Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

66

proper and insignificant. How we came to translate "spirits " by the word ghosts," which signifieth nothing, neither in heaven nor earth, but the imaginary inhabitants of man's brain, I examiue not: but this I say, the word "spirit" in the text signifieth no such thing, but either properly a real substance," or metaphorically, some extraordinary “ability or "affection" of the mind, or of the body.

66

6.

66

[ocr errors]

The disciples of Christ, seeing Him walking upon the sea (Matt. xiv. 26, and Mark vi. 49), supposed Him to be a spirit," meaning thereby an aerial "body," and not a phantasm; for it is said they all saw Him; which cannot be understood of the delusions of the brain, (which are not common to many at once, as visible bodies are; but singular, because of the differences of fances), but of bodies only. In like manner, where He was taken for a 66 spirit," by the same apostles (Luke xxiv. 37): so also (Acts xii. 15), when St. Peter was delivered out of prison, it would not be believed; but when the maid said he was at the door, they said it was his "angel;" by which must be meant a corporeal substance, or we must say, the disciples themselves did follow the common opinion of both Jews and Gentiles, that some such apparitions were not imaginary, but real, and such as needed not the fancy of man for their existence. These the Jews called "spirits," and angels," good or bad; as the Greeks call the same by the name of "demons. "" And some such apparitions may be real and substantial; that is to say, subtle bodies, which God can form by the same power by which He formed all things, and make use of, as of ministers and messengers, that is to say, angels, to declare His will, and execute the same when He pleaseth, in extraordinary and supernatural manner. But when He hath so formed them, they are substances endued with dimensions, and take up room, and can be moved from place to place, which is peculiar to bodies; and therefore are not ghosts "incorporeal," that is to say, ghosts that are in " no place;" that is to say, that are "nowhere;" that is to say, that seeming to be "somewhat," are "nothing." But if corporeal be taken in the most vulgar manner, for such substances as are perceptible by our external senses; then is substance incorporeal, a thing not imaginary, but real; namely, a thin substance invisible, but that hath the same dimensions that are in grosser bodies.

By the name of "angel," is signified generally, a "messenger;" and most often a "messenger of God;" and by a messenger of God is signified, anything that makes known His extraordinary presence; that is to say, the extraordinary manifestion of His power, especially by a dream or vision.

Concerning the creation of “angels," there is nothing delivered in the Scriptures. That they are spirits, is often repeated: but by the name of spirit, is signified both in Scripture and vulgarly, both amongst Jews and Gentiles, sometimes thin bodies: as the air, the wind, the spirits vital and animal of living creatures; and sometimes the images that rise in the fancy in dreams and visions; which are not real substances, nor last any longer than the dream or vision they appear in; which apparitions, though no real substances, but accidents of the brain; yet when God raiseth them supernaturally, to signify His will, they are not improperly termed God's messengers, that is to say, His "angels.'

"

[ocr errors]

And as the Gentiles did vulgarly conceive the imagery of the brain for things really subsistent without them, and not dependent on the fancy, and out of them framed their opinions of "demons," good and evil; which because they seemed to subsist really, they called "substances; and, because they could not feel them with their hands, "incorporeal : SO also the Jews upon the same ground, without anything in the Old Testament that constrained them thereunto, had generally an opinion, except the sect of the Sadducees, that those apparitions which it pleased God

sometimes to produce in the fancy of men, for His own service, and therefore called them His "angels," were substances, not dependent on the fancy, but permanent creatures of God; whereof those which they thought were good to them, they esteemed the "angels of God," and those they thought would hurt them, they called "evil angels," or evil spirits. Such as was the spirit of Python, and the spirits of madmen, of lunatics, and epileptics, for they esteemed such as were troubled with such diseases, "demoniacs."

But if we consider the places of the Old Testament where angels are mentioned, we shall find that in most of them, there can nothing else be understood by the word "angel," but some image raised, supernaturally, in the fancy to signify the presence of God in the execution of some supernatural work; and therefore in the rest, where their nature is not expressed, it may be understood in the same manner.

