Chapter XIV: Part 14

4. Whereas he saith that the notion of Spirit is as easy a notion, as any other whatsoever, it is granted, but is not at all to the purpose: for our inquiry need not be of the facility of a notion, but of the verity of it, that is, of the congruity and adequation of the notion and the thing from whence it is taken; otherwise though the notion be easy, yet without an adequate congruity to the thing it is meerly false. As for instance, when a melancholy person doth verily imagine himself to be changed into a Wolf or Dog, it is not only an easy notion, but also it is truly a notion, and yet a false notion, because there is no true congruity betwixt it and the thing from whence it is taken, the Body of the person so conceiving, being not at all changed into Wolf or Dog, but still retaining its humane shape and figure. And therefore the Lord _Verulam_ doth to this point speak truly and clearly in these words: _Itaq; si notiones ipsæ mentis (quæ verborum quasi anima sunt, & totius hujusmodi structuræ ac fabricæ basis) malè ac temere à rebus abstractæ, & vagæ, nec satis definitæ & circumscriptæ, deniq; multis modis vitiosæ fuerint, omnia ruunt._ And therefore the Doctor might very well have considered, whether these his new notions had been fitly and rightly drawn from the things, to which he doth so confidently affix them, before he had so boldly asserted them, which though they be truly his notions, that is, that he did think, conceive, and frame them, yet they are not truly abstracted from the things: And so he may be rather judged to be led by speculative and Philosophick Enthusiasm, than by the clear light of a sound understanding.

[Sidenote: _Reas. 5._]

[Sidenote: Job 11. 12.]

[Sidenote: 1 Kings 8. 27.]

5. And concerning his Tenent that the Idea or Notion of God is as easy as the notion of any thing else whatsoever, that the notion may be easy we grant; but whether it be true and adequate, there lies the question. For those old Hereticks that held that God had Eyes, Ears, Head, Hands and Feet and the like, had an easie notion of it, conceiving him to have humane members, but I hope the Doctor will not say that this notion of theirs was a notion truly drawn from the nature and being of God, because there is no corporeity in him at all. And it is and hath been the Tenent of all Orthodox Divines, Ancient, Middle and Modern, that God in his own nature and being is infinite and incomprehensible, and therefore there can no true and adequate notion of him, as being so, be duly and rightly gathered in the understanding of creatures; and so the Doctors position or notion must needs be Phantastry and imaginary Enthusiasm. For as there are many things in nature that in themselves are finite and comprehensible, that as he grants of naked essence or substance are utterly unconceivable to any of our faculties; much more must the being of God that is infinite and incomprehensible, which are attributes that are incommunicable, be utterly unconceivable to any of our faculties. And it is but the vain pride of Mans Head and Heart, thereby to magnifie his own abilities, whereas the Text doth pronounce this of him, _For vain man would be wise; though he be born like a wild ass colt_; that lifts him up to conceit that he can fathom and comprehend the Infinite and Almighty, whom the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain, and therefore cannot frame a true notion of him, whom perfectly he doth not understand nor comprehend, and the attributes of God are matters of Faith and not the weak deductions of humane reason.

[Sidenote: _Origin. sacr._ _l._ 2. _c._ 8. _p._ 233, 234.]

3. Those that seem to idolize humane abilities and carnal reason, have not only applied those so much magnified Engines to the discovery of created things, wherein they have effected so little, that sufficiently proclaims the invalidity of the instruments or the inauspicious application of them, or both, all the several sorts of Natural Philosophy hitherto found out, or used, being examined, coming far short of solving the _Phænomena_ of nature, when even the least animal or vegetable affords matter enough to puzzle and _nonplus_ the greatest Philosopher, so that we may justly complain with _Seneca_, that the greatest part of those things we know are the least part of those things we know not; These engines (I say) though proving ineffectual to find out the true notions and knowledge of natural things, have also (like the fiction of the Gyants) notwithstanding invaded Heaven, and taken upon them to discover and determine of Celestials, wherein it is in a manner totally blind, or sees but with an Owl-like vision. For indeed the deciding of this point must be taken from the Divine authority of the Scriptures, and the clear deductions that may be drawn from thence; for this is that clear light, that we ought to follow, and not the Dark-lanthorn of Mans blind, frail and weak reason, for it is _a sure word of Prophecie whereunto_ it is good _to take heed_, and not to _vain Philosophy, old Wives Fables, or opposition of Sciences falsly so called_. And therefore we shall conclude this point here concerning the corporeity or incorporeity of Angels with that Christian and learned position of Dr. _Stillingfleet_ in these words: “But although Christianity be a Religion which comes in the highest way of credibility to the minds of Men, although we are not bound to believe any thing but what we have sufficient reason to make it appear that it is revealed by God, yet that any thing should be questioned whether it be of Divine revelation, meerly because our reason is to seek, as to the full and adequate conception of it, is a most absurd and unreasonable pretence.”

[Sidenote: Gen. 2. 7.]

[Sidenote: Eccles. 3. 21.]

