And when this choice is fully made, and he becomes fixed and settled in good and the love of it, and all evil dispositions are cast out of his mind-in other words, when he is regenerated—then, and not till then, he is elevated into heaven, and becomes an angel. Thus an angel signifies one who is established and settled in good, and above the reach of temptation, consequently, who cannot fall. For, though it is true, that, as the New Church doctrines teach, every man, and also every angel, still retains a tendeney downwards, that is to evil, still that tendency is for ever kept in check by the Divine power of the Lord. And the reason why it can be so kept in check, is, because while in the world he freely chose good, and thus formed in himself (or had formed within him by the Lord) a will recipient of the Divine, and which consequently can and will be for ever sustained by the Divine inflowing. Thus, an angel cannot fall, because he is for ever upheld. Any rebellious thought or desire, for a moment uprising from his lower nature, would be instantly checked and cast down again by the truth and good of his higher nature, which truth and good are every moment infused from the Divine, and every moment received by the spiritual will formed during regeneration in the world. Thus it is utterly impossible for an angel to rebel against the Divine command or will, for his ruling love has been formed into an accordance with that will; hence it is impossible that he should fall. As before remarked, therefore, the phrase "fallen angel" involves a direct contradiction.

Whence, then, it may be asked, arose the idea or notion of "fallen angels"? The source, as we shall presently show, was not the Bible, but the Oriental theology or mythology; and the idea arose in an age when the true nature and origin of angels, as regenerated men, was little understood, as indeed it is not generally understood even in our own age. The New Church doctrine has now, for the first time, made this truth clear.

The Bible, it will be observed-at least the Old Testament-says nothing upon the subject of "fallen angels." Yet, had this been a truth-had any such marvellous event taken place as that described in Milton's "Paradise Lost," the rebellion and fall of a large part of the heavenly host, headed by a mighty leader, the beginning of the Old Testament was certainly the place to find it in. But there we find no mention of the existence of angels, fallen or unfallen, before the creation of man; and the order of the narrative fully implies, if not directly declares, that there were no such beings as angels then existing at all.

For the Bible history begins with the creation:-"In the beginning," are the opening words. Do not those words imply that no event had taken place, and that no created thing or being had existed previously to the facts about to be described? "God created the heavens and the earth," are the succeeding words. Then follows an account of the creation, ending with the formation of man. But nothing is said of the creation of angels, or of any intelligent beings superior to man. Indeed, how can there be supposed to be any being superior to man, except God Himself, since man is declared to be in the "likeness of God?" What can there be higher than God's likeness, except God?

But, it may be said, the angels existed before the creation. What! are the angels uncreate? If they existed before the creation, then they are beings uncreated, that is, self-existent, divine; then they are so many gods. “But I mean," says the arguer, "that they existed before the creation of the earth." But where is the proof of any such thing? The Scripture says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;" and then, going on with the details of that creation, states that "the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep." Then follows the production of light. Then it is added- "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters," &c., "and God called the firmament heaven." Thus, according to the literal narrative, it would appear that the earth and waters existed before the firmament or heaven. Consequently, the earth must have existed before angels, for angels are the inhabitants of heaven, and certainly they could not have existed before there was a heaven for them to exist in. Thus the notion that angels existed before the creation of the earth, is logically disproved. Let people forget what they have learned from Milton's "Paradise Lost," and remember only what they learn from the Scriptures, and these fancies would soon be dissipated.

But, it may be further asked, does not the Book of Job (xxxviii. 6, 7.) say that at the laying of the earth's corner-stone, "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy"? Would not this imply that there were angels existing before the earth was formed? Before proceeding to explain that passage, I may just observe that if that was the case, why was it not stated in the proper place, namely, in the account of the creation in the first chapter of Genesis? A mere passing allusion like this in a pure poem such as the Book of Job confessedly is, cannot be sufficient to invalidate statements, either express or implied, occurring in a regular narrative like that at the beginning

66

of Genesis. Unless we are to suppose that different parts of the Bible conflict with each other, there must be some other way of explaining the passage in Job. And it may be otherwise explained without difficulty. Every one may see, with a little examination, that the passage must be taken in a figurative sense. For if one part is to be taken literally, so must the rest be. Now, is the earth literally laid upon a corner-stone? Do the morning stars literally sing? Nor, in fact, is the expression "angels" used at all; it says "the sons of God." But does the phrase "sons of God," necessarily mean angels? Good men are called in Scripture sons of God." "As many as received Him," says the evangelist, "to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name." (John, i. 12.) Thus, believers, those that are recipients of Divine truth from the Lord, are called sons of God; and, in a sense, abstracted from person, Divine truths themselves are called sons of God, being derived from God. Now such is the meaning here. The passage must be taken in a spiritual sense. By the "earth," in this sense, is signified the church; by its " corner-stone," the Lord himself, who sustains His church; by the "morning stars," the knowledges of truth, which are sent forth anew and given to the world, at the "morning" of a new dispensation, that is, at the establishment of a new church; by their "singing together," is signified the harmony and joy which is attendant upon the reception of such truths into the mind; and by the sons of God shouting for joy," is signified the delight of heart which is experienced by those who receive and believe these new truths, and live according to them. Such is the meaning of these words in their true and spiritual sense: the passage has no reference to angels. Every new dispensation of Divine truth is called in Scripture "morning." The particular allusion here may be either to the commencement of the most ancient or of the ancient church, both of which were in existence before Job's time.

