De Moor IX:4: Angels as Creatures, Part 2

[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.]

Moreover, if you should ask concerning the exact Day of the Creation of the Angels, α.  it is not the Sixth or final Day, as if the progression from the Less Perfect to the More Perfect somehow required this:  for that progression was indeed observed in the successive ornamentation of the visible World; but the highest Heaven was soon separated from the terraqueous Globe, and was both created and perfect.  β.  Neither is there any solid foundation for the Second Day:  for the work of this Day has regard to the Firmament/Expanse and the inferior visible Heavens, not to the highest Heaven or its inhabitants.  γ.  Nor is the Fourth Day able to come into the account, since on that day the hosts and Luminaries properly so called of the visible Heaven were formed:  but Angels go under the name of Stars only metaphorically, Job 38:7, neither are they to be recalled to the same class of things with the Stars properly so called.  δ.  Most probably is the Creation of the Angels referred to the First Day:  1.  For they were already present, when God laid the foundations of the Earth, and they were worshipping God with joyful songs over this work:  but that work, before another followed thereafter on the same day, was consummated on the Third Day, indeed, is able to be said to have been already begun on the Second Day; Job 38:4, 6, 7.  2.  But, if the Angels already existed before the Third Day, what has the appearance of greater worthiness of affirmation, than that these inhabitants of the Third Heaven were soon brought forth with their dwelling on the First Day?  3.  On behalf of the creation of Angels together with the Third Heaven, does our AUTHOR argue, Exercitationibus Textualibus I, Part V, § 8, where from the nexus of the Mosaic narration in Genesis 1, concerning the first divine Creation of the Heavens and the Earth, verse 1, and then concerning the formless desolation of the Earth then to be ornamented and arranged, verse 2, he concludes, that the Highest Heaven was not at all mixed with the Earth in the beginning, or desolate like the Earth; but that it was next distinguished from the Earth, in such a way that it received all its ornament and splendor together with its production from God.

Most certainly not before the Mosaic Beginning, which, α.  in accordance with those things that we observed in Chapter VIII more than once, § 13, 19, 32, is altogether Universal Beginning of all Successive Duration, before which, therefore, no creatures of successive duration were existing.  β.  In that Beginning the Heaven and the Earth, and those things that are in Heaven and on the Earth, all the Host of the Heavens with the Heavens, all are everywhere said to have been made together, Genesis 2:1; Exodus 20:11; Nehemiah 9:6; John 1:1, 3; Colossians 1:16; etc.  γ.  Indeed, that Mosaic Beginning is so universal, that, whatever preceded the same, is Eternal:  whence, when the Sacred Codex wants to describe the Eternity of God and His Decrees, it asserts that these were already existing before the Foundation of the World, Psalm 90:2; Ephesians 1:4; etc.

Simon Episcopius

Although the Socinians think otherwise, and some Remonstrants ingratiating themselves with them:  see Crellius,[1] de Deo et Attributis, chapter XVIII, opera, tome 4, page 43b; Volkelius,[2] de Vera Religione, book II, chapter II, column 3; Wolzogen,[3] Prolegomenis commentario in Johannem, chapter V near the end, page 706a; Episcopius,[4] Institutionibus Theologicis, book IV, section III, chapter I, page 346b; Limborch,[5] Theologia Christiana, book II, chapter XX, § 4.  The πρῶτον ψεῦδος, fundamental error, of the Socinians is the denial of the true and eternal Deity of Christ, which error they attempt to establish by asserting the Pre-existence of Angels before the Mosaic Beginning, in such a way that they, repelled by Photinianism,[6] which denies the Pre-existence of the Lord Jesus before His conception by the virgin Mary, to whom they were especially devoted, are able to betake themselves to Arianism; and from the arguments, whereby we prove the Lord Jesus to have pre-existed not only Abraham, but even the Mosaic Beginning itself, they attempt to loose themselves, by denying for this reason that Christ is God and the truly eternal Son of God, not created or made, but begotten; since the Angels do not cease to be Creatures, even though they pre-exist or are able to pre-exist the Mosaic Beginning.