For we read (Gen. xvi.) that the same apparition is called, not only an "angel," but "God," where that which (verse 7) is called the "angel" of the Lord, in the tenth verse, saith to Agar, "I will multiply thy seed exceedingly;" that is, speaketh in the person of God. Neither was this

apparition a fancy figured, but a voice. By which it is manifest that "angel" signifieth there nothing but "God" himself, that caused Agar supernaturally to apprehend a voice from heaven; or rather, nothing else but a voice supernatural, testifying God's special presence there. Why therefore may not the angels that appeared to Lot, and are called (Gen. xix. 12) 66 men; and to whom, though they were two, Lot speaketh (verse 18) as but to one, and that one as God, (for the words are, "Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my Lord,") be understood of images of men, supernaturally formed in the fancy, as well as before by angel was understood a fancied voice? When the angel called to Abraham out of heaven to stay his hand (Gen. xxii. 11) from slaying Isaac, there was no apparition, but a voice; which nevertheless was called properly enough a messenger or "angel" of God, because it declared God's will supernaturally, and saves the labour of supposing any permanent ghosts. The angels which Jacob saw on the ladder of Heaven (Gen. xxviii. 12) were a vision of his sleep, therefore only fancy and a dream; yet being supernatural, and signs of God's special presence, those apparitions are not improperly called "angels." The same is to be understood (Gen. xxxi. II) where Jacob saith thus, "The Angel of the Lord appeared to me in my sleep." For an apparition made to a man in his sleep, is that which all men call a dream, whether such dream be natural or supernatural; and that which there Jacob called an "angel," was God himself, for the same angel saith (verse 13), "I am the God of Bethel."

[ocr errors]

Also (Exod. xiv. 19) the angel that went before the army of Israel to the Red Sea, and then came behind it, is (verse 24) the Lord himself; and He appeared, not in the form of a beautiful man, but in form (Exod. xiii. 21), by day, of a "pillar of cloud," and, by night, in form of a "pillar of fire;" and yet this pillar was all the apparition and "angel" promised to Moses (Exod. xxxiii. 2) for the army's guide: for this cloudy pillar (Exod. xxxiii. 9) is said to have descended, and stood at the door of the Tabernacle, and to have talked with Moses.

There you see motion and speech, which are commonly attributed to angels, attributed to a cloud, because the cloud served as a sign of God's presence; and was no less an angel, than if it had had the form of a man, or child of never so great beauty; or wings, as usually they are painted, for the false instruction of common people. For it is not the shape; but their use that makes them angels. But their use is to be significations of God's presence in supernatural operations; as when Moses (Exod, xxxiii. 14)

had desired God to go along with the camp, as He had done always before the making of the golden calf, God did not answer, "I will go, will send an angel in my stead;" but thus, "My presence shall go with thee."

