De Moor IX:7: Angels as Incorporeal Substances, 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.]

Many Jews contradict, who either think that Angels have Fiery Bodies; or believe that Angels are formed of Fire, Demons of Fire and Air; and concerning Demons in particular everywhere affirm with the Talmudists and Kabbalists,[1] that not only are they Corporeal and affected by bodily things, but they also have these three things in common with Men, 1.  that they eat and drink, 2.  that they procreate and are multiplied, 3.  and that they die.  While yet others among the Jews acknowledge that Angels are mere and incorporeal Spirits, before whom PHILO went, in his libro de Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, opera, page 131, Ἄγγελοι γὰρ στρατός εἰσι Θεοῦ, ἀσώματοι καὶ εὐδαίμονες ψυχαί, for Angels are the army of God, disembodied and blessed spirits:  thus MAIMONIDES,[2] de Fundamentis Legis, chapter II, § 4, גוף אינן המלאכים זומזו נפרדות צורות אלא וגויה, Angels are without body and matter, but are forms separated, or distinct, from each other.  Abarbanel[3] also affirms that Angels are spiritual, completely separated from all matter:  see at greater length the Most Illustrious ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section III, chapter I, § 5-7, from which I have culled these things.

PLATO with other Gentile Philosophers is said to have indeed affirmed, that δαίμονας ὑπάρχειν οὐσίας ψυχικὰς, Demons are substances furnished with soul, in PLUTARCH’S de Placitis Philosophorum, book I, chapter VIII, opera, tome 2, page 882.  Yet he did not, therefore, believe that they were altogether ἀσωμάτους/incorporeal, but he actually established five classes of Demon, formed out of spirit, to which he attributed various Corpuscles, to some ethereal, to certain ones fiery, and finally to a few airy, aqueous, or earthy:  whence the followers of Plato also attributed to Demons Bodies airy or fiery, and so slight, that they were not visible to the eyes of men.  ARISTOTLE similarly thought that Demons consist of elements, which he calls τὰ ἁπλὰ σώματα, οἷον γῆ, καὶ πῦρ, καὶ ὕδωρ, simple bodies, like earth, fire, and air:  see ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section III, chapter I, § 1-3.

Conrad Vorstius[4] similarly strays from the truth at this point, Exegese Apologetica, chapter VII, pages 29-33, judging Angels to be Corporeal, but leaning on arguments of straw, namely, because Angels are finite and created, and occupy a definite place, and are moved successively in it:  see ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section III, chapter I, § 22.  Le Clerc,[5] everywhere affecting Skepticism, thinks that they advance on equal footing, who deny or affirm, that a Spirit is able to be without any corporeal quality:  Pneumatologia, section II, chapter I, § 3, opera Philosophica, tome 2, page 69.  On the other hand, that this is able to be affirmed without temerity, is sufficiently evinced both from the pure Spirituality of God, and from the infinite Power of that, whereby He is able to produce other finite Spirits subsisting of themselves, and from the substantial difference of our Mind from whatever Body, and from the Immortality of the same, whereby it remains alive after its loosing from the Body:  whence also we do not draw back from saying that Angels also are able to be, and are, Incorporeal.

Our AUTHOR here joins the Socinians in general with Vorstius, while MARESIUS, Systemate Theologico, common place V, § 27, names Socinus[6] in particular with Vorstius, as devoted to this error concerning Angels naturally clothed with a Body.  Yet CLOPPENBURG, HOORNBEECK, and SPANHEIM do not number this error as common to the Socinians in their Catalogues of Controversies:  and Volkelius, de Vera Religione, book II, chapter II, column 4, says, Now, as to what sort of Angels God created with regard to their nature, let us see; from the divine books it is evident, that by their nature they are Spirits, just as that divine author of the Epistle to the Hebrews testifies, as we have seen.  In the notes upon which passage of Hydræ Socinianismi expugnatæ, tome I, page 695, MARESIUS advises, that in this Volkelius differs both from Vorstius and from many of the Ancients, although Episcopius has nothing that he here determines with certainty:  with no mention of other Socinians added that might assert that Angels are clothed with Bodies.  At the same time, WALCH,[7] Miscellaneis Sacris, book II, Exercitation II, chapter II, § 8, page 276, out of Valentinus Smalcius’[8] de Erroribus Arianorum, book I, chapter XIV, page 147, cites these words among others:  Angels are spiritual substances, entire and perfect; but a soul is a part of a whole….  Angels in their own spiritual body enjoy pleasures altogether perfect.

