01.14. The Designations And Doctrine Of Angels....

Section Second. The Designations And Doctrine Of Angels, With Reference More Especially To The Interpretation Of Passages In New Testament Scripture.

ANGELIC agency meets us at the very threshold of the gospel. The first communications made respecting the new order of things, then on the eve of emerging, came through the mediation of angels: it was they who at length broke the silence of ages. Nor may this be matter of surprise, if, together with the long cessation of prophetical gifts among men, respect be had to the part, that in earlier times was wont to be taken by angels in supernatural revelations. The only thing that may seem somewhat strange is the assumption of a name (Gabriel) by one of those angelic messengers, for the purpose more immediately of confirming the certainty of those things which he came to announce, and magnifying the guilt incurred by Zecharias in entertaining doubt concerning the possibility of their accomplishment, (Luke 1:19.) This, however, admits of a satisfactory explanation; but as there are various other points and passages of Scripture connected with angelic agency, which also call for explanation, we shall take the whole subject into consideration, and discuss the several topics relating to it, in the order that seems most natural and appropriate.

I. And, first, in regard to the general designation and its use in Scripture. The Greek ἄνγγελοι, like the Hebrew מִלָכִים, has a general as well as a more specific sense: it may denote any individuals sent forth with a message to carry, or a commission to execute—messengers, as well in the natural as in the supernatural sphere of things. When the reference is plainly to the former, then the rendering ought commonly to be messenger, as it usually is in the English version—for example, Job 1:14; 1 Samuel 11:3; Luke 9:52; James 2:25. There are passages, however, in which, while the reference still is to persons or things belonging to the earthly sphere, the name is applied to them in a sense quite peculiar, and so as sometimes to leave it doubtful whether angel or messenger might be the more fitting translation. In this I do not include such passages as Acts 12:7, or 1 Corinthians 11:10, where, by “the angel of the Lord,” in the one case, and by “the angels,” in the other, some would understand merely human delegates; entirely, as I conceive, against the proper import and interpretation of the passages. Of this, however, after wards. But, in Psalms 104:4, we have the words, which are quoted in Hebrews 1:7, “who maketh His angels spirits, His ministers a flaming fire;” and as the discourse there is of natural things, in their relation to the beneficent disposal and ever present agency of God, it seems fittest to understand by the spirits winds, and by the flaming fire lightning; so that the sense comes to be, that God makes the winds of heaven, as angels or messengers, do His bidding, and the lightning of the clouds minister to His will: not certainly (as Kingsley interprets it, Village Sermons, p. 7,) “showing us that in those breezes there are living spirits, and that God’s angels guide those thunder clouds:” no, but showing that these very breezes and thunder-clouds are His angelic or ministering agents. Of course, they are poetically so designated; and the language is of the same kind, as when it is said of God, that “He makes the clouds His chariot, and flies upon the wings of the wind.” In like manner, but with closer approximation to the ordinary meaning of the word, prophets are sometimes called God’s melakim, or angels, though the rendering of messengers is adopted in the authorized version (Haggai 1:13; Malachi 3:1;) and the epithet is even applied to Israel generally, with special reference to the prophetical nature of his calling, appointed by God to be the light and instructor of the world, (Isaiah 42:19.)

It formed but a comparatively slight transition from this use of the word, and indeed, was but connecting it with another aspect of the delegated trust committed to the covenant-people, when the priesthood were styled God’s angels; as in Malachi 2:7, “The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the angel (Engl. version, messenger) of the Lord of Hosts.” This obviously is said, not so much of any individual member of the priestly class, as of the class itself collectively; the priesthood was God’s delegated ministry for making known the things pertaining to His will and worship—in that respect, His angel- interpreter. And thus we obtain a ready explanation of another passage, which has often been much misunderstood: “When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for He hath no pleasure in fools; pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldst not vow than that thou shouldst vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error” (Ecclesiastes 5:4-6;) that is, neither rashly utter with thy lips what thou hast not moral strength and fixedness of purpose to perform; nor, if thou shouldst have uttered it, go before the priesthood, the Lord’s deputed agents to wait on such things, and say it was an error, as if by making an easy confession of having done wrong in uttering the vow, the evil could be remedied. On the ground especially of this last application of the word angel in Old Testament Scripture, we find the most natural explanation of the address under which, in the Apocalypse, the epistles were sent to the seven churches of Asia:—“to the angels of the churches.” The term is adopted, like so many others in the Apocalypse, from the prophetical usage, and from that usage more especially as employed in later times with respect to the priesthood. It can determine nothing, therefore, as to the question, whether the party designated angel, might at the time consist of one individual, or of a collection of individuals; without in any way defining this, it indicates the high position of the party, whether single or collective, as having had committed to it the authoritative instruction and oversight of the Christian community in the several churches. That party stood, as it were, between heaven and earth, and was charged with God’s interest in that particular locality. (This very charge and the responsibility implied in it, is itself quite fatal to the notion of Dean Stanley, “that the churches are there described as personified in their guardian or representative angels” (Apostolic Age, p. 71.) Angels are nowhere else spoken of as having to do in such a manner with the life and purity of the churches; and the notion is altogether opposed to the general doctrine of angels.)

