SPIRIT, ANGEL, AND INSPIRATION: MEANINGS IN HOLY SCRIPTURE

Seeing the foundation of all true Ratiocination, is the constant Signification of words; which in the Doctrine following, dependeth not (as in naturall science) on the Will of the Writer, nor (as in common conversation) on vulgar use, but on the sense they carry in the Scripture; It is necessary, before I proceed any further, to determine, out of the Bible, the meaning of such words, as by their ambiguity, may render what I am to inferre upon them, obscure, or disputable. I will begin with the words BODY, and SPIRIT, which in the language of the Schools are termed, Substances, Corporeall, and Incorporeall.

All sound reasoning rests on words having consistent meanings. In the teaching that follows, these meanings do not depend on the writer’s choice, as in natural science. Nor do they depend on common usage, as in everyday conversation. Instead, they depend on the meanings the words have in Scripture. So before going further, I must use the Bible to establish the meanings of words that have more than one sense. Otherwise, their ambiguity may make the conclusions I draw from them unclear or open to dispute. I will begin with the words BODY and SPIRIT. In the language of the Schools, these are called corporeal and incorporeal substances.

The Word Body, in the most generall acceptation, signifieth that which filleth, or occupyeth some certain room, or imagined place; and dependeth not on the imagination, but is a reall part of that we call the Universe. For the Universe, being the Aggregate of all Bodies, there is no reall part thereof that is not also Body; nor any thing properly a Body, that is not also part of (that Aggregate of all Bodies) the Universe. The same also, because Bodies are subject to change, that is to say, to variety of apparence to the sense of living creatures, is called Substance, that is to say, Subject, to various accidents, as sometimes to be Moved, sometimes to stand Still; and to seem to our senses sometimes Hot, sometimes Cold, sometimes of one Colour, Smel, Tast, or Sound, somtimes of another. And this diversity of Seeming, (produced by the diversity of the operation of bodies, on the organs of our sense) we attribute to alterations of the Bodies that operate, & call them Accidents of those Bodies. And according to this acceptation of the word, Substance and Body, signifie the same thing; and therefore Substance Incorporeall are words, which when they are joined together, destroy one another, as if a man should say, an Incorporeall Body.

The word body, in its broadest sense, means something that fills or occupies a particular space or imagined place. A body does not depend on imagination but is a real part of what we call the Universe. For the Universe is the collection of all bodies, so every real part of the Universe is also a body. And anything properly called a body is also part of the Universe, the collection of all bodies. A body is also called substance because bodies can change, meaning they can appear differently to living creatures’ senses. Substance means something subject to various accidents, or changing properties. A body may sometimes move and sometimes stand still. To our senses, a body may sometimes seem hot and sometimes cold. It may seem to have one colour, smell, taste, or sound at one time, and another at another time. These differences in appearance result from differences in how bodies act on our sense organs. We attribute these differences to changes in the bodies acting on our senses, and call them accidents of those bodies. In this sense, substance and body mean the same thing. Therefore, the words incorporeal substance cancel each other out when joined together, as if someone said an incorporeal body.

But in the sense of common people, not all the Universe is called Body, but only such parts thereof as they can discern by the sense of Feeling, to resist their force, or by the sense of their Eyes, to hinder them from a farther prospect. Therefore in the common language of men, Aire, and Aeriall Substances, use not to be taken for Bodies, but (as often as men are sensible of their effects) are called Wind, or Breath, or (because the some are called in the Latine Spiritus) Spirits; as when they call that aeriall substance, which in the body of any living creature, gives it life and motion, Vitall and Animall Spirits. But for those Idols of the brain, which represent Bodies to us, where they are not, as in a Looking-glasse, in a Dream, or to a Distempered brain waking, they are (as the Apostle saith generally of all Idols) nothing; Nothing at all, I say, there where they seem to bee; and in the brain it self, nothing but tumult, proceeding either from the action of the objects, or from the disorderly agitation of the Organs of our Sense. And men, that are otherwise imployed, then to search into their causes, know not of themselves, what to call them; and may therefore easily be perswaded, by those whose knowledge they much reverence, some to call them Bodies, and think them made of aire compacted by a power supernaturall, because the sight judges them corporeall; and some to call them Spirits, because the sense of Touch discerneth nothing in the place where they appear, to resist their fingers: So that the proper signification of Spirit in common speech, is either a subtile, fluid, and invisible Body, or a Ghost, or other Idol or Phantasme of the Imagination. But for metaphoricall significations, there be many: for sometimes it is taken for Disposition or Inclination of the mind; as when for the disposition to controwl the sayings of other men, we say, A Spirit Contradiction; For A Disposition to Uncleannesse, An Unclean Spirit; for Perversenesse, A Froward Spirit; for Sullennesse, A Dumb Spirit, and for Inclination To Godlinesse, And Gods Service, the Spirit of God: sometimes for any eminent ability, or extraordinary passion, or disease of the mind, as when Great Wisdome is called the Spirit Of Wisdome; and Mad Men are said to be Possessed With A Spirit.