66

nor "I

To mention all the places of the Old Testament where the name of angel is found would be too long. Therefore to comprehend them all at once, I say, there is no text in that part of the Old Testament, which the Church of England holdeth for canonical, from which we can conclude there is or hath been created, any permanent thing, understood by the name of spirit" or "angel," that hath not quantity; and that may not be by the understanding divided; that is to say, considered by parts; so as one part may be in one place, and the next part in the next place to it; and in sum, which is not (taking body for that which is somewhat or somewhere) corporeal; but in every place, the sense will bear the interpretation of angel, for messenger; as John Baptist is called an angel, and Christ the Angel of the Covenant; and as, according to the same analogy, the dove and the fiery tongues, in that they were signs of God's special presence, might also be called angels. Though we find in Daniel two names of angels, Gabriel and Michael; yet it is clear out of the text itself (Dan. xii. 1) that by Michael is meant Christ, not as an angel, but as a prince: and that Gabriel, as the like apparitions made to other holy men in their sleep, was nothing but a supernatural phantasm, by which it seemed to Daniel, in his dream, that two saints being in talk, one of them said to the other, "Gabriel, let us make this man understand his vision:" for God needeth not to distinguish His celestial servants by names, which are useful only to the short memories of mortals. Nor in the New Testament is there any place, out of which it can be proved that angels, except when they are put for such men as God hath made the messengers and ministers of his word or works, are things permanent, and withal incorporeal. That they are permanent, may be gathered from the words of our Saviour himself (Matt. xxv. 41), where He saith, it shall be said to the wicked in the last day, "Go ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:" which place is manifest for the permanence of evil angels (unless we might think the name of devil and his angels may be understood of the Church's adversaries and their ministers); but then it is repugnant to their immateriality; because everlasting fire is no punishment to impatible substances, such as are all things incorporeal. Angels therefore are not thence proved to be incorporeal. In like manner where St. Paul says (1 Cor. vi. 3), "Know ye not that we shall judge the angels ?" and (2 Pet. ii. 4), "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down into hell; and (Jude i. 6), "And the angels that kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the last day :" though it prove the permanence of angelical nature, it confirmeth also their materiality. And (Matt. xxii. 30), "In the resurrection men do neither marry nor give in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven:" but in the resurrection men shall be permanent and not incorporeal; so therefore also are the angels.

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

There be divers other places out of which may be drawn the like conclusion. To men that understand the signification of these words, "sub" and " stance incorporeal ; as incorporeal" is taken, not for subtle body, but for "not body;" they imply a contradiction: insomuch as to say, an angel or spirit is in that sense an incorporeal substance, is to say in effect, there is no angel nor spirit at all. Considering therefore the sig nification of the word "angel" in the Old Testament, and the nature of dreams and visions that happen to men by the ordinary way of nature, I was inclined to this opinion, that angels were nothing but supernatural

apparitions of the fancy, raised by the special and extraordinary operation of God, thereby to make His presence and commandments known to mankind, and chiefly to His own people. But the many places of the New Testament, and our Saviour's own words, and in such texts, wherein is no suspicion of corruption of the Scripture, have extorted from my feeble reason an acknowledgment and belief that there be also angels substantial and permanent. But to believe they be in no place, that is to say, nowhere, that is to say, nothing, as they, though indirectly, say that will have them incorporeal, cannot by Scripture be evinced.

On the signification of the word " 'spirit," dependeth that of the word inspiration; " which must either be taken properly; and then it is nothing but the blowing into a man some thin and subtle air or wind, in such manner as a man filleth a bladder with his breath; or if spirits be not corporeal, but have their existence only in the fancy, it is nothing but the blowing in of a phantasm; which is improper to say, and impossible; for phantasms are not, but only seem to be, somewhat. That word therefore

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

is used in the Scripture metaphorically only as (Gen. ii. 7) where it is said that God "inspired" into man the breath of life, no more is meant than that God gave unto him vital motion. For we are not to think that God madefirst a living breath and then blew it into Adam after he was made, whether that breath were real or seeming; but only as it is (Acts xvii. 25), "that He gave him life and breath; that is, made him a living creature. And where it is said (2 Tim. iii. 16), “All Scripture is given by inspiration from God," speaking there of the Scripture of the Old Testament, it is an easy metaphor to signify that God inclined the spirit or mind of those writers to write that which should be useful, in teaching, reproving, correcting, and instructing men in the way of righteous living. But where St. Peter (2 Pet. i. 21) saith, that "Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but the holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit," by the Holy Spirit is meant the voice of God in a dream or vision supernatural, which is not "inspiration." Nor, when our Saviour breathing on His disciples, said, "Receive the Holy Spirit,' was that breath the Spirit, but a sign of the spiritual graces He gave unto them. And though it be said of many, and of our Saviour himself, that He was full of the Holy Spirit; yet that fulness is not to be understood for "infusion of the substance of God, but for accumulation of His gifts, such as are the gift of sanctity of life, of tongues, and the like, whether attained supernaturally or by study and industry; for in all cases they are the gifts of God. So likewise where God says (Joel ii. 28), "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions," we are not to understand it in the proper sense, as if His Spirit were like water, subject to effusion or infusion; but as if God had promised to give them prophetical dreams and visions. For the proper use of the word "infused," in speaking of the graces of God, is an abuse of it; for those graces are virtues, not bodies to be carried hither and thither, and to be poured into men as into barrels. In the same manner, to take "inspiration" in the proper sense, or to say that good "spirits" entered into men to make them prophesy, or evil "spirits" into those that became phrenetic, lunatic, or epileptic, is not to take the word in the sense of the Scripture; for the Spirit there is taken for the power of God, working by causes to us unknown. As also (Acts ii. 2) the wind, that is there said to fill the house wherein the apostles were assembled on the day of Pentecost, is not to be understood for the 'Holy Spirit," which is the Deity itself; but for an external sign of God's special working on their hearts, to effect in them the internal graces and holy virtues He thought requisite for the performance of their apostleship.