Usually, however, when angels are mentioned in Scripture, it is with reference to another kind of existences than such as properly belong to this present world to spirits, as contradistinguished from men in flesh and blood, and the occupants of regions suited to their ethereal natures. Yet even when thus limited, there is considerable latitude in the expression, and the name may be said to comprise several orders of being. (1.) First, there are those more commonly understood by the expression—the angels of God, as they are sometimes called, or of heaven (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32; John 1:51; Matthew 22:30.) They are named in connexion with heaven, because they have their more peculiar abode there, in the region of God’s manifested presence and glory. God’s angels also they are emphatically called, not merely because they derived their being from His hand, and are constantly sustained by His power—for this belongs to them in common with all creation—but more especially because they are in a state of peculiar nearness to God, and are His immediate agents in executing the purposes of His will. It is as possessing the ministry of such glorious agents, and possessing them in vast numbers, as well as invincible strength, that He takes to Himself the name of “The Lord of Hosts.” (2.) Then there are the angels of darkness, who are never, however, like the others, designated simply the angels, but always with some qualifying epithet indicative of their real character and position; such as “the Devil’s angels,” as contrasted with the angels of God, or “the angels that sinned,” “that kept not their first estate,” in contradistinction as well to what they themselves once were, as to the party that remained steadfast (Matthew 25:41; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6.) (3.) Finally, there is one who is called the angel, by way of eminence, or “the Angel of the Covenant,” and who, as regards angelic ministrations, occupies a place altogether peculiar to himself. As we shall have occasion to refer at some length to this angel-prince under the next division, it is needless to be more particular here.

II. We turn now to the individual or proper names sometimes applied to angels in Scripture, one of which occurs so near the commencement of the Gospel history. It is at a comparatively late period of the elder dispensation, and only in the book of Daniel, that we find any specific names given to particular angels, or beings acting in the capacity of angels. There, for the first time, occur the names of Gabriel and Michael; nor do any other names beside these occur. The late appearance of such designations, together with the local position of him who employed them, was sufficient ground for the Rationalists to rush to the conclusion, that such names were of heathen origin, and that Daniel and his captive brethren learned them from the Chaldeans. It were impossible to admit such a view, without bringing into doubt the prophetical gifts of Daniel, and involving in just suspicion the supernatural character of his communications. For the angelic names he uses were not applied by himself, but were heard by him in vision, as applied one to another, by the heavenly messengers themselves. So that whatever may have been the reason for their introduction, it can with no fitness be ascribed—if Daniel’s own representations are to be accepted—to an adoption of the heathen notions prevalent around him. Nor was such a tendency in the direction of heathenism to have been expected here. Nowhere more strongly than in the book of Daniel does the theocratic spirit keep the ascendant—the resolute determination to abide at all hazards by the old foundations, and, in things spiritual and divine, to make the heathen the learner merely, not the instructor or the guide. The aim and design of the whole book is to show the real superiority and ultimate triumph of Judaism over heathenism. And it was not, to say the least, by any means likely that in this one point Daniel should have been disposed to renounce his claims as a messenger and prophet of the true God, and become a disciple of the magicians over whom his better wisdom carried him so far aloft.

It is true, no doubt, that the Jews, after the Babylonish captivity, the interval that elapsed between that period and the Christian era, showed a disposition to deal somewhat lavishly with angelic names and orders. The book of Tobit, which was composed during this interval, not only finds one of the principal characters of the story in an angel called Raphael, but makes this personage say of himself, “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One:”—evidently showing that something like a system of angelology, branching out into offices as well as names, had sprung up among the Jews of the dispersion. As commonly happens, when the elements of superstition begin to work, the false tendency developed itself more fully as time proceeded. In the book of Enoch, a spurious production that appeared some time about the Christian era, and undoubtedly embodying the notions of many of the more speculative Jews of that period, we are told of the “four great archangels, Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Uriel,” who perpetually bring reports to the Creator, of the corrupt state of the world, and receive from Him their respective commissions. Rabbinical writers descend into still further details, specify the exact positions of those superior angels in the presence of God (setting Michael on the right, Gabriel on the left, Raphael behind, Uriel in front,) tell us how Gabriel attended at the nuptials of Adam and Eve, how he taught Joseph the 70 languages of the world, and many similar things both of him and of the other archangels (Eisenmenger Ent. Judenthum, vol. i., p. 374, sq.) Such were the fanciful and ridiculous vagaries into which the Jewish angelology ran; but it by no means follows, from such a system having developed itself among the later Jews, that it had its origin in the Chaldean influence, to which they were exposed in Babylon—least of all, that Daniel and his godly companions led the way in surrendering themselves to the direction of such an influence. Considering the jealousy with which not only they, but the stricter Jews gene rally, felt toward the corruptions of heathenism, after the Babylonish exile, the more natural supposition is, that they spun, their theories of angelical existences out of the few actual notices that occur of the world of spirits in their own Scriptures—in this, as in other things, pushing some scattered elements of truth into many groundless and frivolous extremes. It is in perfect accordance with what is known of Jewish or Rabbinical speculations in general, to affirm, that the real basis of what they imagined respecting the names and offices of angels, was to be found in the writings of the Old Testament, though the opinions of those among whom they lived might come in at one quarter or another, to give a particular turn to the current of their speculations.