With the greatest possible effort was the opinion concerning Angels’ Spirits, having Bodies naturally joined with them, defended in a singular dissertation at the Academy of Duisburg in 1719 by JOHANN CHRISTIAN LÖERS, Doctor and Professor Ordinarius there,[9] whose πρῶτον ψεῦδος, fundamental error, was the Cartesian opinion concerning Spirit as mere Thought, hance operating by intellect and will alone.

Neither are we able to deny, that many among the Ancients went before, attributing to Angels exceedingly Subtle Bodies, fiery or airy; thus Tertullian, Irenæus, Origen, Basil, Augustine, Hilary, Lactantius, and others.  Yet on the other side there were not wanting those that acknowledged that Angels were without body and matter, like Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Damascenus, and thus the Greek Fathers of greatest reputation.  But the Fathers were able to have slipped into the thought of Angels clothed with Bodies, 1.  both because they read that Angels appeared in corporeal form:  2.  and because in Genesis 6:2 in the place of‎בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים , the sons of God, the Greek Version has ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, the angels of God, who are said to have gone in unto the daughters of men and to have begotten children of them; as Codex Alexandrinus[10] there reads ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, the angels of God, while Vaticanus[11] and others more rightly render it υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, the sons of God.  Similarly the Italic Latin, with Ambrose and Procopius[12] as witnesses, was reading Angeli Dei, the Angels of God, in the place of that which is found afterwards to have read filii Dei, the sons of God.  Now, that many of the Fathers embraced that erroneous exposition of the passage cited in Genesis 6, is well-known; concerning which there will again be an occasion for speaking at length below, § 15:  but upon the same erroneous acceptation of the Mosaic text also rests the παρερμηνεία/misinterpretation of Paul’s teaching concerning the Veiling of Women because of the Angels, 1 Corinthians 11:10, in TERTULLIAN, de Velandis Virginibus, chapter VII, as if the Apostle were commanding Women to cover their Heads, lest by the elegance of their form they incite the Angels to lust; concerning which we shall consider below, § 12.  3.  It is added, that they were considering the immense difference between God, the greatest Spirit, and Angel, so that with respect to God they might indeed appear Corporeal:  thus in AUGUSTINE’S Operibus, libro de Spiritu et Anima, chapter XVIII, opera, tome 6, column 522, With respect to the incorporeal God the soul is corporeal.  For nothing is to be believed to be invisible and incorporeal by nature except God alone, who is called incorporeal and invisible from this, that He, being infinite and uncircumscribed, simple and sufficient for Himself in every way, sustains Himself and that very thing.  Similarly DAMASCENUS, Of the Orthodox Faith, book II, chapter III, writes concerning an Angel, Ἀσώματος δὲ λέγεται, καὶ ἄϋλος, ὅσον πρὸς ἡμᾶς·  πᾶν γὰρ συγκρινόμενον πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν τὸν μόνον ἀσύγκριτον, παχύτε καὶ ὑλικὸν εὑρίσκεται. μόνον γὰρ ὄντως ἄϋλον τὸ θεῖόν ἐστι ἀσώματον, that is, But he is said to be incorporeal and immaterial, with respect to us:  for everything compared with God, who alone is not concrete, is found to be dense and material.  For that only, which is divine, is truly immaterial and incorporeal.  And in this manner the Scholastics are eager to reconcile the sayings of the Fathers, that they call the Angels Spirits with respect to us, but Bodies with respect to God; as if to them Body had denoted everything that in whatever way is composite and mutable, in which sense every created substance is able to be called corporeal with respect to God, who is altogether simple and immutable.  According to TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus VII, question II, § 5, This does indeed soften the sentence of the Fathers, yet does not remove the ἀκυρολογίαν, improper expression.  But, with the words of the Fathers diligently inspected, neither is it able to be denied, that to Angels they assigned a Body truly material, of an essence directly and specifically opposite to that of Spirits, although they thought that body to be subtler and less dense than human bodies; see again ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section III, chapter I, § 9-18, pages 314-331.  At the same time, AUGUSTINE, City of God, book XXI, chapter X, graciously concludes:  If anyone had strongly asserted that dæmons have no bodies; this matter is not to be belabored by laborious investigation, nor to be contested with contentious disputation.