At the same time, it is not able to be denied, that in this opinion concerning the creation of Angels before the Mosaic Beginning many of the Fathers went before on account of the silence of Moses:  of which sort VOSSIUS, book I de Origine et Progressu Idololatriæ, chapter VII, pages 18b, 19, reckons Origen, and after him from among the Greeks, Basil, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and (I will not recite them all) John of Damascus; but from among the Latins Novatian,[7] Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome; and thus he affirms that most living before Austine believed.  Yet, on the other hand, that the Creation of Angels also pertained to the work of the Hexameron, appeared to Epiphanius, Theodoret, Augustine, and others; of whom MARESIUS,[8] Systemate Theologico, common place V, § 28, note b, page 216, makes mention out of Sixtus Senensis.[9]  Whether the opinion of other Fathers also, who are here and there cited in favor of Angelic Creation before the Mosaic Beginning, as is set for by JOHN OF DAMASCUS in book II Concerning the Orthodox Faith, chapter III, page 71, and more amply illustrated in the Commentary on the same place, page 76, is able to be explained in such a way that the Angels are not said by them to have been created before the Mosaic Commencement, but next in that very beginning before the other things corporeal and visible, concerning this it is permissible to inquire by me.  We neither stand nor fall by the Authority of the Fathers.  The opinion concerning the production of the Angels a little before the Mosaic Hexameron in recent times has been held as very likely by JURIEU,[10] de ses these sur la kabbale, corollary XVII; and BAXTER,[11] Methodo Theologiæ Christianæ, part I, chapter XIV, page 272.  That Angels existed somewhat before the Mosaic Creation is commonly acknowledged, is impudently asserted by the English Authors of the Universal History,[12] tome I, part I, page 140, appealing to the Archæologiam of Burnet.[13]

That opinion has not been sufficiently established, 1.  either from the Joyful Shout of the Angels at the Foundation of the Earth, Job 38:4, 6, 7.  Indeed, our AUTHOR gives a good response:  it is treated there, not of the first production of the mass, but of the Ornamentation of the Earth, begun at length on the Second Day:  compare Psalm 24:2; etc.:  and it shall be proven that this pertains to the Inferior World founded upon the deep, which has regard, not to the first moment of the First Day, but to the Work of the Second and Third Days.

2.  Or from the Silence of Moses, whom we have seen to mention the Creation of Angels, although not so explicitly, yet sufficiently expressly.  But, that we should want in Moses a fuller description of the Creation of the Angels with the Highest Heaven, of which they are inhabitants, is to be imputed to his principal design, which was to compose a history of the Church from the beginning of the World:  and so it was sufficient for Moses to set down before a fuller delineation of the creation of the Lower World, in which the Church is gathered and has its seat, and from which men making up the Church derive their origin; nevertheless, Moses has also made quite frequent mention of the Angels in the sequence of his history, just as the rationale of arrangement was requiring in adorning the history of the Church:  in a similar manner in the histories of kingdoms neighboring kingdom are often mentioned, yet an exact mention of the origin of the neighboring kingdom is not always made:  compare HOORNBEECK’S Socinianismum confutatum, tome 1, book III, chapter I, pages 537-543; GUILIELMUS SALDENUS’ Otia Theologica, book III, Exercitation IV, pages 479-486; ODÉ’S Commentarium de Angelis, section II, chapter IV, § 5-7, chapter V, § 2-13.

But, whether Angels were able to be created, 1.  before the Hexameron, as, according to MARESIUS, Systemate Theologico, common place V, § 28, note b, page 217a, a certain person, writing under the name of Petrus ab Andlo, addicted to Cartesianism, wrote, The beginning of Creation, if it had so pleased God, was able to be made with the Angels, and the universality of material things was able to be created long after their existence.

