St. Paul, in Heb. i, 7, quoting the one hundred and fourth Psalm, says that God "maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." From this he argues the superiority of Christ, who is the only begotten Son, to angels. This verse is rendered by some, who are not over orthodox in their sentiments, "He maketh winds his messengers, and flames of fire his ministers." It is true, the word "angel" means "messenger," and "spirit" may be rendered "breath" or wind;" but the translation and criticism of these persons are contemptible. The apostle is proving that Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, is superior to angels; but if the above rendering be admitted, then he proves that the Saviour was superior to "winds” and "fire!" What reasoning for an apostle! 66 But even this text, taking the authorized version for our guide, does not teach clearly that angels are pure spirits. The scope and design of the writer compel us to understand the latter part of the verse of angels, as well as the former; and thus interpreted, these heavenly beings are "flames of fire" as well as "spirits." And one part of this passage cannot be taken as an exegesis of the other. Spirit is not fire, or, if it be, it is not immaterial; and fire is not spirit, unless it can be shown that fire is not material. The only consistent interpretation that can be given of this scripture, when St. Paul's reasoning is considered, is the following, though it may be new:-Ethereal or electric fire is the refined habitation or casket, in which the spiritual part of angelic nature-the treasure— dwells. The Lord thus makes his angels spirits, and, at the same time, flames of fire. Let not the above remarks be thought heterodox on this point. They are not given as a matured opinion, but merely thrown out as a passing thought on a difficult subject. For what is certainly known to the contrary, matter may possess some of the properties of spirit, and spirit some of the qualities of matter.* 2d Proposition. They were placed on probation, and were, therefore, able to stand, yet free to fall. The infinite perfections of the divine character, the principles of His moral government, and the present condition of good and bad angels, are all in direct proof of this proposition. God is a being of unyielding justice, and of boundless goodness; and as such he could not, consistently with this character, call into existence angels, or any other rational creatures, and punish them for crimes they could not avoid committing, or reward them for acts of obedience which were as necessary as the revolutions of a planet. The Judge of all the earth, and of all accountable beings in the universe, will do right. For though among men, under the existing state of things, the strict justice and goodness of God are seen, or The reader will perceive from the following extract, taken from the Works of the Rev. Robert Hall, vol. iii, p. 36, that the writer is not alone in the opinion, though he is not decided on the subject, that angels are not absolutely spiritual in their essence. "From their [angels] being called spirits, it is not necessary to conclude that they have no body, no material frame at all. To be entirely immaterial is probably peculiar to the Father of spirits, to whom we cannot attribute a body without impiety, and involving ourselves in absurdities. When the term spirit is employed to denote the angelic nature, it is most natural to take it in a lower sense, to denote their exemption from those gross and earthly bodies which the inhabitants of this world possess." displayed but in part, the time will come when the righteous shall be properly rewarded in heaven, and the wicked condignly punished in hell, according to the nature of their actions while upon earth. And the very facts that God cannot do wrong, flowing from the inherent rectitude of his nature; that he governs moral agents on principles of infinite equity; and that some of the angels have continued in their primitive glory and happiness while others have fallen into sin and misery, and are now enduring the just penalty of the divine law, are sufficient evidence that these messengers of the deity, now alluded to, were originally placed on trial, had a rule given them for the regulation of their conduct, were acquainted with this rule, had motives to obedience set before them, were endued with power to conform to its requirements, and were likewise at perfect liberty to violate its precepts. 3d Proposition. Their place of residence was one, or more, of the many worlds which move in the regions of space, and compose the vast empire of God. This third feature of the present scheme, connected as it is with the cause of their fall, forms the principal mark of difference between it and the old system. The reader will therefore receive with patience, and weigh with Christian candor, the remarks on this proposition, which will be more extended than those on either of the other eleven. There are few opinions on any subject of importance which have so universally obtained among men in all ages, and of all religious denominations, as the one that heaven was the probationary place of fallen angels; that they were created there, had there a precept given them to keep, sinned there, and were thence sent to the regions of darkness. To quote authorities to prove this assertion would be to quote perhaps every writer who has given his view of this subject to the world. The writer of this article has read it in at least thirty different eminent authors; and he may well wish for a gray head, therefore, and every thing else that can give weight and influence to a man's opinion. However, what he lacks in age, he will endeavor to supply by Scripture and reason. Take the following, from Milton's Paradise Lost, as a specimen of the ideas entertained by men on this subject: "What cause Moved our grand parents in that happy state Who durst defy th' Omnipotent to arms."