Objection 1:  That they are described after the likeness of Fire, Psalm 104:4, and as Winged, Exodus 25:20.  Responses:  α.  Thus certain Perfections of Angels are merely Metaphorically and Emblematically described and delineated, especially their readiness and swiftness in the ministry of God.  β.  If from this we might justifiably gather a corporeal nature in whole or in part, it would be permissible to conclude the same concerning the altogether Simple God and most pure Spirit from similar descriptions of Him:  and indeed, He is compared with Fire, Deuteronomy 4:24, and, being most swifty carried, He comes to the help of His own, Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 18:10.  JOHN DAMASCENUS, in the passage just now cited, page 68, rightly observes upon the text of Psalm 104:4:  Αὐτὸς [Θεὸς] τῶν ἀγγέλων ἐστὶ ποιητὴς καὶ δημιουργὸς —κατ᾽ οἰκείαν εἰκόνα κτίσας αὐτοὺς, φύσιν ἀσώματον, οἷόν τι πνεῦμα, ἢ πῦρ ἄϋλον, ὣς φησιν ὁ θεῖος Δαβὶδ, ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα, καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρός φλόγα. τὸ κοῦφον, καὶ διάπυρον, καὶ θερμὸν, καὶ τομώτατον, καὶ ὀξὺ, περὶ τὴν θείαν ἐφεσίντε καὶ λειτουργίαν διαγράφων, καὶ τὸ ἀνωφερὲς αὐτῶν, καὶ πάσης ὑλικῆς ἀπηλλασμένον ἐννοίας, He [God] is the maker and framer of the angels…creating them after His own image, an incorporeal race, a certain sort of spirit or immaterial fire, as inspired David says, Who maketh His angels spirits, His ministers a flaming fire:  describing their nature as light, fiery, and hot, and sharp and keen, with regard to which they hunger for God and His service, and the ascending upward of them, and freedom from all material conception.

Objection 2:  That Standing, Motion, and Speech are ascribed to them.  There is a Response in our AUTHOR.  Concerning the Motion of Angels through the change of their Definitive Where, an occasion for discussion recurs in § 12, while concerning the Speech of Angels, which they raise out of 1 Corinthians 13:1, we shall also be able to speak in § 10.

Objection 3:  That Angels were frequently seen.  Our AUTHOR responds:  α.  Either in Fantasy, when such a Vision befell anyone in a Dream or Ecstasy, Genesis 28:12; Acts 27:23.  Or, β.  in the appearance of a Corporeal Form in the air represented to the eye, from whatever source that Body was composed; concerning which it is able to be considered, when they were bearing a simple message in the name of God to men, for example, Luke 1:26; 2:9; Acts 10:3; 12:7, 10, where, 1.  the matter of the Angelic Body in its beginnings and particles, as yet more loosed from each other, had to enter the prison; then, 2.  the Body of the Angel had to be more solid, when he was smiting Peter on the side; 3.  it was also radiant, but not burning Peter upon contact.  Or, γ.  they were seen in a true human Body, at least in the parts that were standing open to sight, and which were necessary for them in the execution of their Mission, which Theologians believe obtained in eating and more familiar conversation, of which sort is that in Genesis 18; 19:  unto which end a Body was able to be formed by God from unwieldy matter, which the Angel assumed for a time without Personal union, or put on after the likeness of a garment:  while Theologians add, that Angels were also able to assume the Body whether of men recently Dead, or Living and taken out of themselves.  Thus TURRETIN, Theologiæ Elencticæ, locus VII, question VI, § 5:  It is not able to be denied, that Angels often assumed true Bodies, whether those were newly created immediately by God, or were already existing bodies of living men, dropping into which, they performed certain economic actions, with the fancy of those whose bodies they were diverted temporarily, so that they themselves would not know what would be done unto themselves or by themselves.  Likewise VOGELSANG, Exercitationibus theologicis XXII, § 10:  …Or they had the bodies of true and living men, into which having dropped, they accomplished the commandments of God.  Of true and living men, I say, but who, for as long as they were seized and slept in a certain torpor, as it were, they did not know what things they were doing with the Angel impelling.  And also MARESIUS, Systemate Theologico, common place V, § 47:  Bu, that Angels sometimes assumed true Bodies, is not able to be doubted, since they are taken for true men even by Holy Men; see Genesis 18:2-8.  And, although I do not deny, that unclean Spirits often assumed the corpses of men recently dead, in which they make sport of the living; nevertheless, what bodies the good Angels are read to have united with themselves, either they were immediately created by God for that, or they were also able to be the bodies of living men, into which having dropped, Angels performed certain economic operations, with the fancy of those whose bodies they were diverted for so long a time, so that they themselves did not know what was done upon them or through them:  for they are not without good reason called men; and they performed actions vital and animal, in walking, speaking, eating; although those did not belong formally to the Angels (because no hypostatic union of those with the men was intervening, because both parties were complete persons, of which a third person was not able to be composed), yet they were formally and subjectively of those supposits, in which they were appearing.