But ordinary people do not call the whole universe a body. They use that word only for parts they can feel resisting their force or see blocking their view. So in everyday speech, air and airy substances are not usually considered bodies. Instead, whenever people notice their effects, they call them wind, breath, or spirits, because the Latin word is Spiritus. For example, people call the airy substance that gives a living creature life and movement vital and animal spirits. But images in the brain can show us bodies where no bodies exist. Such images appear in a mirror, in a dream, or to a disturbed mind while awake. These images are nothing, as the Apostle says of idols generally. They are nothing at all, I say, in the places where they seem to be. In the brain itself, they are nothing but disturbances. These disturbances arise either from the action of objects or from disordered movements in our sense organs. People occupied with other matters, rather than investigating these causes, do not know for themselves what to call these images. So people whose knowledge they greatly respect can easily persuade them to accept different explanations. Some can be persuaded to call these images bodies, made of air compressed by a supernatural power. They believe this because the images look like bodies. Others can be persuaded to call the images spirits. This is because touch finds nothing resisting their fingers where the images appear. So in ordinary speech, spirit properly means either a fine, fluid, invisible body, or a ghost or other imagined image. But spirit has many metaphorical meanings. Sometimes it means a disposition or inclination of the mind. For a tendency to challenge what others say, we speak of a spirit of contradiction. For a tendency toward impurity, we speak of an unclean spirit. For perverseness, we speak of a contrary spirit, and for sullenness, a silent spirit. For an inclination toward godliness and serving God, we speak of the spirit of God. Sometimes spirit means an outstanding ability, an extraordinary passion, or a disease of the mind. Thus great wisdom is called the spirit of wisdom, and mad people are said to be possessed by a spirit.

Other signification of Spirit I find no where any; and where none of these can satisfie the sense of that word in Scripture, the place falleth not under humane Understanding; and our Faith therein consisteth not in our Opinion, but in our Submission; as in all places where God is said to be a Spirit; or where by the Spirit of God, is meant God himselfe. For the nature of God is incomprehensible; that is to say, we understand nothing of What He Is, but only That He Is; and therefore the Attributes we give him, are not to tell one another, What He Is, Nor to signifie our opinion of his Nature, but our desire to honor him with such names as we conceive most honorable amongst our selves.

I find no other meaning of Spirit anywhere. Where none of these meanings makes sense of the word in Scripture, the passage lies beyond human understanding. Our faith in such passages consists not in our opinion, but in our submission. This applies to all passages where God is said to be a Spirit, or where the Spirit of God means God himself. For God’s nature is beyond our understanding. We understand nothing of what he is, but only that he exists. So the attributes we give him are not meant to tell one another what he is. Nor do they express our opinion of his nature. Instead, they express our desire to honor him with names we consider most honorable among ourselves.

Gen. 1. 2. “The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the Waters.” Here if by the Spirit of God be meant God himself, then is Motion attributed to God, and consequently Place, which are intelligible only of Bodies, and not of substances incorporeall; and so the place is above our understanding, that can conceive nothing moved that changes not place, or that has not dimension; and whatsoever has dimension, is Body. But the meaning of those words is best understood by the like place, Gen. 8. 1. Where when the earth was covered with Waters, as in the beginning, God intending to abate them, and again to discover the dry land, useth like words, “I will bring my Spirit upon the Earth, and the waters shall be diminished:” in which place by Spirit is understood a Wind, (that is an Aire or Spirit Moved,) which might be called (as in the former place) the Spirit of God, because it was Gods Work.

Gen. 1. 2. “The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the Waters.” If the Spirit of God here means God himself, then movement is attributed to God, and therefore location as well. Movement and location make sense only for bodies, not for substances without bodies. So this passage is beyond our understanding. We cannot conceive of anything moving without changing location or having dimensions, and whatever has dimensions is a body. But these words are best understood through a similar passage, Gen. 8. 1. There, the earth was covered with water, as it was in the beginning. God intended to reduce the waters and reveal the dry land again. He uses similar words: “I will bring my Spirit upon the Earth, and the waters shall be diminished:” In this passage, Spirit means a wind (that is, air or spirit in motion). This wind might be called the Spirit of God, as in the earlier passage, because it was God's work.

Gen. 41. 38. Pharaoh calleth the Wisdome of Joseph, the Spirit of God. For Joseph having advised him to look out a wise and discreet man, and to set him over the land of Egypt, he saith thus, “Can we find such a man as this is, in whom is the Spirit of God?” and Exod. 28.3. “Thou shalt speak (saith God) to all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with the Spirit of Wisdome, to make Aaron Garments, to consecrate him.” Where extraordinary Understanding, though but in making Garments, as being the Gift of God, is called the Spirit of God. The same is found again, Exod. 31.3,4,5,6. and 35.31. And Isaiah 11.2,3. where the Prophet speaking of the Messiah, saith, “The Spirit of the Lord shall abide upon him, the Spirit of wisdome and understanding, the Spirit of counsell, and fortitude; and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord.” Where manifestly is meant, not so many Ghosts, but so many eminent Graces that God would give him.