-Book First. Now, when it is remembered that there is not a single verse in the whole Bible to prove, either directly or indirectly, that heaven was the first habitation of evil spirits, it is truly remarkable that many have nevertheless believed this doctrine, and have taught it with as much confidence as though the Scriptures contained it on almost every page! How necessary it is to examine the foundation of our faith, and to credit a matter, not because our forefathers did so before us, or because it is in strict conformity with a universal tradition, or because antiquity has marked its features with a venerable aspect; but because it is found in the sacred volume, and agrees with human reason. I can account for the reception of this opinion only in two ways: 1. It is but a few years, comparatively, since the doctrine of a plurality of worlds, inhabited by intelligent beings, gained any advocates among the lovers of wisdom. Philoso phers have thought, in past ages, that while the starry heavens revolve around it, the earth itself is stationary, and the centre of the universe! And this opinion is entertained still by those who think, if the world on which they stand were to turn around, they would fall off! But this view of the visible creation has been completely exploded since the Newtonian system of astronomy has made so wide an inroad on the philosophical theories of a contrary character. And, indeed, the doctrines of Sir Isaac existed in embryo in the system of Pythagoras, a Greek philosopher, who flourished five hundred and thirty years before Christ, and fifty years after Thales, the Milesian, who first taught astronomy in Europe. It was adopted and published by Copernicus, a Polander, in 1530; and perfected afterward by the great Newton, who also discovered the universal law of attraction or gravitation, that governs the fall of a grain of sand, and the motions of the heavenly bodies. Men have, therefore, thought, that as there is no other world in existence besides this we occupy, and the glorious residence of the Holy One of Israel; and as the angels were not in possession of the earth, they must necessarily have had their place in heaven. 2. Two or three passages of Scripture, that appear to favor it, may also account for this idea. But these passages have nothing to do with the residence of angels. The first is in the tenth chapter of Luke: "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." This is a mere figure of speech, to represent the rapidity and publicity of the enemy's overthrow. The figure, moreover, finely expresses the fact. The gospel of Christ, in the days of the apostles, spread with astonishing speed among the dark nations of the earth; and the effects of its influence were so apparent, that they could not but be noticed by the most inattentive observer. There are three kinds of heaven, or three different heavens, mentioned in Scripture. The first is the region of atmospheric air; hence we read of the birds, the winds, the clouds, and the lightnings of heaven. The second is the region of the stars; these are therefore called the stars of heaven. And the third is the place where the Lord has, what is so emphatically called in the Bible, "his throne;" where he shows forth his glory in the face of Jesus Christ; where the angels are at present, and which the righteous will inherit after the resurrection. It is of the first of these that Christ is speaking. The text may, therefore, be thus understood: "I beheld Satan fall as rapidly and publicly as lightning falleth from the aerial heavens." The second passage is in Job; it is generally quoted thus: "He chargeth the angels with folly, and the heavens are not pure in his sight." But the two parts of this passage are not thus connected in the book of Job; nor are they even found in the same chapter. They are nevertheless adduced by some who hold that Satan was cast out of heaven, proper, to prove that God charged him with folly when he sinned in that holy place; and that the purity of Jehovah's residence was soiled by his heinous offence. But let us read the above in its connection. In Job iv, 18, is the following: "Behold, He put no trust in his servants; and his angels he chargeth with folly." In the margin is this rendering: "Nor in His angels in whom he put light." This great difference between the text and the margin at once shows the difficulty of this verse. If we, however, understand it of the fall of angels, it is plain enough. Those spirits who sinned He charged with fclly, and in them he puts no trust. But even this is doubtful. The other member of the verse is in the fifteenth chapter: "Behold, He putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight." This is in the present tense. And