Jacobus Ode

Nevertheless, that this opinion, concerning the Bodies of other Living men assumed for a time by Good Angels in their Appearances, the Most Illustrious ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section III, chapter I, page 353, confesses that he by no means makes it his own, both on account of the reason wherewith the Most Illustrious LÖERS opposes the same, for example, that God created the Angels as ministers of His Providence, who thus would nevertheless be believed by us to be inept for many ministries, unless the organs of a human body be conceded to them:  and that it is not plausible, that the affairs of God are so straitened, that He had to cast a man’s soul out of his body, as often as an Angel had need of a body for ministry, etc.:  and because no mind of men would be aware, either that it was cast out of its body by an Angelic besieger, or that it was at some point pressed down by a more powerful spirit and afterwards liberated.

At the same time, the former opinions concerning an Angel appearing in a Corporeal Form represented in the air to the eye, or in a human Body formed out of unwieldy matter for this use, are not pressed with the same difficulties.  Neither does the Illustrious LÖERS prove his dilemma, that a Body of this sort was able to be formed neither by the Angel, nor by God, with the reasons which he subjoins.

The Angel was not able to form it from air, says he:

a.  Because Angels, just like human minds in the womb of the mother, are not suited to the fabrication of bodies and the conjunction of themselves with them.  But this is a comparison of things dissimilar; for, α.  Angels already exist and are actuose, before they are joined with a body, unlike human minds.  β.  Angels exert greater strength than human minds.

b.  He says, Angels, nevertheless, do not enjoy such wisdom and power, as is required for the formation of a body of this sort, whatever it may be.  Responses:  α.  Since it is not clearly evident to us concerning the nature of the bodies assumed by Angels, neither are we able to determine with certainty, whether the fabrication of the same exceeds Angelic wisdom and power, or not.  β.  Even if the Angels are unequal to this task, it is a slight thing for God to perform.

c.  Scripture nowhere teaches, that on any give occasion Angels assumed and put off bodies.  Responses:  α.  If Scripture were openly teaching this, all doubt would be removed.  β.  Neither does it say concerning the Angel of the covenant, that in His appearances He assumed a body only for that time, but it is not able to be denied.

d.  The Saints did not doubt, that the bodies of appearing Angels were true.  Response:  Should I concede this, nevertheless, α.  they were able to doubt, whether these bodies were proper and natural to Angels.  Indeed, β.  they were able to be certain concerning the purely spiritual nature of Angels, and so concerning those bodies assumed only for a time.

e.  Nowhere was that wardrobe of Angles shown, where they might have recourse as often as necessary, and seek that covering.  Responses:  α.  Whether we say that it is in the heavens, or on the earth, how shall we be convicted of falsehood?  β.  Where then will that illustrious Man show to us this wardrobe, from which they seek their garments, white and shining, clothed with which they appeared, and in which, with their ministries fulfilled, the Angels again deposit the same?  For he shall not judge, that garments are natural to Angels, just as bodies are.

