{"Fallen Angels, a Disquisition upon Human Existence," etc. by one of them.}
1900 79 The title of this strange book is given below, enough to indicate its folly, though written by an educated man without faith or the fear of God. Think of any one seriously, and in his very preface, citing Byron, "What are we, and whence come we? What shall be our ultimate existence? What is our present? — are questions answerless, and yet incessant." Like the volume generally, it is the issue of Egyptian darkness. The Bible answers every one of these questions with unerring certainty, at least for all who believe in Christ, Whom the anonymous author levels to our plane, though owning Him perfect, and asks, "why should we not also have lived before! like our Type"? and why should we not ascend to heaven? Citing John 3:13, he has no scruple in contradicting scripture when he asks, Is not this saying true with regard to Enoch and Elijah? A believing child ought to know that they were caught up. But Christ alone "went up" in His indefeasible title, He only as He says Himself. But what is this to unbelief?
So again he speculates that man sinned before he was born, "and that that alone can account for the statement that we were born in sin!" Was there ever greater infatuation? Adam and Eve were not born at all, still less born in sin; but having sinned before being parents, they transmitted the taint to the race. This is a fact that explains the truth to all believers. God created an innocent pair, who did sin and left the sad heirloom to their children. Can any thing be simpler or more satisfactory Not men as such, but believers are called "pilgrims" in scripture. The faithless are of the world, and at home on the earth.
What matters that which Pythagoras and others fancied? or the fathers dazzled by them? What of Buddha or Brahma? John Milton was an Arian, and much injured by heathen ideas. What worth or weight is due to mere poets on such a theme? And how unworthy to cite J. S. Mill's blasphemy, asking if his conclusion is unnatural?
In chap. 9. we come to the point: "Why should it be regarded as preposterous that we should be descended from angels — now children, as it were, of our former selves?" Does not the author know that the only scripture, which is believed by many grave and intelligent Christians to reveal such an abnormal departure from the divine landmarks, is Gen. 6. confirmed by the allusions of 2 Peter 2. and Jude? and that this frightful anomaly, root and fruit, disappeared in the Deluge? But it is truly preposterous to imagine that our souls have any such source. Gen. 2. attributes the soul of Adam, and consequently of the human race, to the direct inbreathing of Jehovah Elohim. Of man only is this written; and thereon depends the immortality of his soul. See in Prov. 8. the speciality of man's place as the delight of Wisdom, Himself Jehovah's delight for all eternity. And what a comment on it is the Incarnate Word, the Life Eternal, and the Light of men! This accounts for the divine interest in man and the earth to God's glory.
It is not true that "the one absolute definition of the Almighty, self-existent, supreme Being is, that he is Love." The apostle John, who beyond all treats of this, is careful in 1 John 1. to report to us that He is Light. It is only in chap. 4. of the same Epistle that he tells us He is Love. Light is the essential purity of His nature, which makes every thing and one manifest; Love is rather the energy of His nature, which goes out in active goodness. To leave out Light is to conceive a false god who can let off sin and sinners easily, not the True Self-existent One, Who is Love also. Christ is His image in both respects, as He was and is very God, no less than the Father and the Holy Spirit.
False utterly is it that the Lord Jesus is "the Brother of the fallen angels": surely a shameless speaking for God, without warrant of scripture, nay against it. For it is expressly shown in Heb. 2. that on the one hand, since the children were partakers of blood and flesh, He also Himself in like manner took part in the same, and that on the other, He does not take up angels but takes up the seed of Abraham (or the children spoken of, those who believe). Hence He became man to die for men; He did not become an angel to die for angels. The grace of God appeared accordingly that brings salvation to all men, though unavailing if they believe not; but not a word of God speaks of salvation for angels. The holy angels do not need it; the fallen ones await their everlasting doom. They were not tempted like man and have no Saviour, no Mediator, like Christ Jesus a Man.
It is mere recklessness to affirm that angels and men are of the same family, or to infer it from angels being called men, as appearing in human guise. Can any thing be more a fallacy than that the two appellations are used indifferently? How absurd to reason, from Satan's being called "the god of this age," that we must be "of his kind"! But enough: has not a book so baseless and wild received sufficient notice? The anonymous writer is not one of the fallen angels. The door of repentance is still open for him (as we may thank God), not for them.