if heaven had been defiled,-but the idea is absurd,— the glorious Inhabitant of eternity, as it is his temple, would have purified it again. Nothing is holy in comparison with God. He is of purer eyes than to look upon sin, or behold iniquity. The third passage that appears to favor the opinion now under examination, is in the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Luci fer, son of the morning!" This is commonly interpreted to refer exclusively to "the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." But such an interpretation is so absurd, and is so manifestly wresting Scripture from its context, that it is almost "an iniquity to be punished by the judges." Those who give it this meaning, design to prove by it two things: first, that Satan was once in heaven; and, secondly, that pride was the cause of his downfall. Now, if it had reference to the great enemy of man at all, they might with propriety bring in this verse to prove their opinions; but, unhappily for the cause they wish to support, the prophet intends no such application of his sublime prediction. This appears clearly from what is said in the fourth verse: "Thou shalt take up this proverb," or taunting speech, as in the margin, "against the king of Babylon," &c., and not against Satan; and in the latter part of the twelfth verse, the first of which is given above, "How art theu cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations!" Who" weakened the nations" before his sad fall from the place of his eminence? Satan? Nay, verily, but Nebuchadnezzar, the proud monarch, who said of the imperial city, "Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honor of my majesty ?" Or Belshazzar, the sacrilegious wretch, who "drank wine" out of "the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem," and who "praised the gods of gold and silver?" Of one of these individuals the prophet is speaking. Dr. A. Clarke argues that Isaiah could not have alluded to Satan, from the fact that the name given to him, "Lucifer," which signifies bringer of light, is so very inexpressive of his character. But this reasoning is not sound, for the king of Babylon was almost as wicked as the Prince of darkness himself; and it would, therefore, be equally inapplicable to him. The prophet's language is highly figurative. The haughty ruler of Assyria, seated on his "kingly throne," arrayed in, and surrounded with, all the grandeur of royal dignity, is represented as the morning sun, rising in the greatness of his strength to run his daily race; but before he has gained his place of meridian glory, his brightness is extinguished, and he sinks into oblivion! These passages, then, fail to confirm the opinion that Satan was in heaven before he perpetrated the offence for which he was so fearfully punished. And, besides these, there is, perhaps, not another in the Old and New Testaments adduced in proof of this opinion by its advocates, that alludes, even the most remotely, to the doctrine against which these observations have been ventured. The third proposition, which is the one now under consideration, is not contradicted by a single sentence in the whole Bible, when properly explained. It is also reasonable, and agrees with the recent discoveries of astronomical science. It is now generally admitted by the learned, and especially by those who are best acquainted with the science of astronomy, that the innumerable worlds revolving in boundless space are inhabited by intelligent beings. These worlds, it is known, though differing from each other in their appearance, their magnitudes, and their relative distances, are governed by the same laws in every part of the universe, have the same orbicular form, and subserve the same wise and benevolent purposes. And it cannot be supposed, without the greatest absurdity, that the uncounted systems of worlds which perform their various revolutions at such an inconceivable distance from human observation that the most stupendous of their number, though exceeding in bulk more than a million of planets such as we dwell upon, appears in the calm hour of evening as a little twinkling star, scarcely visible to the naked eye, should be entirely uninhabited. The idea is a reflection on the infinite wisdom of the great Creator. If it is, says my antagonist, then it is also a reflection on his wisdom that there are many parts of the earth which are uninhabited, and were never inhabited by any body. This is doubted. Those portions of the globe alluded to are not only, in many cases, possessed by irrational animals, but they may all have been occupied by the antediluvians; and the whole world may have been habitable before the fall. But the inference is not a just deduction from the premises, and it does not in the least affect my position. The point is not, Are there some parts of the world inaccessible to human beings? but, Was the earth, as a whole, made to be inhabited? Of this there can be no doubt. As, therefore, to construct a house with a garret and cellar, which cannot be occupied as dwelling-places by the inmates, but answer subordinate objects, is no evidence of the builder's folly; so, likewise, the present condition of different mountainous and barren portions of the earth is no reflection on the wisdom of the divine Architect. The earth was made for man; and all other