But, that God was not able to create Bodies out of unwieldy matter for the use of Angelic Appearances, the Most Illustrious LÖERS thinks.

a.  Because it is not plausible, that God willed to create such vain angelic bodies, that He had daily to disperse them and daily to prepare them again.  Response:  α.  Nothing hinders God from forming bodies for Angels at the command of His will, so that they might be serviceable to them only in attending to this or that ministry; and, when they will have fulfilled the end to which they had been uniquely determined by God, from dissolving the same and returning them to their elements; so that they might be after the likeness of garments, which Angels, being about to appear to men, put on and take off again.  β.  Again, the same difficulty in able to be moved against the body assumed by the Son of God in His Appearances.

b.  He says, that of this matter neither a trace nor a vestige is found in the Sacred Codex.  Response:  From this one may not argue for the negation of the matter itself in this case, since Scripture, written especially to advance the salvation of elect men, speaks quite sparingly of the nature of Angels.

c.  He adds, that God is not wont to shatter and reintegrate those things that He formed into bodies, even indeed without any reason.  Response:  As God forms bodies for human minds, which bodies, with the course of this life completed, are turned to dust; so He is able to form bodies for angelic minds, which, with their service accomplished, are dissolved.  Neither would God do this without reason; because after the accomplishment of the ministries those bodies would be of no use to the Angels, as it seems, but an impediment and obstacle.

d.  He proceeds:  Thus Angels would also be mortal, indeed would be said to die multiple times yearly, since death is nothing other than the separation of mind and body.  Response:  α.  It could be said that Angels are mortal, with the bodies in which they had appeared dissolved, if those bodies had been natural and proper to them, of which sort are those to our minds; but not if they are applied to them after the likeness of a garment, which they take off and lay aside.  β.  Moreover, the Son of God also ought to be said to have died as often as He appeared to the Fathers in an assumed human form.

Therefore, if the Angels themselves formed not for themselves Bodies of air or any other material at hand, especially accommodated to their services, now subtler, as fiery and shining, now crasser, as whatever other earthy substance:  certainly for them, being about to appear, God adapted such bodies as were especially suitable for their ministries at that time, if not always organic and altogether similar to human bodies, yet generally in external form recalling human bodies.

Objection 4:  The punishment of Hellish Fire prepared for Devils, Matthew 25:41.  Response:  α.  Fire, on account of the hellish Darkness mentioned at the same time, is able to be taken metaphorically for the most exquisite torments, as the joys of eternal life are wont to be set forth under symbols of the most pleasant things.  β.  As our minds are affected by our body, and most immediately indeed, as it is believed, by our animal and energetic spirits; so it is not able to be denied, that God is able to establish so close a tie between the Hellish Fire and the devilish Spirits, that the latter are eternally afflicted and tormented by it.

Objection 5:  We are ἰσαγγέλους/angel-like.  Response:  With respect to State, with a different consideration mentioned by Christ, not with respect to Essence:  or, if from ἰσαγγελίᾳ, an angel-like condition, it is able to be proven, that Angels have a Body conjoined with their Spirit, we are even now ἰσάγγελοι/angel-like.