4. In handling this point of the corporeity or incorporeity of Angels, we do here once for all exclude and except forth of our discourse and arguments the humane and rational Soul as not at all to be comprised in these limits, and that especially for these reasons. 1. Because the humane Soul had a peculiar kind of Creation differing from the Creation of other things, as appeareth in the words of the Text. _And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul._ Upon which the note of _Tremellius_ and _Junius_ is, _anima verò hominis spiritale quiddam est, & divinum_. 2. Because I find _Solomon_ the wisest of Men making this question: _who knoweth the spirit of man, that goeth upward: and the spirit of the beast, that goeth downward to the earth?_ 3. Because it is safer to believe the nature of the Soul to be according to the Analogy of Faith, and the concurrent opinion of the learned, than to sift such a deep question by our weak understanding and reason. So having premised these things, and left this as a general exception and caution, we shall proceed to the matter intended in this order.

[Sidenote: John 4. 24.]

[Sidenote: 2 Cor. 3. 17.]

1. We lay it down for a most certain and granted truth, that God simply and absolutely is only a most simple spirit, in whom there is no corporeity or composition at all, and what other things soever that are called or accounted spirits are but so in a relative and respective consideration, and not in a simple and absolute acceptation. And this is the unanimous Tenent of the Fathers, Schoolmen and all other Orthodox Divines, agreeing with the plain and clear words of the Scripture, as, _God is a spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth_. And again: _Now the Lord is that spirit, and where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty_. Therefore we shall lay down this following proposition.

2. That Angels being created substances, are not simply and absolutely incorporeal, but if they be by any called or accounted spirits, it can but be in a relative and respective sense, but that really and truly they are corporeal. And this we shall labour to make good not only by shewing the absurdities of that opinion of their being simply spiritual, but in laying open the unintelligibility of that opinion, and by answering the most material objections.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 1._]

1. And first to begin at the lowest step, Body is a thing that affecteth the senses most plainly and feelingly; for though many bodies are so pure, as the air, æther, steams of the Loadstone, and many other steams of bodies, that they escape the sight of our eyes, yet are they either manifest to our feeling, or otherwise made manifest by some sensible effect, operation, or the like; yet for all this, the intrinsick nature of body as such is utterly unknown unto us, for when we speak of the extension of body, as its Characteristical property, we do but conceive of its superficial dimensions, its internal nature _quatenus Corpus_, being utterly unknown unto us; it being a certain truth, that _Quidditates rerum, non sunt cognoscibiles_; and as D^r _Moore_ granteth, the naked essence or substance of a thing is utterly unconceiveable to any of our faculties. From whence we argue, _à minori ad majus_, that if the substance of a body, whose affections and modifications do fully incur into, and work upon our senses, be utterly unconceiveable to any of our senses, much more of necessity must the substance of a Created spirit, conceived as immaterial and incorporeal, be utterly unconceiveable to any of our faculties, because it hath no effects, operations, or modifications that can or do operate upon our senses.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 2._]

2. And as we know not the intrinsick nature of body, so also we are ignorant of the highest degree of the purity and spiritualness of bodies, nor do we know where they end, and therefore cannot tell where to fix the beginning of a meer spiritual and immaterial being. For there are of Created bodies in the Universe, so great a diversity, and of so many sorts and degrees of purity and fineness, one exceeding another, that we cannot assign which of them cometh nearest to incorporeity, or the nature of spirit. And many of these being compared with other more gross and palpable bodies, may be and are called and accounted spirits, though notwithstanding they be all Corporeal, and but under a gradual difference. So the vital part in the bodies of men are by Physicians called Spirits in relation to the bones, ligaments, musculous flesh and the like; nay even in respect of the blood, lymphatick humor, lacteal juyce, or the _succus nutritius nervosus_, and yet still are contained within the limits of body, and are as really Corporeal as any of the rest, and so are the air and æther. And those visible species of other bodies that are carried in the air and represented unto our Eyes, by which we distinguish the shape, colour, site and similitude of one body from another, though by the Schools passed over with that sleight title of qualities, as though they were either simply nothing, or incorporeal things, are notwithstanding really Corporeal, else they could not incur into, nor affect the visive sensories: And these do in the air intersect and pass through one another (as may be optically demonstrated) without Confusion, Commixion, or discerpsion, and may comparatively be accounted spirital and incorporeal, though really they be not so. But what shall we say to that wonderful body, Image or _Idolum_ of our selves, and other things that we behold in a mirrour or looking-glass? must this be a meer nothing, or an absolute incorporeal thing? surely not. For it is as really a body as any in the Universe, though of the greatest purity and fineness of any that we know; and how near it approaches to the nature of spirit, is very difficult (if not impossible) to determine; for if it did exist when the body or subject from whence it floweth were removed, it might rationally be taken for a Spirit, and with far more probable ground than many things else that have been vainly supposed to be Spirits. And that these visible shapes of things, and this Image in the glass, are not meerly imaginary nothings, but Corporeal Figures and steams, is most manifest, because they vanish when the body or subject is removed, because that _nullius entis nulla est operatio, & Incorporeum non incurrit in sensus_, and because they would pass through the glass, but only for the foil or _Bractea_ laid on the otherside, by which the Image is reflected. So that if we have bodies of so great purity, and near approach unto the nature of spirit, we cannot tell where spirit must begin, because we know not where the purest bodies end.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 3._]

[Sidenote: The Immortal. of the Soul. _Axiom._ 2. _p._ 6.]

[Sidenote: _De natura substant. Energetic._ _c._ 27. _p._ 379.]