2.  Indeed, even before any Space, as in MARESIUS’ Systemate Theologico, common place V, § 28, note d, page 217b, it is also affirmed by Descartes:  If we posit that Angels were created alone even before any corporeal thing, they were able to have no Where, and yet for this reason their existence is not to be denied, because no Where is required for the existence of Angels.  For we are able to conceive of a thinking thing, even if there be no Where, since no Where is necessary for thinking, but only for operation ad extra.

Both, says our AUTHOR in his Compendio, are sought almost in vain; since concerning the contrary Will of God it is evident to us from the event.  For, when it is acknowledged that the Angels were created on the First Day with the Highest Heaven; it has no appearance of probability, that he sets the Creation of Angels before the creation of Heaven itself, their οἰκητηρίου/habitation:  but, as in the Lower World God first prepared a domicile for man, before He formed the man who would inhabit this dwelling; so it is likely, that God in His own upper and heavenly house would also proceed in the same manner.  Indeed, since in the first moment of time the Highest Heaven was produced out of nothing, the Angels were also able to be formed in the same moment.

At the same time, on the latter Question concerning the creation of Angels before any Space, the observation of MARESIUS is worthy of note, Systemate Theologico, common place V, § 28, note d, page 217b, Where indeed, says he, it is not concerning the essence or concept of thought, more with respect to human Thought than angelic; but yet it is concerning the essence and concept of the one thinking, inasmuch as he is and exists:  for you are not able to conceive of a thinking man or Angel, except as being and existing.  But this is not possible, unless you conceive of him as being and existing somewhere.  One that thinks nowhere, is nowhere; and, because he is nowhere, he is not, and so is not able to think:  compare also VAN MASTRICHT’S Gangrænam Novitatum Cartesianarum, posterior Section, chapter XXII, § 3-6, pages 397-401.

[1] Johannes Crellius (1590-1633) was a one of the Polish Brethren and an influential Socinian theologian.  His son and grandson were also proponents of Socinian views.

[2] Johanns Völkel (c. 1565-1616) was a German Socinian.  His De vera religione was the first major systematic presentation of Socinian doctrine published at the Racovian Academy.

[3] Johann Ludwig von Wolzogen (1599-1661) was an Austrian noble (Baron of Tarenfeldt and Freiherr of Neuhäusel), and Socinian theologian.  He also distinguished himself as an exegete by his commentaries on the Gospels, Acts, James, and Jude.

[4] Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) was a Dutch theologian.  He studied at the University of Leiden under Jacobus Arminius, and embraced his teacher’s distinctive doctrines.  He became a leader among the Remonstrants, playing a significant role at the Synod of Dort (1618).

[5] Philip van Limborch (1633-1712) was a Dutch Remonstrant pastor and theologian, and Professor of Theology at Amsterdam (1667-1712).

[6] Although the exact character of Photinus’ (died 376, Bishop of Sirmium [in modern Serbia]) beliefs are not clear, he appears to have in some way denied the full and proper Deity of Jesus Christ.

[7] Novatian (c. 200-258) was a priest and scholar.  He argued against re-admission to the church for those who had lapsed during persecution, and this brought him into conflict with the Roman Bishop Cornelius.  Novatian was excommunicated.  The Novatians broke away from the Catholic Church, even rebaptizing converts.

[8] Maresius, or Samuel Desmarets (1599-1673), was a French Huguenot minister and polemist.  He held various ministerial posts, and served as Professor of Theology at Sedan (1625-1636), and at Groningen (1643-1673).

[9] Sixtus of Siena (1520-1569) converted from Judaism to Roman Catholicism.  He was one of the great Dominican scholars of his age, excelling in particular in Biblical scholarship.

[10] Pierre Jurieu (1637-1713) was a French Reformed theologian, minister, and controversialist.

[11] Richard Baxter (1615-1691) was an English nonconformist, pastor, and theologian (largely self-taught).  He is largely remembered for his practical writings, and for his aberrant views on justification.

[12] The Universal History was published at London in sixty-five volumes between 1747 and 1768.

[13] Thomas Burnet (c. 1635-1715) was an English theologian and philosopher.  He is perhaps most remembered for his speculative cosmogony.