There is no leisure now to go through the individual arguments, and to respond to all the reasonings of LÖERS.  The Illustrious ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section III, chapter I, pages 339-390, at length and painstakingly recalled each and every one of those for examination, and has solidly refuted them.  In the treatment of the multitude of things, the Most Illustrious LÖERS rashly ἐμβατεύει ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν, intrudes into those things which he has not seen:[13]  for example, that according to his opinion pure Minds are not able to act upon other minds, to communicate their thoughts with them, is, 1.  a circular argument, reasoning from the unknown mode of a thing to the denial of the thing itself; no less, 2.  should all communication and mutual incitement to celebrate the praises of God thus be denied to the souls of the deceased in heaven.  What he says, that Angels without bodies would be less perfect, as deaf, blind, etc., fails; if we but observe that they are perfect in their kind with the perfection determined by God for Angelic nature, neither does the privation of deafness, blindness, etc., properly apply to them, since the habit of sight and of hearing properly so called does not apply to them:  at the same time, they do arrive at the knowledge of things in their own manner, a manner not sufficiently evident to us.  Similarly he falsely supposes, that, if Angels are mere Spirits, they operate only by Intellect and Will, while they only think, and are at the same time destitute of executing Power, whereby they might also operate upon other bodies:  but, 1.  even if an angelic Spirit were joined to a body, that body will be obliged first to be moved by the spirit and to be led into operation, before it operates upon other bodies; and, 2.  when it appeared necessary to God, we find that a body was temporarily granted to Angels.  But, lest I go on at greater length, to this case it is agreeable to accommodate those things that our Most Illustrious AUTHOR has in his Dissertatione de Energumenis, with which I will put an end to this disquisition.  Those things are found in his Exercitationibus Textualibus XXIX, Part I, § 52:  If the Nature of Angels does not admit operation upon bodies, because it is incorporeal and not able to touch, either you must conclude that our spirit is corporeal, or deny what you yourself experience daily in the rational speech and motion of your members; indeed, it could not be concluded otherwise concerning God Himself, since He is not only a perfectly simple Spirit, but also completely incorporeal, and yet moves all things outside of Himself, bodies as much as spirits.  For vain is the Exception, that God by His infinite and independent power, and a soul by union with a body, are able to operate upon that, but not Angels, who are neither infinite nor united with bodies; if incorporeal nature, which sort belongs to the Soul and to God, on that account is not able to move a body.  And it is certainly amazing, that Men so audaciously determine concerning Angels, that they are not able to operate upon bodies, as if all that is present or wanting to them they have intimately examined; while nevertheless they are not able to attribute to themselves the same awareness of Angels and of their own mind, and themselves make the existence of Angels inaccessible to natural reason, and do not want us to be much instructed in sacred things concerning their nature; I will not now say, that a curated knowledge of their own mind is more boasted of than actually possessed.  At least, if we do not have a natural knowledge of Angels, and among those things that Scripture relates concerning them is their great power and manifold operation upon bodies, it is rightly to hold these things firmly, and not on account of our ignorance of the means of a thing to impugn impudently the thing itself.

[1] The Kabbalah is a set of secret, esoteric Rabbinic doctrines, handed down orally and based on a mystical interpretation of the Hebrew Scripture.  Zohar is one of the principal texts for Kabbalists.  It was probably written by Moses de León in the thirteenth century, but it has traditionally been attributed to Simeon ben Jochai, a second century Rabbi and mystic.

[2] Moses Maimonides, or Rambam (1135-1204), is reckoned by many to be the greatest Jewish scholar of his age.  In the Hebrew Scriptures, Rabbinic tradition, natural science, and Aristotelian philosophy, Maimonides demonstrates great command and almost equal facility.

[3] Isaac Abarbanel (1437-1508) was one of the great Spanish rabbis of his age and a stalwart opponent of Christianity, in spite of the danger.  He held fast to a literal interpretation of the Scripture, over against Maimonides’ philosophical allegorizing.  He commented on all of the Law and the Prophets.

[4] Conradus Vorstius (1569-1622) was a Dutch Arminian, condemned by the Synod of Dort and banished.  It is reported that he openly embraced Socinianism at the end of his life.

[5] Jean Le Clerc (1657-1736) was educated in Geneva, under the tutelage of Philippe Mestrezat and Francis Turretin, and ordained in circa 1680.  His sympathy for the theology of the Remonstrants made it impossible for him to continue in Geneva.  He settled as Professor of Philosophy at Amsterdam (1684-1731).  Le Clerc’s approach to Scripture was seminal in the development of what would become Higher Criticism.

[6] Fausto Paolo Sozzini, or Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), was the father of Socinianism, a rationalistic heresy (denying the Deity of Christ, the satisfaction theory of the atonement, etc.), an aberration of the Reformation.

[7] Johann Georg Walch (1693-1775) was a German Lutheran theologian, serving as Professor of Rhetoric and Poetry (1719-1724), and then as Professor of Theology (1724-1775), at Jena.

[8] Valentinus Smalcius (1572-1622) was a German Socinian theologian.  He translated the Racovian Catechism into German (probably having had a hand in the Catechism’s original composition), and the Racovian New Testament into Polish.

[9] Johann Christian Loers (1675-1743) was a German Reformed pastor and theologian, serving as Professor of Theology at Duisburg (1717-1743).

[10] Codex Alexandrinus is a fifth century manuscript of the Greek Bible, containing the Septuagint and New Testament.  For the most part, it is of the Alexandrian text-type.

[11] Codex Vaticanus is a fourth century Greek uncial of the Alexandrian text-type.  It became known to western scholars as a result of correspondence between Erasmus and Vatican librarians.

[12] Procopius (c. 500-c. 560) was a Byzantine historian.

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