In Genesis 41:38, Pharaoh calls Joseph’s wisdom the Spirit of God. Joseph had advised Pharaoh to find a wise and sensible man and put him in charge of Egypt. Pharaoh then says, “Can we find a man like this, who has the Spirit of God?” And in Exodus 28:3, God says, “Speak to all the skilled craftsmen whom I have filled with the Spirit of Wisdom. They are to make garments for Aaron to consecrate him.” Here, exceptional understanding, even if only in making garments, is called the Spirit of God because it is God’s gift. The same usage appears again in Exodus 31:3,4,5,6 and 35:31. And in Isaiah 11:2,3, the prophet speaks of the Messiah: “The Spirit of the Lord will rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and courage, and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord.” Clearly, these words mean not several separate spirits, but several outstanding gifts that God would give him.

In the Book of Judges, an extraordinary Zeal, and Courage in the defence of Gods people, is called the Spirit of God; as when it excited Othoniel, Gideon, Jeptha, and Samson to deliver them from servitude, Judg. 3.10. 6.34. 11.29. 13.25. 14.6,19. And of Saul, upon the newes of the insolence of the Ammonites towards the men of Jabeth Gilead, it is said (1 Sam.11.6.) that “The Spirit of God came upon Saul, and his Anger (or, as it is in the Latine, His Fury) was kindled greatly.” Where it is not probable was meant a Ghost, but an extraordinary Zeal to punish the cruelty of the Ammonites. In like manner by the Spirit of God, that came upon Saul, when hee was amongst the Prophets that praised God in Songs, and Musick (1 Sam.19.20.) is to be understood, not a Ghost, but an unexpected and sudden Zeal to join with them in their devotions.

In the Book of Judges, extraordinary zeal and courage in defending God’s people are called the Spirit of God. This spirit stirred Othoniel, Gideon, Jeptha, and Samson to free God’s people from slavery (Judg. 3.10, 6.34, 11.29, 13.25, 14.6,19). Saul heard news of the Ammonites’ insolent treatment of the men of Jabeth Gilead. It is then said (1 Sam. 11.6) that “The Spirit of God came upon Saul, and his anger burned fiercely.” The Latin says “his fury” rather than “his anger.” Here, the Spirit of God probably meant not a ghost, but extraordinary zeal to punish the Ammonites’ cruelty. Similarly, the Spirit of God came upon Saul among the Prophets praising God with songs and music (1 Sam. 19.20). This spirit should be understood not as a ghost, but as an unexpected, sudden zeal to join their worship.

The false Prophet Zedekiah, saith to Micaiah (1 Kings 22.24.) “Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak to thee?” Which cannot be understood of a Ghost; for Micaiah declared before the Kings of Israel and Judah, the event of the battle, as from a Vision, and not as from a Spirit, speaking in him.

The false prophet Zedekiah says to Micaiah (1 Kings 22.24.), “Which way did the Spirit of the Lord leave me to speak to you?” These words cannot refer to a ghost. For Micaiah told the kings of Israel and Judah the battle’s outcome as revealed in a vision, not by a spirit speaking within him.

In the same manner it appeareth, in the Books of the Prophets, that though they spake by the Spirit of God, that is to say, by a speciall grace of Prediction; yet their knowledge of the future, was not by a Ghost within them, but by some supernaturall Dream or Vision.

Similarly, the Books of the Prophets show that the prophets spoke by the Spirit of God. This means they had a special gift of predicting the future. Yet although the prophets had this gift, their knowledge of the future did not come from a spirit within them. Instead, it came through some supernatural dream or vision.

Gen. 2.7. It is said, “God made man of the dust of the Earth, and breathed into his nostrills (spiraculum vitae) the breath of life, and man was made a living soul.” There the Breath of Life inspired by God, signifies no more, but that God gave him life; And (Job 27.3.) “as long as the Spirit of God is in my nostrils;” is no more then to say, “as long as I live.” So in Ezek. 1.20. “the Spirit of life was in the wheels,” is equivalent to, “the wheels were alive.” And (Ezek. 2.30.) “the spirit entred into me, and set me on my feet,” that is, “I recovered my vitall strength;” not that any Ghost, or incorporeal substance entred into, and possessed his body.

Gen. 2.7. says, “God made man from the dust of the Earth. He breathed into his nostrils (spiraculum vitae) the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” Here, the breath of life breathed into man by God means only that God gave him life. And (Job 27.3.) “as long as the Spirit of God is in my nostrils” means only “as long as I live.” So in Ezek. 1.20. “the Spirit of life was in the wheels” means “the wheels were alive.” And (Ezek. 2.30.) “the spirit entered me and set me on my feet” means “I regained my vital strength.” It does not mean that a ghost or a substance without a body entered and possessed his body.