planetary worlds were doubtless made for their respective inhabitants. This doctrine, however, has given rise among infidels to an objection against the love of God, and the supernatural interference which, Christians say, are manifested in the plan of redemption, and in a particular providence. It is said, as there are so many inhabited worlds in existence, and some of them much larger and more magnificent than the earth, we cannot reasonably suppose that God would so carefully superintend the affairs of men as to notice the minutest concerns of an individual; and that he would regard man in his low estate in so intense a manner, as to give his only begotten Son to die as an atonement for his sins. But there is no plausibility in this objection. I would be reasoning in the same way were I to say, Because a man has a numerous family, therefore he is naturally and reasonably negligent of his youngest child! But is this the fact in the case? Is not that child always the "little darling?" And notwithstanding the number and glory of other worlds, and the character of their inhabitants, "the earth is" also" the Lord's," and man is still the darling of heaven! For, though the unfortunate spirits who abode not in the truth were greater in ruin than the favored pair of Eden after their lamentable fall, yet the blessed Redeemer "taketh not hold on angels, but on the seed of Abraham taketh he hold," Heb. ii, 16, in the margin. But it may again be said, If they were spirits, how could they dwell on a material world? It is not fully granted that they were absolutely spiritual in their essence, or altogether unconnected with matter; but, waiving this, I will answer the question, if it is worth answering, by asking another: How do good angels, and the spirits of the righteous dead, allowing them to be immaterial, dwell in the paradise of God? for heaven is not merely a state of intellectual enjoyments, but a located place of happiness. Or, how can bad and good angels follow, and dwell with, the children of men? for, while the former tempt men to evil, the latter are ministering spirits to those who are heirs of salvation. The writer, therefore, concludes that Satan and his angels were never in heaven, but had their place of trial, as man has his, on one of the glorious orbs which form the extensive empire of the universe, in the centre of which is the seat of supreme government. And he draws this conclusion, the unfounded opinions of men, and the dreams of poets to the contrary notwithstanding. But, to obviate the difficulty existing in the minds of some that no wickedness of any kind could possibly enter "the rest that remaineth for the people of God," allowing heaven to have been the original place of residence of fallen angels, sin, being a wilful transgression of a known law, and not a huge, uncouth monster, as the strange talk of some men would lead us to suppose, could have been committed by them then, while on probation, as readily as in any other part of the universe. God, being everywhere equally present, is everywhere equally holy; and wherever a moral agent exists on trial, it necessarily follows, that there by him the law given may be violated, he punished, and God still be infinitely just and holy. 4th Proposition. The world upon which they were placed was what is called in the New Testament "their own habitation;" and in this they had "their first estate." St. Jude, in the sixth verse of his epistle, has the following language: "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day." "Their first estate," Tny έavrov apxmv, is correctly rendered in the margin of the Polyglott Bible, "Their own principality." This is evidently different in its meaning from the other phrase, 'Αλλα απολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον, "But left their own habitation;" or, "Relinquished the proper habitation, or dwelling-place." The one refers to their official standing, and the other to their place of residence. They lost the first by forsaking the second. If their own habitation was heaven, did they leave it? Was their departure from that abode of happiness a voluntary act of their own? If they sinned in heaven, were they not cast down to hell, and compelled to leave the presence of their Sovereign? But St. Jude plainly declares that they "left it;" teaching us clearly that the act was unconstrained by any superior power, and perfectly free. Again, if heaven was that habitation,-and heaven is the most glorious place in existence, because it is the immediate residence of the Lord of hosts,—what possible motive could they have had to leave their native home? And would beings of their supposed wisdom and intelligence act without motive, and particularly in that situation? It will answer no purpose here to say with some, that there are various "mansions," or houses in heaven; and that they left some of these of inferior, for others of greater glory. It will be difficult to prove that there are any houses there at all. Such phraseology as this, "In my Father's house are many mansions," is certainly used in Scripture; but by this is generally understood that there are degrees of blessedness in heaven; a doctrine that is founded on the quantum of mind men are naturally endowed with, the quantum of grace they receive from above, and the improvements they make in this life. |