3. D^r _Moore_ maketh substance to be the genus, and spirit and body to be the two species, so that body and spirit are of one generical Identity, and so there must of necessity some certain specific difference betwixt them be assigned and proved, or else the division is vitious, and the property of spirit not proved, and so their opinion of spirit falls totally to the ground. For we affirm (and shall prove) that though a difference be imagined and supposed, yet it was never yet sufficiently proved, for _omnia supposita, non sunt vera_, otherwise all the impossible figments and vain _Chimæras_ of melancholy and doting persons might pass for true Oracles: but it is one thing truly to understand, and another thing to imagine and fancy what indeed is not, nor ever was. And though the supposition seem never so probable and like, yet it will but at the best infer the possibility of such an imagined difference, but not prove it really to be so, and therefore here we shall retort the Doctors Axiom against him, which is this: “Whatsoever is unknown to us, or is known but as meerly possible, is not to move us or determine us any way, or make us undetermined; but we are to rest in the present light and plain determination of our own faculties.” Now that a spirit is penetrable and indiscerpible, may be imagined as possible to the fancies of some, but cannot be clearly intelligible to any sober mind; for to imagine, and to understand, are faculties that are very different, and however if such a difference be conceived as possible (which cannot enter the narrow gate of my Intellect) yet the difference of being penetrable and indiscerpible, is not to move us to determine that a spirit hath those distinct properties from bodies, because they are but known to us as meerly possible. And therefore that these two differences of penetrability and indiscerpibility assigned by D^r _Moore_, are not sufficiently proved to be so, we shall give these reasons. 1. If bodies in the ultimate act of nature can penetrate themselves and one another, as Helmont and D^r _Glisson_ do strongly labour to prove, then penetrability is not the proper difference of spirit from body, because then common to them both. 2. But if it be taken for a truth (and the one of necessity must be true) that bodies do not, or can possibly penetrate themselves or one another, as the common tenent holdeth, and seemeth most agreeable to verity, for it is simply unintelligible and impossible to conceive, that two Cubes (suppose of Marble or Metal) should penetrate one another, and yet but to have the dimensions of one, and to possess no greater space than the one did formerly fill: And if this be impossible and unintelligible in respect of bodies, whose properties, aptitudes, affections and modifications are apparent to our senses, then must it be more impossible and unintelligible in substances supposed to be meerly incorporeal, because they must needs be more pure and perfect, and therefore less subject to such unconceiveable affections; and however, it can be no wayes known to our faculties or cognitive powers, that they have any such specifical property or affection. 3. As it is not any way manifest to any of our senses, nor can be proved by any sound deductions of reason, so it cannot be manifested to be any innate notion shining from the Intellect it self, and we ought not to take adventitious ones instead of those that are innate, nor fictitious ones for either, but to make a due distinction of each of them one from another. 4. Neither is indiscerpibility a proper difference of a spiritual substance from a corporeal one, because the visible species of things do in the air intersect one another, and suffer not discerpibility: and that these are bodies is manifest, because they affect the senses; and therefore that which is a property of some bodies cannot be the proper difference to distinguish a spirit from a body. 5. This is only an arbitrary and feigned supposition, and cannot be proved either by the testimony of any of the senses, by sound reason, or innate notions; and what is or cannot be proved by some of these (according to his own position) ought to be rejected. And therefore as indiscerpibility is no proper difference of a spirit from a body, no more is penetrability, which can no more be in a spiritual substance, than either in discreet quantity one can be two, or two one, or in continuate quantity one inch can be two, or two can become one. D^r _Glisson_ from his much admired _Suarius_ the great Weaver of fruitless Cobwebs, hath devised another difference of spirit from body which he thus layeth down, as we give it in this English. “I assign (he saith) a twofold difference betwixt the substance of matter and that of spirits. The first is taken from the substantial (_à substantiali materiæ mole_) heap or weight of the matter. For I (he saith) besides the actual and accidental extension, do attribute to the matter this substantial heap or weight which is denied to spirits. But the sign of this heap or weight is, that if the matter in the same space be duplicated, triplicated, or centuplicated, that it will be made more dense twofold, threefold, or an hundred fold. And concludeth thus: I answer (he saith) that matter and spirit in this do agree betwixt themselves, that they both are finite, and from thence that they have this common, that neither of them can reduce themselves into a littleness that is infinite, or into an infinite magnitude. Therefore the difference betwixt them doth not consist in this; but in this, that a spirit whether it be contracted or dilated, is not made more dense or rare; but on the contrary, matter, whether it be contracted or expanded, is made more dense, or more rare.” To which we return this responsion. 1. It is usual with men, when by their wills and fancies they would maintain an opinion that is weak and groundless, finding they cannot clearly perform it, to bring in some strange, obscure or equivocal word, thereby to make a flourish, though they prove nothing: So here this learned person to make a shew to prove the difference of spirit doth assign _moles substantialis_ as peculiar to body, but not to spirit; but what is to be understood by _moles_, he might know his own meaning, but I am sure there are few others that do or can understand it, and therefore is but a devised subterfuge to stumble and blind mens intellects, and not to prove the thing intended. 2. If by the word _moles_ he intend weight or gravity (and what else it can signifie is not intelligible) then it will not be a difference betwixt body and spirit, because gravity and levity are differences of bodies in respect of one another, and therefore can be none as he assignes it. 3. To assert that a spirit when contracted or dilated is not made more dense or more rare, but that matter whether it be contracted or expanded, is made more dense or more rare, is easily spoken, but not so easily proved: and rude assertions without sound proof, are of no validity, and may with as good reason be denied and rejected, as affirmed or received. 4. We have no density in bodies but in respect of the paucity and parvity of the pores, so that less of another body is contained in them, and that is accounted rare that hath many or greater, and so containeth more of another body in them, and are qualities or modifications that only belong unto bodies, and not at all unto spirits, and is but precariously taken up by the Doctor without any proof or demonstration at all. 5. If spirits cannot expand themselves into an infinite space, nor contract themselves into an infinite littleness, then where are bounds and limits of this contraction and expansion, or how is it proved that they can do either? seeing they are properties and affections of bodies and matter, and never were proved to be peculiar to spirits.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 4._]