In the 11 chap. of Numbers. verse 17. “I will take (saith God) of the Spirit, which is upon thee, and will put it upon them, and they shall bear the burthen of the people with thee;” that is, upon the seventy Elders: whereupon two of the seventy are said to prophecy in the campe; of whom some complained, and Joshua desired Moses to forbid them; which Moses would not doe. Whereby it appears; that Joshua knew not they had received authority so to do, and prophecyed according to the mind of Moses, that is to say, by a Spirit, or Authority subordinate to his own.

In Numbers 11:17, God says, “I will take some of the Spirit that is upon you and put it upon them. They will share the burden of the people with you.” Here, “them” means the seventy Elders. Two of the seventy are then said to have prophesied in the camp. Some people complained about these two, and Joshua asked Moses to forbid them from prophesying. But Moses refused. This shows that Joshua did not know the two had received authority to prophesy and were acting according to Moses’ will. In other words, they prophesied by a Spirit, or Authority, subordinate to Moses’ own.

In the like sense we read (Deut. 34.9.) that “Joshua was full of the Spirit of wisdome,” because Moses had laid his hands upon him: that is, because he was Ordained by Moses, to prosecute the work hee had himselfe begun, (namely, the bringing of Gods people into the promised land), but prevented by death, could not finish.

In the same sense, we read (Deut. 34.9.) that “Joshua was full of the Spirit of wisdom” because Moses had laid his hands on him. That is, Moses had appointed Joshua to continue the work Moses himself had begun (bringing Gods people into the promised land). But Moses died before he could finish the work.

In the like sense it is said, (Rom. 8.9.) “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his:” not meaning thereby the Ghost of Christ, but a Submission to his Doctrine. As also (1 John 4.2.) “Hereby you shall know the Spirit of God; Every Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God;” by which is meant the Spirit of unfained Christianity, or Submission to that main Article of Christian faith, that Jesus is the Christ; which cannot be interpreted of a Ghost.

In the same sense, Romans 8:9 says, “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to him.” This means submission to Christ’s teaching, not Christ’s ghost. Similarly, 1 John 4:2 says, “Here is how you can recognize the Spirit of God. Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” This means the spirit of genuine Christianity, or submission to the central article of Christian faith that Jesus is the Christ. It cannot mean a ghost.

Likewise these words (Luke 4.1.) “And Jesus full of the Holy Ghost” (that is, as it is exprest, Mat. 4.1. and Mar. 1.12. “of the Holy Spirit”,) may be understood, for Zeal to doe the work for which hee was sent by God the Father: but to interpret it of a Ghost, is to say, that God himselfe (for so our Saviour was,) was filled with God; which is very unproper, and unsignificant. How we came to translate Spirits, by the word Ghosts, which signifieth nothing, neither in heaven, nor earth, but the Imaginary inhabitants of mans brain, I examine not: but this I say, the word Spirit in the text signifieth no such thing; but either properly a reall Substance, or Metaphorically, some extraordinary Ability of Affection of the Mind, or of the Body.

Likewise, consider these words (Luke 4:1): “And Jesus full of the Holy Ghost”. Matthew 4:1 and Mark 1:12 express this as “of the Holy Spirit”. These words may mean zeal to do the work for which God the Father sent him. But interpreting them as referring to a ghost means saying that God himself was filled with God. For our Saviour was himself God. Such language is very improper and meaningless. I will not examine how we came to translate Spirits with the word Ghosts. Ghosts means nothing, in heaven or on earth, except the imaginary inhabitants of the human mind. But I do say that the word Spirit in the text means no such thing. Literally, Spirit means a real substance. Metaphorically, Spirit means some extraordinary ability or feeling of the mind or body.

The Disciples of Christ, seeing him walking upon the sea, (Mat. 14.26. and Marke 6.49.) supposed him to be a Spirit, meaning thereby an Aeriall Body, and not a Phantasme: 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 Fancies), but of Bodies only. In like manner, where he was taken for a Spirit, by the same Apostles (Luke 24.3,7.): So also (Acts 12.15) when St. Peter was delivered out of Prison, it would not be beleeved; but when the Maid said he was at the dore, they said it was his Angel; by which must be meant a corporeall 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 Reall; 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 called the same by the name of Daemons. And some such apparitions may be reall, and substantiall; that is to say, subtile 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 supernaturall manner. But when hee hath so formed them they are Substances, endued with dimensions, and take up roome, and can be moved from place to place, which is peculiar to Bodies; and therefore are not Ghosts Incorporeall, that is to say, Ghosts that are in No Place; that is to say, that are No Where; that is to say, that seeming to be Somewhat, are Nothing. But if corporeall be taken in the most vulgar manner, for such Substances as are perceptible by our externall Senses; then is Substance Incorporeall, a thing not Imaginary, but Reall; namely, a thin Substance Invisible, but that hath the same dimensions that are in grosser Bodies.