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER XXXV.

Of the Signification in Scripture of Kingdom of God, of Holy, Sacred, and Sacrament.

THE "Kingdom of God," in the writings of divines, and specially in sermons and treatises of devotion, is taken most commonly for eternal felicity, after this life, in the highest heaven, which they also call the kingdom of glory; and sometimes for the earnest of that felicity, sanctification, which they term the kingdom of grace; but never for the monarchy, that is to say, the sovereign power of God over any subjects acquired by their own consent, which is the proper signification of kingdom.

To the contrary, I find the "kingdom of God to signify, in most places of Scripture, a "kingdom properly so named," constituted by the votes of the people of Israel in peculiar manner; wherein they chose God for their king by covenant made with Him, upon God's promising them the possession of the land of Canaan; and but seldom metaphorically; and then it is taken for "dominion over sin; " (and only in the New Testament ;) because such a dominion as that, every subject shall have in the kingdom of God, and without prejudice to the sovereign.

From the very creation, God not only reigned over all men "naturally" by His might; but also had "peculiar" subjects, whom He commanded by a voice, as one man speaketh to another. In which manner He "reigned' over Adam, and gave him commandment to abstain from the tree of cog nizance of good and evil; which when he obeyed not, but tasting thereof, took upon him to be as God, judging between good and evil, not by his Creator's commandment, but by his own sense, his punishment was a priva tion of the estate of eternal life, wherein God had at first created him; and afterwards God punished his posterity for their vices, all but eight persons, with an universal deluge; and in these eight did consist the then "kingdom of God."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

After this it pleased God to speak to Abraham, and (Gen. xvii. 7, 8) to make a covenant with him in these words, "I will establish my covenant between me, and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee; and I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession.' In this covenant Abraham promiseth for himself and his posterity, to obey as God, the Lord that spake to him; and God on His part promiseth to Abraham the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession.' And for a memorial, and a token of this covenant, He ordaineth (Gen. xvii. 11) the sacrament of circumcision." This is it which is called the "old covenant or testament;" and containeth a contract between God and Abraham; by which Abraham obligeth himself, and his posterity, in a peculiar manner to be subject to God's positive law; for to the law moral he was obliged before, as by an oath of allegiance. And though the name of "King" be not yet given to God, nor of " kingdom" to Abraham and his seed: yet the thing is the same; namely, an institution by pact, of God's peculiar sovereignty over the seed of Abraham; which in the renewing of the same covenant by Moses, at Mount Sinai, is expressly called a peculiar "kingdom of God" over the Jews and it is of Abraham, not of Moses, St. Paul saith (Rom. iv. II) that he is the "father of the faithful;" that is, of those that are loyal, and do not violate their allegiance sworn to God, then by circumcision, and afterwards in the "new covenant" by baptism.

« PredošláPokračovať »