4. Those that are much affected to and zealous for experimental Philosophie, do often run into that extream, as utterly to condemn and throw away all the ancient Scholastick Learning, as though there were nothing in it of verity or worth: But this is too severe and dissonant from truth, as might be made manifest in many of their Maximes; but we shall only instance in one as pertinent to our present purpose, which is this: _Imaginatio non transcendit Continuum_. And this if we perpend it seriously, is a most certain and transcendant truth; for when we come to cogitate and conceive of a thing, we cannot apprehend it otherwise than as continuate and corporeal; for what other notions soever we make of things, they are but adventitious, arbitrary, and fictitious, for even _non entia ad modum entium concipiuntur_. And therefore those that pretend that Angels are meerly incorporeal, must needs err, and put force upon their own faculties, which cannot conceive a thing that is not continuate and corporeal: But if they will trust their own Cogitations and faculties rightly disposed, and not vitiated, then they must believe that Angels are Corporeal, and not meerly and simply spirits, for absolutely nothing is so but God only.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 5._]

[Sidenote: _Vid. Rob. Fludd. utri. Cosm. Hist._ _Tract._ 1. _l._ 4. _c._
2. _p._ 110.]

5. If the Angelical nature were simply and absolutely spiritual and incorporeal, then they would be of the same essential Identity with God, which is simply impossible. For the Angels were not Created forth of any part of Gods Essence, for then he should be divisible, which he is not, nor can be, his Essence being simplicity, unity, and Identity it self, and therefore the Angels must of necessity be of an essence of Alterity, and different from the essence of God. Now God being a simple, pure, and absolute spirit in the Identity of his essence, if the Angels were simply and absolutely spiritual and incorporeal, then they must be of the same essence with him, which is absurd and impossible; and therefore they have Alterity in them, and so of necessity must be Corporeal, and not simply and meerly spiritual. And that as much as we contend for here is granted by D^r _Moore_ in these words: “For (he saith) I look upon Angels to be as truly a compound Being consisting of soul and body, as that of men and brutes.” Whereby he plainly asserteth their Composition, and so their Alterity, and therefore that they must needs have an _Internum_ and _externum_, as the learned and Christian Philosopher D^r _Fludd_ doth affirm in these words: _Certum est igitur inesse ipsis (scilicet Angelis) aliud, quod agit, aliud autem, quod patitur; nec verò illud secundùm quod agunt, aliud quam actus esse poterit, qui forma dicitur; neq; etiam illud secundum quod patiuntur, est quicquam præter potentiam, hæc autem materia appellatur_.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 6._]

[Sidenote: _Serm._ 6 _sup. Cantic._ _p._ 505.]

[Sidenote: _Lib._ 5.]

6. Therefore to conclude, these arguments do sufficiently and evidently prove that Angels are either Corporeal, or have bodies united unto them, which is all one to our purpose whether way soever it be taken. To which only we shall add these authorities; and first S. _Bernard_ tells us thus much rendered into English. “Therefore (he saith) as we render unto God alone true immortality, so also incorporeity, because he alone doth so far transcend the universal Corporeal nature of spirits, that he doth not stand need of any body whatsoever, in any operation whatsoever, being content with only a spiritual nodd (or motion) when he will, to perform whatsoever he pleaseth. Therefore only that majesty of his, is that, which neither for himself, nor for another, hath need of the help of a Corporeal instrument, by which omnipotent will he is immediately present at every work.” And that of _Damascen_ is full to the purpose, which is this: “That Angels _quantum ad nos_, are said to be incorporeal and immaterial: but compared to God, are found to be Corporeal and material.” And of this opinion besides were _Tertullian_, S. _Augustin_, _Nazianzen_, _Beda_, and many others, as may be seen in the learned Writings of _Zanchy_ upon this subject: with whose words we shall shut up this particular: _Certum enim est, ex iis quæ scripturæ tradunt de Angelis, probabiliorem esse Patrum sententiam, quàm Scholasticorum: utram tamen sequaris, non multum peccaveris, nec proptereà inter Hæreticos haberi poteris_.

And on the otherside, if they be holden to be simply and absolutely incorporeal, then these absurdities must of necessity follow.