Christ’s disciples saw him walking on the sea (Matthew 14:26 and Mark 6:49) and thought he was a spirit. By a spirit, they meant a body made of air, not an illusion. For we are told that they all saw him. This cannot mean a delusion of the mind, since such delusions are not shared by many people at once. Unlike visible bodies, delusions are individual, because people’s imaginations differ. So the account must refer only to a body. The same applies when the same Apostles again took him for a spirit (Luke 24:3,7). Likewise, when St. Peter was freed from prison (Acts 12:15), people would not believe he had been released. But when the maid said Peter was at the door, they said it was his angel. By his angel, they must have meant a bodily substance. Otherwise, we must say the disciples themselves accepted the common belief of both Jews and Gentiles. According to that belief, some such apparitions were not imaginary but real, and existed independently of human imagination. The Jews called these apparitions spirits and angels, good or bad. The Greeks called the same apparitions Daemons. And some such apparitions may be real, substantial things. That is, they may be fine, thin bodies, which God can form by the same power that formed all things. He can use these bodies as servants and messengers (that is, angels). Through them, he can declare and carry out his will whenever he pleases, in extraordinary and supernatural ways. But once God has formed these bodies, they are substances with dimensions. They take up space and can move from place to place, as only bodies can. Therefore, they are not bodiless ghosts, meaning ghosts that are in no place. To be in no place is to be nowhere. Such ghosts, though seeming to be something, are nothing. But suppose we use “bodily” in its most common sense, meaning substances that our external senses can perceive. Then a bodiless substance is not imaginary but real. It is a thin, invisible substance with the same dimensions as denser 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, any thing that makes known his extraordinary Presence; that is to say, the extraordinary manifestation of his power, especially by a Dream, or Vision.

The word ANGEL generally means a messenger, most often a messenger of God. A messenger of God means anything that reveals his extraordinary presence. In other words, anything that reveals his power in an extraordinary way, especially through 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 Aire, the Wind, the Spirits Vitall, and Animall, of living creatures; and sometimes the Images that rise in the fancy in Dreams, and Visions; which are not reall Substances, but accidents of the brain; yet when God raiseth them supernaturally, to signifie his Will, they are not unproperly termed Gods Messengers, that is to say, his Angels.

The Scriptures say nothing about the creation of Angels. They often describe Angels as spirits. But in Scripture and everyday speech, among both Jews and Gentiles, “spirit” has several meanings. Sometimes it means thin bodies, such as air, wind, and the vital and animal spirits of living creatures. Sometimes it means images that appear in the imagination during dreams and visions. These images are not real substances, but effects produced in the brain. Yet when God produces these images supernaturally to make his will known, they can properly be called God’s messengers. That is, his Angels.

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 Daemons, Good and Evill; which because they seemed to subsist really, they called Substances; and because they could not feel them with their hands, Incorporeall: so also the Jews upon the same ground, without any thing in the Old Testament that constrained them thereunto, had generally an opinion, (except the sect of the Sadduces,) that those apparitions (which it pleased God sometimes to produce in the fancie 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 Evill Angels, or Evill Spirits; such as was the Spirit of Python, and the Spirits of Mad-men, of Lunatiques, and Epileptiques: For they esteemed such as were troubled with such diseases, Daemoniaques.

The Gentiles commonly mistook images in the brain for things that really existed outside them, independently of the imagination. From these images, the Gentiles formed their beliefs about good and evil Daemons. Because these beings seemed to exist in reality, the Gentiles called them substances. And because the Gentiles could not touch these beings, they called them incorporeal, or bodiless. On the same grounds, the Jews generally held a similar belief, except for the sect of the Sadduces. Nothing in the Old Testament required the Jews to hold this belief. God sometimes chose to produce apparitions in people’s imaginations for his own purposes, and therefore called these apparitions his Angels. The Jews believed these apparitions were substances, independent of the imagination, and enduring creatures of God. The Jews regarded those they thought would benefit them as the Angels of God. Those they thought would harm them, the Jews called Evil Angels or Evil Spirits. These included the Spirit of Python and the spirits of people suffering from madness, lunacy, and epilepsy. For the Jews considered people troubled by these illnesses to be Daemoniaques, or people possessed by Daemons.

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 signifie the presence of God in the execution of some supernaturall work; and therefore in the rest, where their nature is not exprest, it may be understood in the same manner.

But if we examine the Old Testament passages that mention Angels, we will find that most allow only one interpretation. In these passages, the word Angel can only mean an image raised (supernaturally) in the imagination. The image signals God's presence as he carries out some supernatural work. So in the remaining passages, where the nature of Angels is not explained, the word may be understood similarly.