66

There is another passage in which "sons of God" are mentioned, and from which, for want of an understanding of the spiritual sense, an inference has been drawn that angels had existed before men. It occurs in the sixth chapter of Genesis, (verses 1, 2.) "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose." It was from a misunderstanding of this passage, as we shall by and by see, that the whole doctrine of "fallen angels" has

sons of

arisen. Yet a little reflection might suffice to show that the " God" here spoken of, do not mean angels: for how could angels, who are spiritual beings, "take wives" of the daughters of men, who are natural and material? An understanding of the spiritual sense will explain the passage. It was just now remarked, that by the "sons of God" are meant in Scripture such persons as are receivers of and believers in Divine truth; and, in the sense abstracted from person, "sons of God" signify Divine truths themselves, as being derived from God. This is the meaning of the phrase here. "Daughters of men," on the other hand, signify sensual and carnal affections: for as "son," in the spiritual sense, signifies truth, so "daughter" signifies affection or love, whether good or evil: hence the church is called daughter of Zion," daughter of Jerusalem," because the essence of the church consists in love-love to God and to the neighbour. In the present passage, however, the term is used in a bad sense; the phrase "daughters of men," as opposed to "sons of God," signifying mere natural and evil affections or lusts. And by the sons of God "taking wives" of them, signified that in the decline of the most ancient church, which is here treated of, men began to mix or conjoin Divine truths with their evil lusts, the consequence of which was a terrible state of profanation, resulting at length in the state of general and destructive wickedness, signified by the "flood." Such is the true meaning of this passage: there is no reference to angels at all.

66

99 66

Many of the early fathers of the Christian church saw, and strongly affirmed, that the above passage in Genesis had no reference to angels. On this point, Augustine remarks :-"I do not believe that when the apostle Peter speaks of the angels that sinned, whom God did not spare,' he means the holy angels of God, who could by no means at that time fall; but that he speaks of those men who first, as apostates, fell away from God. For the same Holy Scripture abundantly shows that men of God are called angels; for of John [the Baptist] it is written— 'Behold, I send my angel before thy face;' and the prophet Malachi is called an angel. (ii. 7.) Some of the manuscripts of the Septuagint have 'angels of God' for 'sons of God:' thus the error arose." (Augustine's "City of God." xv. 23.)

Chrysostom says, in his homily on Genesis vi., "It is inconsiderate, absurd, and blasphemous, to say, that in this passage angels and not men are understood. It is customary, in Holy Writ, to call men the 'sons of God;' as the descendants of Enoch, the sons of Seth, are called, because up to that time they had imitated the virtue of their ancestors."

Cyril, of Alexandria, says :-" The descendants of Enoch are called the sons of God,' because up to that time they had kept themselves from worldly-mindedness." He adds—“We must by no means suppose that the holy angels are meant, by those to whom such shameful licentiousness is ascribed."

The spiritism of the present day is precisely from the same spirits. Hence the history of spiritism is too often the story of broken-up homes, deserted wives, and ruined peace. Swedenborg's reference to such spirits and their victims was, not to gratify vain or prurient curiosity, but to warn us against forsaking the Living Word of God Himself to seek the dangerous influences of the concealed dead. The Word, the Word, the Word of the Living God, that is the true and sure guide ;that is the Fountain where the Lord meets us, the Rainbow of hope and blessing; the Gate to all righteousness. "I was not taught by any spirit or angel, but my mind was illuminated (says Swedenborg) by the Lord whilst I read the Word."

He names the early Quakers, and the spirits to which they gave heed (especially, however, excepting Fox and Penn), as instances of the sad results of leaving the Word for spirit dictates. And, however we may be shocked, and regret that a body now so highly esteemed should have had examples so sad in its early history, enough is given in the annals of the time to justify the conclusion, that when such things were done in public, very sad results would not be wanting in private.

Bancroft, in his History of the United States, observes (chap. 10, year 1658, Massachusetts):-"It is true that some of the Quakers were extravagant and foolish: they cried out from the windows at the magistrates and ministers that passed by, and mocked the civil and religious institutions of the country. They riotously interrupted public worship, and forgetting the decorum of their sex, and claiming a divine origin for their caprices, smeared their faces, and even went naked through the streets. Indecency, however, is best punished by slight chastisements." (Fullarton and Co. p. 183.)

Besse (Sufferings, vol. 2, p. 235) mentions a case of a Mrs. Wardell, who was moved by what she considered the Holy Spirit, to go naked into a congregation at Newbury, in 1665.