again goes before, in the passage frequently cited:  The Sadducees do not acknowledge Spirits, as it is in Acts 23:8.  They Jews object against us, that they acknowledge the books of Moses as divine; in which it is quite frequently related, that Angels appeared.  But it appears likely to me, that the Sadducees were wont to evade these things:  a twofold rationale of which now occurs.  One is, that by them they understood no other thing than qualities produced by God in the imagination of the one that He wishes to teach concerning some thing.  The other is, that they might think, that God produces Spirits, when He wants to make use of their work, and destroys them afterwards:  compare ODÉ, in his Commentario de Angelis, section II, chapter I, in which he more fully explains and refutes this error of the Sadducees.  Concerning the Sadducees, besides the Writers on Jewish Antiquities and on the Ecclesiastical History of the Old Testament, see SERARIUS,[15] DRUSIUS,[16] and SCALIGER,[17] de Sectis Judæorum, and GUILIELMUS SALDENUS,[18] Otiis Theologicis, book III, Exercitation IX, pages 554 and following.  That Voltaire rashly and falsely asserts, that the Jews did not acknowledge Evil Angels before the times of the Babylonian Captivity, but received this doctrine from the Persians at that time, contends  FINDLAY,[19] Defensione Sacræ Scripturæ adversus de Voltaire, pages 365-370.

The Sadducees, as far as Evil Angels are concerned, are imitated by many modern Jews, just as Manasseh ben Israel[20] confessed in conference with the Most Illustrious VOETIUS, that he does not know whether there are any devils, as the latter relates in his Disputatione de Natura Dæmonum, Disputationum theologicarum, part I, page 921.

Moreover, the Sadducees foreshadowed, both, 1.  certain Enthusiasts of more recent time, in particular the David-Jorists:  indeed, David Gorge[21] was holding, that Angels were not incorporeal substances, but only the thoughts and motions of the soul:  similarly that Demons were nothing other than the rebellion of the flesh against the mind:  see HOORNBEECK’S Summam Controversiarum, book VI, pages 411-413; DANIEL GERDES’[22] Historiam Reformationis, Section II, chapter I, § 40, tome 3, pages 116-125.  And, 2.  other Libertines, Pocquius,[23] Quintinus, and others, against whom CALVIN set himself, according to whom they also, because they were acknowledging only one immortal Spirit, were imagining that Angels were nothing other than inspirations or motions, not creatures furnished with a certain essence:  but concerning the Devil they were concluding, that he, like both the world and sin, was to be held as an imagination, which is nothing:  see CALVIN’S Instructionem adversus Libertinos, chapter XII, opera, tome 7, page 444.  And, 3.  the many Atheists of our time, or that most recently passed, namely, Spinoza, who mocks the Fall of the Angels, the seduction of upright man by Satan, and the power of Devils over mankind.  Hobbes also, who in Leviathan contends that Angels are something, whereby the Power of God becomes known either in a dream or vision:  not a person, but merely an action or quality; nothing real, but phantasms, which endure no longer than the dream and vision in which they appear:  that Demonology or the doctrine of Devil is a relic of pagan worship, old wives tales, specters of the mind; that Demons, phantasms, and spirits of deceptions in imposters are one and the same; that the Demoniacs in the Gospels are those that we ourselves call mad, lunatic, or epileptic; that by the reception of the erroneous Demonology of the Jews and Gentiles into the Church it happened that of old there were many Demoniacs, few made; now there are many mad, few Demoniacs, etc.:  see LEYDEKKER’S Dissertationem historico-theologicam contra Bekkerum, Sections X, XI, § 20, 21, pages 168-194.  Bolingbroke[24] also; see LELAND,[25] Beschouwing van de Schriften der Deisten, part 2, piece 2, letter 7, pages 267-269.  Against these various errors, CALVIN, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book I, chapter XIV, § 9, 19, proves, that Angels, whether good or evil, are true spiritual substances.  ODÉ treats of the same, in his Commentario de Angelis, section II, chapter I, § 10-12.  COCQUIUS[26] specifically takens on Hobbes in his Hobbesianismi Anatome, locus VIII, chapter XV, pages 136-151.  That from the principles of Spinoza’s system no grounds arise for the denial of Angels or their Apparitions, contends BAYLE,[27] Dictionnaire Historique et Critique, on the word Spinoza, note Q, page 2642.