For we read Gen. 16. that the same apparition is called, not onely 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 supernaturall, testifying Gods speciall presence there. Why therefore may not the Angels that appeared to Lot, and are called Gen. 19.13. Men; and to whom, though they were but two, Lot speaketh (ver. 18.) as but 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 fancyed Voice? When the Angel called to Abraham out of heaven, to stay his hand (Gen. 22.11.) from slaying Isaac, there was no Apparition, but a Voice; which neverthelesse was called properly enough a Messenger, or Angel of God, because it declared Gods will supernaturally, and saves the labour of supposing any permanent Ghosts. The Angels which Jacob saw on the Ladder of Heaven (Gen. 28.12.) were a Vision of his sleep; therefore onely Fancy, and a Dream; yet being supernaturall, and signs of Gods Speciall presence, those apparitions are not improperly called Angels. The same is to be understood (Gen.31.11.) where Jacob saith thus, “The Angel of the Lord appeared to mee in my sleep.” For an apparition made to a man in his sleep, is that which all men call a Dreame, whether such Dreame be naturall, or supernaturall: and that which there Jacob calleth an Angel, was God himselfe; for the same Angel saith (verse 13.) “I am the God of Bethel.”

For in Genesis 16, we read that the same apparition is called both an Angel and God. In verse 7, the apparition is called the Angel of the Lord. In verse 10, the Angel says to Agar, “I will multiply your descendants exceedingly.” In other words, the Angel speaks as God. Nor was this apparition an image formed in the imagination. It was a voice. Clearly, then, Angel here means nothing but God himself. God supernaturally caused Agar to hear a supernatural voice, revealing his special presence there. Why, then, may we not understand the Angels who appeared to Lot as images of men, supernaturally formed in his imagination? After all, Genesis 19:13 calls those Angels men. Although there were two, Lot addresses them in verse 18 as one, and addresses that one as God. For the words are, “Lot said to them, Oh no, my Lord.” Why not understand these Angels as imagined images, just as Angel earlier meant an imagined voice? When the Angel called to Abraham from heaven to stop him from killing Isaac, there was no apparition, only a voice (Genesis 22:11). Nevertheless, the voice was properly called a Messenger, or Angel of God, because it supernaturally declared God’s will. This explanation also removes the need to suppose that any lasting spirits existed. The Angels Jacob saw on the Ladder of Heaven were a vision in his sleep (Genesis 28:12). They were therefore only images in his imagination and a dream. Yet those apparitions were supernatural signs of God’s special presence, so they are appropriately called Angels. The same explanation applies to Genesis 31:11, where Jacob says, “The Angel of the Lord appeared to me in my sleep.” For an apparition experienced during sleep is what everyone calls a dream, whether the dream is natural or supernatural. And the being Jacob calls an Angel there was God himself. For the same Angel says in verse 13, “I am the God of Bethel.”

Also (Exod.14.9.) the Angel that went before the Army of Israel to the Red Sea, and then came behind it, is (verse 19.) the Lord himself; and he appeared not in the form of a beautifull man, but in form (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. 14.9.) for the Armies guide: For this cloudy pillar, is said, to have descended, and stood at the dore of the Tabernacle, and to have talked with Moses.

Also, the Angel who led the Army of Israel to the Red Sea later moved behind the army (Exod. 14.9.). This Angel is the Lord himself (verse 19.). He did not appear as a beautiful man, but as a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night. Yet this pillar was the entire apparition and the Angel promised to Moses as the army’s guide (Exod. 14.9.). For this pillar of cloud is said to have descended and stood at the door of the Tabernacle. The pillar is also said to have spoken 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 Gods presence; and was no lesse an Angel, then 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 Gods presence in supernaturall operations; As when Moses (Exod. 33.14.) had desired God to goe along with the Campe, (as he had done alwaies before the making of the Golden Calfe,) God did not answer, “I will goe,” nor “I will send an Angel in my stead;” but thus, “my presence shall goe with thee.”

Here you see movement and speech, usually attributed to Angels, attributed to a cloud because the cloud represented God’s presence. The cloud was no less an Angel than if it had taken the form of a Man or Child of the greatest beauty. The same holds if it had wings, as Angels are usually painted, misleading ordinary people. For their shape does not make them Angels. Their purpose does. Their purpose is to signify God’s presence in supernatural acts. For example, Moses (Exod. 33.14.) had asked God to go with the camp. God had always done so before the making of the Golden Calf. God did not answer, “I will go,” or “I will send an Angel in my place.” Instead, he said, “my presence shall go with you.”

