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.
The Immortal. l. 1. c. 10. p. 72.
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 Dr 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. Dr 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.
Object. 1.
1 Timoth. 6. 16.
Hebr. 1. 3.
1 Tim. 6. 13.