Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

Great and ex

unclean in his sight,

perfections of Him who contrived and formed angels; who with a word called them into being; who preserves, informs, directs, controuls and blesses them for ever. cellent as they are, they are exhibited as and as charged with folly' before him. must be the perfection of his character; how great, how wise, how good!

How amazing then

SERMON XX.

CREATION.

THE FALLEN ANGELS.

AND THE ANGELS, WHO 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.

JUDE 6.

In this passage we have a concise, but very interesting account of certain Angels, who once dwelt in heaven. Created at first with all the excellencies of the angelic nature, placed in circumstances of the highest honour, and enjoying the greatest happiness, they are here represented as having lost their character, and forfeited their honour and happiness. The nature and allotments of these Angels furnish the subject, which next demands our attention in this System of Dis

courses.

Before I enter on the consideration of this subject, it will be proper to take some notice of an opinion which has, chiefly within the two past centuries, been adopted concerning it, and advanced with confidence by persons of various descriptions: an opinion, which if true, would preclude the present Discourse as groundless and nugatory. It is this; that there are no such beings as Fallen Angels. Infidels have made the Scriptural account of these beings a formal objection against the truth and credibility of the Scriptures. Not a small number of men, professing themselves to be Christians, have partly

yielded to the objection, and partly considered the contrary doctrine as necessary to their particular systems of theology. Thus here, as in other cases, men apparently opposed to each other in the belief and the denial of the Scriptures, have yet united in overthrowing their authority, and unsettling their character as a revelation.

From the manner in which the doctrine has been opposed, we should naturally argue unfavourably concerning the opposition. It has been most usually opposed, not with sober argument, but with ridicule and sneers. A cause which needs this support is bad of course, and is by its abettors seen to be bad: for no man of common sense will ever resort to this feeble and ineffectual mode of attack or defence, when the surer, more rational, and more efficacious resort of sober argument is in his power.

If the existence of fallen Angels is incredible, it must be so for one of the following reasons: — · :

1. That it is not revealed sufficiently to command belief; and that, as we have no direct knowledge of invisible beings, aside from Revelation, so in this case, Revelation does not warrant us to admit their existence: or,

2. There is some evidence in the nature of things which disproves their existence, or at least renders it highly improbable.

Concerning the first of these methods of opposing the existence of fallen angels, I observe, that it has been very little resorted to by the opposers of this doctrine. Here, as in many other cases, Revelation has been tried before the tribunal of Philosophy. Men have supposed, that their own judgment was a more unerring standard of faith and truth, than the Scriptures. That Infidels should thus act is certainly to be expected, for this opinion is the basis of their system. However irrational therefore, and indefensible, their conduct may seem to us, we are certainly to feel no surprise when they resort to it, or rely upon it with confidence. But for this opinion, they could not retain their system for a moment.

But that men professing to believe in the Scriptures as a divine revelation, should adopt this method of establishing or refuting their declarations, is, to say the least, wonderful. Still it has in every age been more or less the conduct of

persons who have professed this belief. It began to exist in the time of the Apostles, and was boldly adopted in defiance of their authority and inspiration. The declarations of St. Paul, relative to this subject, are ample proofs of the fact. The two first chapters of the first epistle to the Corinthians are in a great measure employed on this subject. In them he informs us that to the philosophical Greeks, who arrogated to themselves the titles of Σοφο, and Φιλοσοφοι, Wise Men and Philosophers, the doctrine of the cross was foolishness.' This therefore was then a general decision of philosophy. Against the adoption of that philosophy, and the imitation of the men who professed it, he strongly cautions the Corinthian christians, who were in no small danger from its imposing and deceitful influence. At the same time he informs them that this 'foolishness,' as they termed it,' of God, was wiser than men;' that God had not chosen' men of this character to call them' to salvation, but men of an opposite character, who disclaimed the very words,' as well as the spirit of this philosophy; men who, although despised and accounted as nothing by these vain, arrogant philosophers, and their followers, were yet beloved of God, and the instruments of their salvation. He farther informs them, that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God;' and again declares, that the Lord knoweth the reasonings of the wise, that they are vain.' To the Colossians he writes, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit; that is, vain and deceitful philosophy; which, he declares, accorded with the traditions of men, and the rudiments of this world, but not with Christ.' Of course it merited contempt on the one hand, and was fraught with danger on the other.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

From the age of the apostles to the present time, almost every existing heresy has been derived from this source. The Scriptures were found by many men, and men too, who were often distinguished for their ingenuity, not to agree with their philosophy; and of course could not in their opinion be true, unless they could be bent to such an agreement. Those therefore who chose still to acknowledge the revelation of the Scriptures, employed themselves in helping out their character as a system of truth, and removing their supposed inconsistencies by new constructions, allegorical explanations, and generally by substituting what they ought to mean, for that which ac

cording to the natural and proper force of language, they must mean. Those on the contrary who cared little about them, finding the doctrines which they contain to disagree with their own philosophy, denied their authority at once. Men of this class are, in my view, more rational, more self-consistent, and less injurious to the character of the Scriptures, than those of the other. For nothing can be more irrational, inconsistent, or injurious to the Scriptures, than to profess to receive them as a divine revelation, and at the same time to make human opinion the standard by which their declarations are to be tried. This is no other than to sit in judgment upon God himself, (who in this case is acknowledged to be the Author of the declarations) and to determine whether he has spoken truth or falsehood. Must not angels wonder to see men thus employed.

The truth is, the doctrine in question is so often and so clearly asserted in the Scriptures, that the denial of it cannot be founded on them alone. All men act in this case as Dr. Priestley has acted, in questioning the existence of the holy angels. In pursuing the doctrines of his peculiar system, he was led to doubt, and ultimately to deny the immateriality of the human soul; and roundly decided, that it was nothing but organized matter. Angels, he saw plainly, stood in the way of his arguments concerning this subject: for no mind possesses sufficient ingenuity to render it even remotely probable that angels are material. And as the human soul may as easily be supposed to be immaterial as an angel can be, there was no resort left to Dr. Priestley, but to question the existence of angels altogether. This therefore he chose to do, notwithstanding the numerous express declarations of God to the contrary; declarations as express as language will admit; rather than give up a doctrine which he thought necessary to the support of his system. In this manner the Scriptures may be made to declare any thing.

With respect to the second of these reasons, on which the existence of fallen angels is denied, viz. that there is some evidence in the nature of things, which disproves the existence of such beings, or at least renders it highly improbable, I observe, 1. That the existence of Angels, generally considered, is originally less improbable than that of men.

« PreviousContinue »