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 Canonicall, 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 bee in one place, and the next part in the next place to it; and, in summe, which is not (taking Body for that, which is some what, or some where) Corporeall; 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 signes of Gods speciall presence, might also be called Angels. Though we find in Daniel two names of Angels, Gabriel, and Michael; yet is cleer out of the text it selfe, (Dan. 12.1) 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 supernaturall phantasme, by which it seemed to Daniel, in his dream, that two Saints being in talke, one of them said to the other, “Gabriel, let us make this man understand his Vision:” For God needeth not, to distinguish his Celestiall servants by names, which are usefull onely to the short memories of Mortalls. 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 withall incorporeall. That they are permanent, may bee gathered from the words of our Saviour himselfe, (Mat. 25.41.) 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 Evill Angels, (unlesse wee might think the name of Devill and his Angels may be understood of the Churches 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 Incorporeall. Angels therefore are not thence proved to be Incorporeall. In like manner where St. Paul sayes (1 Cor. 6.3.) “Knew ye not that wee shall judge the Angels?” And (2 Pet. 2.4.) “For if God spared not the Angels that sinned, but cast them down into Hell.” And (Jude 1,6.) “And the Angels that kept not their first estate, but left their owne habitation, hee hath reserved in everlasting chaines under darknesse unto the Judgement of the last day;” though it prove the Permanence of Angelicall nature, it confirmeth also their Materiality. And (Mat. 22.30.) In the resurrection men doe 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 Incorporeall; so therefore also are the Angels.

Listing every Old Testament passage containing the name Angel would take too long. So I will cover them all with one statement. No passage in the Old Testament books accepted as canonical by the Church of England establishes the following claim: that any lasting being called a Spirit or Angel exists, or was created, without size or extent. Nor does any passage establish that such a being cannot be mentally divided, that is, considered in parts. One part could be in one place, and the next part in the place beside it. In short, no passage establishes that such a being is not bodily. Here, I take a Body to mean something that exists or occupies a place. Instead, every passage allows Angel to mean Messenger. John Baptist is called an Angel, and Christ is called the Angel of the Covenant. By the same reasoning, the Dove and the Fiery Tongues might also be called Angels. They were signs of God’s special presence. Although Daniel names two Angels, Gabriel and Michael, the text itself makes Michael’s identity clear (Dan. 12:1). Michael means Christ, not as an Angel, but as a Prince. Gabriel was nothing but a supernatural vision, like similar appearances to other holy men in their sleep. In Daniel’s dream, two Saints seemed to be talking, and one said to the other, “Gabriel, let us make this man understand his Vision:” For God does not need names to distinguish his heavenly servants. Names are useful only to the short memories of mortals. Nor does any New Testament passage prove that Angels are both lasting beings and without bodies. This excludes passages where Angels means people whom God has made messengers and ministers of his word or works. That Angels are lasting beings may be gathered from our Saviour’s own words (Mat. 25:41). He says that the wicked will be told on the last day, “Go, you cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels:” This passage clearly establishes that Evil Angels are lasting beings. The exception would be if we understood the Devil and his Angels to mean the Church’s adversaries and their ministers. But the passage then conflicts with the claim that Angels are immaterial. Everlasting fire cannot punish substances incapable of suffering, as all things without bodies are. So this passage does not prove that Angels have no bodies. The same reasoning applies when St. Paul says (1 Cor. 6:3), “Did you not know that we shall judge the Angels?” And in 2 Pet. 2:4, “For if God did not spare the Angels who sinned, but cast them down into Hell.” And in Jude 1:6, “And the Angels who did not keep their original state, but left their own dwelling, he has kept in everlasting chains under darkness until the Judgment of the last day.” Although these passages prove that angelic beings endure, they also confirm that Angels are material. And Mat. 22:30 says, “At the resurrection, people neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the Angels of God in heaven:” But at the resurrection, people will be lasting beings, not beings without bodies. So the Angels, too, are lasting beings with bodies.

There be divers other places out of which may be drawn the like conclusion. To men that understand the signification of these words, Substance, and Incorporeall; as Incorporeall is taken not for subtile body, but for Not Body, they imply a contradiction: insomuch as to say, an Angel, or Spirit is (in that sense) an Incorporeall Substance, is to say in effect, there is no Angel nor Spirit at all. Considering therefore the signification 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 enclined to this opinion, that Angels were nothing but supernaturall apparitions of the Fancy, raised by the speciall and extraordinary operation of God, thereby to make his presence and commandements known to mankind, and chiefly to his own people. But the many places of the New Testament, and our Saviours own words, and in such texts, wherein is no suspicion of corruption of the Scripture, have extorted from my feeble Reason, an acknowledgement, and beleef, that there be also Angels substantiall, and permanent. But to beleeve they be in no place, that is to say, no where, that is to say, nothing, as they (though indirectly) say, that will have them Incorporeall, cannot by Scripture bee evinced.

Many other passages support the same conclusion. For anyone who understands the words substance and incorporeal, the two terms contradict each other. Here, incorporeal means not a body, rather than a subtle kind of body. So calling an Angel or Spirit an incorporeal substance in this sense effectively denies that Angels or Spirits exist. I considered the meaning of the word Angel in the Old Testament. I also considered the nature of dreams and visions that people experience through ordinary natural processes. These considerations inclined me to think that Angels were only supernatural appearances in the imagination. God produced these appearances through his special and extraordinary action. His purpose was to make his presence and commandments known to mankind, especially to his own people. But many New Testament passages, including our Saviour's own words, have forced my weak reason to acknowledge and believe otherwise. These passages give no reason to suspect that the Scripture has been corrupted. They compel me to believe that Angels also exist as substances with a lasting existence. But Scripture cannot establish the belief that Angels exist in no place, that is, nowhere, and therefore are nothing. Yet those who insist that Angels are incorporeal say precisely this, though indirectly.