1. If Angels be simply incorporeal, then they can cause no Physical or local motion at all, because nothing can be moved but by contact, and that must either be by immediate or virtual contact, for the Maxime is certain, _Quicquid agit, agit vel mediatione suppositi_, as when ones hand doth immediately touch a thing and so move it; _vel mediatione virtutis_, as when a man with a rod or a line, doth draw a thing forth of the water, both of these do require a Corporeal contact, that is, that the superficies of the body moving or drawing, must either mediately or immediately touch the superficies of the body to be moved or drawn. But that which is absolutely incorporeal hath no superficies at all, and therefore can make no contact either mediate or immediate; and therefore Angels if simply incorporeal, can cause no Physical or local motion at all.

[Sidenote: The Immortal. _l._ 1. _c._ 10. _p._ 72.]

[Sidenote: _Princip. Phil._ _Part._ 2. _p._ 40.]

2. If Angels be absolutely incorporeal, then they cannot be contained or circumscribed in place, and consequently can perform no operation in Physical things. To which if they answer with _Thomas Aquinas_: _Quod circumscribi terminis localibus est proprium Corporum, sed circumscribi terminis essentialibus, est commune cuilibet Creaturæ, tam corporali, quam spirituali_; This aiery distinction might have taken place, if _Aquinas_ had shewed us what essential terms and limitations are, but of this we have no proof at all, and what was never proved may justly be denied. For what a definitive place is, was never yet defined, neither can we possibly conceive an Idea or notion of any such thing, but only as we may make a _Chimæra_ or figment of that which never was nor is. For though we may apprehend that they are not circumscribed in place, as gross bodies are, yet it is not to be doubted, but that they move from place to place, and do so consist in some place, that they occupy a certain space of place, and this is most certain, if we believe (as we ought) those things which the Scriptures do declare concerning the mission and motion of Angels. And therefore notwithstanding this frivolous and feigned distinction, we may conclude with _Theodoret_, _Angelorum naturam esse finitam, & circumscriptam, eóq; opus habere loco_. Neither doth that avail to solve the business, and make this a good distinction, which is brought by D^r _Moore_, to wit, that there are two acceptions of place, the one being imaginary space, the other that place is the concave superficies of one body immediately environing another body, and that therefore there being these two acceptions of place (he concludeth) that the distinction of being there _Circumscriptive & definitive_, is an allowable distinction. But by the Doctors leave we must affirm, that what he saith is not allowable, and that for these reasons. 1. Because imaginary space hath no existence in nature, but only in the fancy of the Imaginant, _& entia rationalia, non sunt entia naturalia ex parte rerum existentia._ 2. Because it is a certain truth which _Des Cartes_ hath taught us, to wit: That the names of place or space, do not signifie any thing different from a body that is said to be in a place, but only do design the magnitude, figure and site of it amongst other bodies. And that this site may be determined, we ought to have respect unto some other bodies, which we may consider as immoveable. And as we respect divers bodies, we may say that the same thing at the same time doth change place and not change place. As when a Ship is carried in the Sea, he who sitteth in the Ship doth alwayes remain in one place, if respect be had to the parts of the Ship, betwixt which parts he keepeth the same site: And the same person doth continually change place, if respect be had to the shores, because he continually receedeth from some shores, and cometh more near unto other. 3. Neither is this distinction good, because as the same Author tells us: _Non etiam in re differunt spatium, sive locus internus, substantia corporea in eo contenta, sed tantum in modo, quo à nobis concipi soleat_. 4. D^r _Moore_ granteth that spirits are substances and have extension, and we affirm that nothing can be so but what is Corporeal, and consequently must be in place circumscriptively, and therefore the fancy of a definitive place, is meerly a fictitious foppery, without ground or reason.

[Sidenote: _Object. 1._]

[Sidenote: 1 Timoth. 6. 16.]

[Sidenote: Hebr. 1. 3.]

[Sidenote: 1 Tim. 6. 13.]

[Sidenote: Job 34. 14, 15.]

[Sidenote: _De Lithias._ _l._ _c._ 8. _p._ 70.]