The πρῶτον ψεῦδος, fundamental error, of the Enthusiasts in this error is able to be said to be, that by their Enthusiasms they do not create a prejudice against the danger of seduction by evil spirits.  The πρῶτον ψεῦδος, fundamental error, of the others we are able to express, that they admit nothing that goes beyond their perception, but suppose, each according to his own hypotheses, that all things are to be explained by known natural causes, while remaining secure concerning faith and religion.  Moreover, on this § BUDDEUS deserves to be consulted, Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, book I, chapter IV, § 30, tome 1, pages 277-283, and also de Atheismo et Superstitione, and LULOFS’ Annotationes ad eum, chapter III, § 3, pages 158-166, chapter VII, § 3, pages 420-434.

[1] Mestrius Plutarchus (c. 46-127) was a Greek historian.

[2] Étienne Morin (1625-1700) was Professor of Oriental Languages at Amsterdam (1686-1699).

[3] Bernard Nieuwentyt (1654-1718) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and Cartesian philosopher.

[4] Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676) was a Dutch Reformed minister and theologian.  In 1619, he attended the Synod of Dort as its youngest member.  Some years later he was appointed as Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1636-1676).

[5] Jean-Alphonse Turretin (1671-1737) was a Swiss Reformed pastor and theologian, serving as Professor of Church History and Theology at Geneva.  He was the son of the great Francis Turretin, but declined from the strict and particular orthodoxy of his father, strengthening liberalizing trends.

[6] Augustinus Steuchus (1496-1549) was an Italian Roman Catholic scholar, who served as a prior of the Canons Regular of the Lateran, the bishop of Kisamos in Crete and prefect of the Vatican Library.  He brings his varied talents in languages and antiquities to bear upon exegesis.

[7] Democritus (c. 460-c. 370) was a Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, regarded by many as the Father of Atomism.

[8] Pythagoras (582-507 BC) was a Greek philosopher and mathematician.

[9] Simplicius of Cilicia (c. 480-c. 540) was a pagan philosopher, and one of the last Neoplatonists.

[10] See Genesis 19.

[11] See Genesis 21:8-21.

[12] See Numbers 22:21-35.

[13] Antigonus of Sokho (second century BC) is said to have been a disciple of Simon the Just.  He, in turn, taught Zadok and Bœthus, the purported founders of the sects of the Sadducees and Bœthusians (closely related to the Sadducees, but perhaps more moderate in opinion) respectively.

[14] Humphrey Prideaux (1648-1724) was an Anglican churchman and orientalist.

[15] Nicholas Serarius (1555-1610) was a Jesuit scholar.  He served as Professor of Theology at the University of Mentz.  He wrote Trihæresium seu de celeberrimis tribus apud Judaeos, Pharisæorum, Sadducæorum et Essenorum sectis.

[16] John Drusius (1550-1616) was a Protestant scholar; he excelled in Oriental studies, Biblical exegesis, and critical interpretation.  He served as Professor of Oriental Languages at Oxford (1572), at Leiden (1577), and at Franeker (1585).  Drusius wrote Ad Minerval Serarii responsionem.

[17] Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) was a classicist, chronologer, and skilled linguist, one of the most learned men of his age.  During the course of his studies and travels, he became a Protestant and suffered exile with the Huguenots.  He was offered a professorship at Leiden (1593), a position which he eventually accepted and in which he remained until his death.

[18] Guilielmus Saldenus (1627-1694) was a Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian, and supporter of the Nadere Reformatie.

[19] Robert Findlay (1721-1814) was a minister of the Church of Scotland, serving as Professor of Divinity at Glasgow from 1782 to 1814.  He labored in the defense of the inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture against the rising tide of Rationalism.

[20] Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel (1604-1657) was a Portuguese Jewish scholar.  His El Conciliador was an attempt to reconcile difficult and seemingly contrary portions of the Old Testament.  He established the first Hebrew printing press in Amsterdam.

[21] David Joris (c. 1501-1556) was a prominent voice among the Anabaptists of the Netherlands, leading by mystical visions and prophecies.

[22] Daniel Gerdes (1698-1765) was a German Reformed Theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Duisburg (1726-1735), and at Groningen (1736-1765).

[23] Antonius Pocquius, a Franciscan Friar professing conversion to the Reformation, was condemned by Calvin as one of the leaders of the Libertines and Enthusiasts.

[24] Henry St. John, First Viscount of Bolingbroke (1678-1751), was an English government official and political philosopher.  In spite of his Deism, he was a proponent of conformity and a supporter of the Church of England.

[25] John Leland (1691-1766) was an English Presbyterian minister.  The focus of his authorship is the opposition of Deism.

[26] Gisbertus Cocquius (1630-1708) of Utrecht was a Reformed thinker and doctor of philosophy; he opposed Hobbes.

[27] Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) was a French philosopher.  He was the son of a Reformed minister; for a short time he defected to Roman Catholicism, only to return again to his Reformed roots.  He was influenced by Rationalism; and consequently he advocated for a separation between the domains of faith and reason, and for toleration of differing beliefs.