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 subtile aire, 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 Phantasme; which is improper to say, and impossible; for Phantasmes are not, but only seem to be somewhat. That word therefore is used in the Scripture metaphorically onely: As (Gen. 2.7.) where it is said, that God Inspired into man the breath of life, no more is meant, then that God gave unto him vitall motion. For we are not to think that God made first a living breath, and then blew it into Adam after he was made, whether that breath were reall, or seeming; but only as it is (Acts 17.25.) “that he gave him life and breath;” that is, made him a living creature. And where it is said (2 Tim. 3.16.) “all Scripture is given by Inspiration from God,” speaking there of the Scripture of the Old Testament, it is an easie metaphor, to signifie, that God enclined the spirit or mind of those Writers, to write that which should be usefull, in teaching, reproving, correcting, and instructing men in the way of righteous living. But where St. Peter (2 Pet. 1.21.) 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 supernaturall, 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 spirituall 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 Fulnesse 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 sayes (Joel 2.28.) “I will powre out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your Sons and your Daughters shall prophecy, your Old men shall dream Dreams, and your Young men shall see Visions,” wee 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 Propheticall 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 Vertues, not Bodies to be carryed hither and thither, and to be powred into men, as into barrels.

The meaning of the word INSPIRATION depends on the meaning of the word Spirit. Inspiration must either be understood literally or figuratively. Taken literally, inspiration means blowing some thin, fine air or wind into a person, as someone fills a bladder with breath. Or, if Spirits have no bodies and exist only in the imagination, inspiration means blowing in an imagined appearance. But this is an improper expression and an impossibility. Imagined appearances do not exist, but only seem to be something. The word inspiration is therefore used only metaphorically in Scripture. For example, Genesis (Gen. 2.7.) says that God breathed the breath of life into man. This means only that God gave man the movement that constitutes life. We must not think God first made a living breath, then blew that breath into Adam after creating him. This applies whether the breath was real or only apparent. Rather, the meaning is simply what Acts (Acts 17.25.) says: “that he gave him life and breath.” In other words, God made man a living creature. Similarly, we read in 2 Timothy (2 Tim. 3.16.), “all Scripture is given by Inspiration from God.” The passage refers to the Scripture of the Old Testament. This is a straightforward metaphor. It means God directed those writers’ spirits or minds to write what would be useful for teaching, rebuking, and correcting people. Their writings would also instruct people in righteous living. But St. Peter (2 Pet. 1.21.) says, “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.” Here, the Holy Spirit means God’s voice in a supernatural dream or vision, which is not inspiration. Nor was our Saviour’s breath the Spirit when he breathed on his Disciples and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Rather, his breath was a sign of the spiritual gifts he gave them. Many people, including our Saviour himself, are said to have been full of the Holy Spirit. Yet this fullness does not mean that God’s substance was poured into them. It means they received an abundance of his gifts. These include holiness of life, the ability to speak different languages, and similar gifts. Such gifts may be acquired supernaturally or through study and hard work. In every case, they are gifts from God. Likewise, God says in Joel (Joel 2.28.), “I will powre out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your Sons and your Daughters shall prophecy, your Old men shall dream Dreams, and your Young men shall see Visions.” We must not understand this literally, as though his Spirit were water that could be poured out or poured in. Instead, we should understand God as promising to give them prophetic dreams and visions. To speak literally of God’s gifts being infused, or poured into people, is to misuse the word. These gifts are virtues, not bodies that can be carried from place to place and poured into people like barrels.

In the same manner, to take Inspiration in the proper sense, or to say that Good Spirits entred into men to make them prophecy, or Evill Spirits into those that became Phrenetique, Lunatique, or Epileptique, 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 2.2.) 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 it self; but for an Externall sign of Gods speciall working on their hearts, to effect in them the internall graces, and holy vertues hee thought requisite for the performance of their Apostleship.

Likewise, taking inspiration literally does not reflect how Scripture uses the word. Nor does saying that good spirits entered people to make them prophesy. The same applies to saying that evil spirits entered people who became delirious, insane, or epileptic. For in Scripture, the Spirit means God's power, working through causes unknown to us. Similarly, Acts 2:2 describes a wind filling the house where the Apostles gathered on the day of Pentecost. This wind should not be understood as the Holy Spirit, who is God himself. Rather, the wind was an outward sign of God's special work in their hearts. Through this work, God gave them the inner graces and holy virtues he considered necessary for their work as Apostles.