And now let us examine the objections that are usually brought against this opinion, the strongest of which is to this purpose; that if Angels be Corporeal, then of necessity they must be mortal, alterable and destructible; to which I answer. 1. Because no Creaturely nature is or can be immortal, _per se & ab intrinsecâ & propriâ naturâ_, for God only is so as saith the Text, ὁ μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν, _Who only hath immortality_; Therefore the Angels whether corporeal or incorporeal, are not immortal, neither by themselves or their intrinsick nature, either (as the Schools speak) _à parte ante, vel à parte post_, because God only is so, exclusively considered in regard of any Creature, and so the objection is of no force. 2. The Corporeity of Angels doth not at all hinder their immortality _à parte post_, for as God is only immortal in respect of Essence, Eternity, Infinity and Independency, so Angels nor any Creatures, are immortal in that point or respect, but only in regard of their dependency upon God, who by his conservative power doth keep them by Christ, that for the time or duration to come, they shall not die, perish, or be annihilated; and this he can and doth as well perform if they be corporeal as spiritual, even as he doth preserve and conserve the bodies of the Saints in their Graves until the general Resurrection, and in the World to come doth keep them in immortality; though they be changed and made spiritual bodies, yet they remain bodies still. For it is he _that sustaineth all things by the power of his word_; And it is he _that doth vivifie or quicken all things: and if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath, all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust_. So that the objection is of no validity, because no Creature is kept in perpetual duration, _à parte post, ab intrinsecâ naturâ, sed ex causis conservantibus_, which is the goodwill, benignity, and blessed influence of _Jehovah_, and not from any internal creaturely power. 3. Every spiritual and incorporeal substance that is created, is as annihilable by the prime power that created it, as is a Corporeal created substance. And on the contrary, a Corporeal or material substance is no more capable of annihilation by any power or efficiency of second Causes, than an incorporeal and spiritual substance is; and therefore whether Angels be simply incorporeal, or that they be Corporeal, it neither maketh for nor against their immortality, which consists only in the benign emanation of the Divine conservative power of the Almighty: And therefore doth profound _Bradwardine_ draw that invincible, and undeniable Corollary of verity, _Quod necesse est Deum servare quamlibet Creaturam immediatiùs quacunq; causa creata_. 4. Though the most of the bodies that are known unto us be divisible, alterable and discerpible, or dissipable in respect of our conceptions of them, yet actually we may find many bodies in nature that are not, nor ever were dissipated or dissevered _secundum totum_, though there may be alteration in their superficial parts, as the Earth, the Sun, Moon, the rest of the Planets, and those great and glorious bodies that we call Stars; so that for the duration of bodies _à parte post_ we can conclude little of certainty. And as there are bodies that _secundum suum totum_, are not severed or dissipated, so there are some bodies that though they may suffer division and dissipation into smaller parts, yet do those parts though most minute, suffer no real transmutation, but remain of the same Homogeneous nature they were before, as is most manifest in Silver dissolved in _Aqua fortis_, wherein though it be so severed and dispersed, that it appear not at all unto the eye, yet may it be from thence recovered and redintegrated into its own nature as it was before. And also the Masters of the more abstruse Philosophy affirm to us upon their own certain experience, that though metallick _Mercury_ may be divided into insensible and invisible Atomes, yet still it retains the nature of metallic _Mercury_, and that thus _Helmont_ tells us: _Si non vidissem argentum vivum eludere quamcunq; artificum operam, adeò, quod aut totum avolet adhuc integrum, aut totum in igne permaneat, atq; utrolibet modo, servet impermutabilem sui ac primitivam identitatem, identitatisq; homogeneitatem anaticam: dicerem artem non esse veram, quæ vera est, sine mendacio, atq; longè verissima_. So also there are bodies which although they suffer division and separation by some other bodies dissevering of them, yet by motion of coition they soon close and redintegrate themselves, having thereby suffered no detriment at all, as is most apparent in the pure body of the Æther, the visible species of things, the images in a Looking-glass and in shadows, which are all bodies. So that seeing bodies, no more than Spirits to be annihilable by second causes, and that there are some bodies that are not dissipated _secundum totum_, and that there are others that though they are separable into more minute particles, yet do they remain in Analytical and Homogeneous Identity, and that there are others that though they be actually for a small moment divided, yet they do instantaneously coalesce, and by coition unite themselves; yet we may therefore rationally conclude, that corporeity, _quatenus_ such, doth not at all take away immortality _à parte post_, because bodies as well as spirits may be kept in immortality by the conservative concourse of Divine Power, and so the objection utterly falls to the ground.

[Sidenote: _Object. 2._]

[Sidenote: Psal. 104. 4.]

[Sidenote: Heb. 1. 7.]

2. There is only another argument that the persons of the other opinion have urged, such as _Aquinas_, and the rest of the Scholastick rabble, to wit, the Text in the Psalm, which is this: _Who maketh his Angels spirits: his ministers a flaming fire_. From whence they would positively conclude that they are spirits, and absolutely incorporeal; but fail of their purpose for these clear reasons. 1. The Text there cannot be rationally understood of their creation, or of their creaturely nature, but of their offices and administrations, because the word used there is not from בָּרָא to create, or form forth of nothing, but from עָשָא _fecit_, that is by ordering them in their offices and ministrations. And again the word רוּחַ doth not alwaies or of necessity signifie an incorporeal thing but that which is a body, as the winds, and so doth _Luther_ and diverse others render it, and it is commonly attributed to beasts as well as Men, as in that of _Solomon_, _Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?_ Where the word spirit, which is all one in the Hebrew, is attributed to beasts as well as to men, but no man (I suppose) will believe that the spirit of a beast is simply incorporeal, and therefore by the word spirit in the Psalm cannot necessarily be understood a simple incorporeal substance, and therefore the consequence is not necessary.

[Sidenote: _Metaphys._ _l._ 2. _c._ 4. _p._ 222.]

[Sidenote: _Vid. August._]

[Sidenote: _Tom._ 2. _l. de spir. & an._ _c._ 8.]

But the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews must needs be taken for the best Expositor of these words of the Psalmist, who doth quote them only for this purpose, to prove that Christ in dignity and office is far above the Angels who are all ordered to serve and obey him, and are by their offices all but ministring spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of Salvation. By which it is manifest that this place is to be understood of their ministration and offices, and not of their nature or substances. 2. They can no more be meerly and literally said to be spirits, understanding spirit to intend an absolute incorporeal substance, than his ministers can be literally understood to be flaming fire, they must either be both literally true, which is absolutely absurd, or else those words must have a metaphorical interpretation, as they may and must have, and there is no inconvenience in that exposition. For as the winds, which is but a strong motion of the air, and the shining or flaming fire, are two of the most quick, agile and operative agents that are known unto us in nature, so the Angels and Christs Ministers are strong, quick and most nimble and powerful in performing their offices and administrations. Therefore we shall conclude this as _Scheibler_ doth from S. _Augustine_: _Nihil enim invisibile & incorporeum naturâ credendum est, præter solum Deum, qui ex eo incorporeus & invisibilis dicitur, quia infinitus, & incircumscriptus est, & simplex, & sibi omnibus modis sufficiens se ipso, & per seipsum: omnis verò rationalis creatura corporea est, Angeli & omnes Virtutes corporeæ sunt, licet non subsistunt in carne_.

[Sidenote: Judges 13. 20.]

[Sidenote: Dan. 3. 24, 25.]

[Sidenote: Luke 24. 39.]

Now though we have sufficiently proved that they are corporeal, that is, that they have bodies naturally united unto them, and so have an _internum_, or moving power, and an _externum_, or a part moved, that is, as Dr. _Moore_ confesseth, a spiritual and incorporeal part, and a corporeal part or vehicle, yet to assign what kind of bodies they have, or what proper difference there is betwixt their substance and other corporeal substances is no easie matter to determine. Only we shall give two differences whereby they are distinguished from other substances that are corporeal, and that as the Scripture holdeth them forth unto us. 1. The first differential distinction is, that their bodies do not suffer, or are altered or dissipated, by the most strong, and operative sublunary agent that is known unto us: Amongst which we have none of greater force and activity than our culinary fire, yet it is manifest that that Element did not work upon nor burn the Angel that appeared to _Manoah_ and his Wife, _who ascended in the flame of the altar_, and was not touched, or altered at all, which plainly sheweth that his body was not to be wrought upon by the fierce flame of sublunary fire, and he is there called the Angel of _Jehovah_. This also is confirmed by that which _Nebuchadnezzar_ saw, and confessed, that though _there were three men only cast into the fiery furnace_, yet he saw a fourth (which by all the learned is judged to be an Angel) _and they had no hurt upon them_, that is, the fire did not work upon their bodies to burn, alter, or consume them. So that in this the bodies of Angels differ from the most of other bodies, because they do not suffer by sublunary fire, the most violent agent that we know. And this must needs rationally be taken to be proper unto Angels in regard of their created natures, and not as superadded by a Divine and Almighty Power, as in some other cases it may be granted. 2. A second difference is, that what bodies soever spirits or Angels have, or appear in, they have not flesh and bones such as Christ had in his true and numerical body in which he did appear after his resurrection, which was the same individual body which he had before he was crucified. But though they have bodies, yet to feeling and tangibility they have not flesh and bones as humane bodies have, which have a renitency and resistibility to our touch, which their bodies have not, being as it were ethereal, airy and shadowy; and yielding and giving way to the touch, and though to be divided and separated, yet, maybe, do as soon close by counition, and so suffer nothing at all by that division.

[Sidenote: _Saints Everlast. rest_, _c._ 7. _part_ 2. _p._ 255.]

[Sidenote: _Sup. Cantic._ _p._ 504.]

Concerning the properties of their bodies it seems to have been the opinion of _Tertullian_ (as I find him quoted by Mr. _Baxter_) that they had thin pure and aereal bodies which they could dilate and expand, condense and contract at their pleasures, and so frame them into diverse and sundry shapes; his words are these: _Dæmones sua hæc corpora contrahunt, & dilatant, ut volunt: sicut etiam lumbrici, & alia quædam insecta_. So we see that some worms and insects will extend themselves into a vast length and smallness, that they can pass through a very small hole, or passage, and again contract themselves into a great bulk, drawing in the length, and increasing the breadth and thickness, which though it still be the same corporeal substance, and in general doth, in what figure soever it be brought into, but retain the same dimensions in respect of place, yet in regard of accidental shape or figure it may change the dimensions in respect of one another, as one while to be more in longitude, and less in breadth and depth, and sometimes more in breadth and depth, and less in length. So may the bodies of Angels by contraction and dilatation, sundry wayes alter their dimensions, and consequently their shapes and figures, and all this according to the motion and act of their own wills, so that still there must be limits to these acts of distention and contraction, that they can do neither in an infinite degree as either to become an insensible and indivisible prick, nor to be infinitely expanded or dilated, and this opinion hath sufficiency of rationality and intelligibility in it. Of this very point S. _Bernard_ speaketh thus modestly: _Videntur Patres de hujusmodi diversa sensisse, nec mihi perspicuum est undè alterutrum doceam: & nescire me fateor_. And though we cannot punctually enumerate, nor assign the certain properties of their bodies, yet we may rationally conclude thus much. 1. That they being creatures ordained for high and noble ends must needs have their bodies and organs fitted and suitably proportioned to fulfil and accomplish those ends, as doth most manifestly appear by the bodies and organs of all other creatures, which are most wisely and fitly framed by the Almighty, according to the several ends and uses they were created and ordained for. 2. It is most probable that considering there are creatures that as their wills are moved by their passions and affections can alter the colours and figures of their own bodies, as is manifest in worms, and in the colours of the Chameleon, as it is asserted by the experience of the learned Physician _Dominicus Panarolus_, so from the less to the more, that Angels have bodies of far more excellency to perform their ministrations in, than those gross and terrestrial bodies have that are here below. And it is no small wonder to observe our ordinary _Gallus Turcicus vel Gallopavus_, how quiet and demissly sometimes he goes, and then again upon the suddain by some emotion of spirit, how will his train be advanced and extended, his barbles swelled and puffed up, and the appendicle that comes over the bill or _rostrum_, be extended or contracted at the pleasure of the animal: And much more to consider the quick and suddain change of the colours of both those parts, as sometimes to a whitishness, or an ash-colour, sometimes purple, sometimes blewish, and sometimes pure red, so quick a motion that creature can give to the spirits and blood, that they can so quickly alter and change, not only the colours, but also the magnitude. And much more may we rationally believe that Angels can alter and change the figure and colour of their bodies according to the ministrations they are imployed about.

[Sidenote: Mark 12. 25.]

[Sidenote: 1 Cor. 15. 44.]

3. The Scripture informeth us that in or at _the resurrection, the bodies of men shall be as the Angels that are in heaven_, _sicut Angeli_: Now this Analogy, comparison, or assimilation, would be altogether false if Angels had no bodies at all, but were meerly incorporeal; then it would follow, that the bodies after the resurrection were made meer Spirits, and so ceased to be bodies, which is false according to the doctrine of S. _Paul_, who sheweth us plainly that after the resurrection they are changed in qualities into σώματα πνευματικὰ _spiritual bodies, for there is a natural Soul_ or Animal _body_, and so likewise, _there is a spiritual body_. From whence we necessarily conclude that Angels have Bodies, and that they are pure spiritual ones.

Now we shall come to the other point intended in this Chapter, that is to shew that the opinion of Angels assuming bodies of the Elements here below, is a meer figment, as must of necessity follow if this be a truth that we have proved, to wit, that they have bodies; for then assuming of other bodies must needs be in vain and to no purpose: but we shall also shew the weakness and folly of that Tenent by these positive reasons following.

1. Those that maintain the assumption of bodies dare not affirm that they are so invested with those bodies, as are humane souls with their bodies: for then there must be vital union, which cannot be but by Divine Ordination: But it doth not any where either by Scripture, or sound rational consequence, appear that either God appointed, or gave power to Angels to assume to themselves bodies of what shape they pleased, or that he ordained a vital union, betwixt the Angels and those bodies they are supposed to assume either by Creation, or Generation, and therefore if they did assume any such bodies it must but be as we put on and off our Garments, or as Players put on and off their Perukes, Vizards and Garments according to the several things or persons they intend to represent and personate.

2. But the great question will be, who are the Taylors that shape and frame them these vestments? what! must it be themselves that shape and figurate these bodies, as snails are supposed to frame and make their shells and houses? Surely not, because if they be simply incorporeal, then they can make no contact with corporeal matter, and without a corporeal contact there can be no alteration nor organization of matter, and consequently, they cannot frame or shape themselves such vestments; neither can any other actor or agent be assigned that can frame them, and therefore the Tenent is a most ridiculous figment. And again if they should have such solid bodies framed of the inferior Elements, as the body of a Serpent, as the Witchmongers do suppose the Devil assumed when he deceived _Evah_, and such bodies as Demons are vainly supposed to assume to carry the heavy bodies of Men and Women in the air, then those bodies must needs be of that solidity and compactness that they cannot suddainly be wasted and dissipated, and then doubtlesly we should find them sometimes, as we do the sloughs, _Exuvias_, or skins of Snakes, for they could not be consumed in a moment. And it were horrid to suppose that God should instantaneously create them, and as suddainly dissipate and waste them. So that in verity there is nothing of certitude, but it may be looked at as a Chimera and a Poetical Fable.

3. And if the Angels had not such bodily organs wherein they could move, walk, speak, and perform other such actions withal, before they assumed or crept into such vestments, their being inclosed and invested with them and in them would no more fit and inable them to walk or speak in them, than would an hollow Image inable a lame Man to walk, or a dumb Man to speak that were inclosed in them. Therefore (suppose) as the Witchmongers hold, that the Devil should appear to a Witch in the assumed shape of a Cat, Dog, Foal or such like, and walk and talk with him or her, if before that assumption of such a shape, the Devil could not walk and speak, the having crept into such a vestment would no more inable him to speak, than a dead Cat in an empty hogshead, or wind pent in an empty bladder.

CHAP. XI.

_Of the Knowledge, and Power of faln Angels._

These evil Angels of which we treat, did doubtless, before they left their habitation and did not keep their first estate, participate of the same knowledge and power, that those Angels still retain that did not fall into that defection and rebellion; so that our disquisition must be, what knowledge and power they have lost, and what they still do retain, and this we may consider in these particulars. 1. That there are many things of which they are totally ignorant and nescient. 2. The knowledge that they have is dark and confused.

[Sidenote: 1 Cor. 2. 11.]

[Sidenote: 2 Chron. 6. 30.]

[Sidenote: Jer. 17. 9, 10.]

[Sidenote: Isai. 41. 21, 22, 23.]

[Sidenote: Matth. 2. 13.]