Now, it is to be remembered that, while we meet with specific names of those heavenly messengers only in Daniel, yet in earlier revelations there is a certain approximation to the same thing; and the change cannot be characterized as very abrupt, or the feature in Daniel marked as absolutely singular. Even in one of the earliest notices of angelic visitation, that which occurred to Abraham on the plains of Mature (Genesis 18:1-33) it is evident from the sacred narrative that, of the three personages who then appeared, one was manifestly superior in dignity, if not also in nature, to the other two. He remains behind, and, in the name of the Lord, speaks to Abraham respecting the destruction of Sodom, while they go in the humbler character of messengers to take personal cognizance of its state. Then, in later times, we have the designations of “the Angel of the Covenant,” “the angel of the Lord’s presence,” “the angel in whom the Lord’s name is” (Malachi 3:1; Isaiah 63:9; Exodus 23:21;) constantly represented as different from, and superior to, a mere angel—for, in the first of the passages just referred to, he is identified with the Lord Himself, whom the people professed to be seeking after; in the second he is described as the Saviour of the covenant-people; and, in the third—the earliest of the three, and the foundation of the others—He is in a pointed manner distinguished from an angel in the ordinary sense (comp. the passage with Isaiah 33:2, Isaiah 33:12, Isaiah 33:14,) and is characterized as the same that afterwards appeared to Joshua, at once as the Lord and as the Captain of the Lord’s host (Joshua 5:14-15; Joshua 6:2.) Still further, we find this highest angel, the Angel or messenger of the covenant, identified with the Messiah, and designated by a variety of names, such as Immanuel, Jehovah Zidekinu, the prince, or the prince of the host, etc. And not only is this leader of the Lord’s hosts thus individualized and indicated by name, but a specific designation is also frequently applied to the great adversary of God and man—Satan. So that it was not to strike into a path altogether new, but merely to take an additional step in a direction already formed, when Daniel introduced the names of Michael and Gabriel into our heavenly vocabulary. But why should even such a step have been taken? Was this done in a way which admits of being intelligently explained and justified? Or does there appear in it something arbitrary and fanciful? In answer to such questions, it may be replied generally, that, if such designations were proper to be introduced anywhere, it is precisely in the book of Daniel that they might be most fitly looked for. His writings possess considerably more of a dramatic character than those of the other prophets, and in his own book those are the most dramatic visions in which the names occur. It was, therefore, in them that the actors in the spiritual drama might be expected to be most distinctly portrayed. And then the individual names, which are used for this end, are found on examination to be, not proper names in the ordinary sense, but appellatives designating the nature and office of those who bore them, and most naturally growing out of the special communications which they were engaged in making. To see this, we have only to glance at the names themselves.

1. Beyond doubt the highest in rank and importance is MICHAEL. This name occurs twice in Daniel, and is also found in the Epistle of Jude and the Revelation. It is compounded of three words, which together express the meaning, Who is like God? (מִיכָאַל.) The El, which denotes God, has respect to God as the God of might; so that the idea indicated by the appellation is, the possession, either of absolutely Divine, or of Divine-like majesty and power—the former, if the name is applied to one in whom the nature of God resides; the latter, if applied to a created intelligence. Here, however, there is considerable diversity of opinion. The Jewish and Rabbinical authorities, as already noticed, understand by Michael one of the four highest angels, or archangels, as they are sometimes termed—though with a certain superiority possessed by him above the rest; for they call Michael the Princeps Maximus, the tutelary angel of Judea, God’s peculiar angel, the Prince of the World. He was, therefore, in their account, decidedly the highest of created intelligences, but still himself a part of the creation. We find the same view exhibited in one of the earliest Patristic productions, the Shepherd of Hermas; and it became the prevailing opinion among the fathers. But the divines of the Reformation very commonly adopted another view, and understood Michael to be a name of Christ. So, for example, Luther (on Daniel 10:21 and Daniel 12:1,) and Calvin, who, at least, expresses his preference for the same opinion, though without absolutely rejecting the other; in the next age, also Cocceius, Witsius, Turretine, Lampe, Calov, the last of whom even affirms the opinion which represents the Michael in Daniel 12:1 as a created angel, to be impious. This certainly appears to be the correct view, and we shall present in as brief a compass as possible the grounds on which it is based.

(1.) The name itself—who is like God? This seems to point to the Supreme Lord, and in a way very common with the earlier writers of the Old Testament; as in Exodus 15:11, “Who is like Thee among the gods, Lord?” or, in Psalms 89:8, “Who is like the Lord among the sons of the mighty?” Such an ascription of peerless might and glory, when turned into a personal appellation, seems most naturally to imply, that the qualities expressed in it belonged to the individual; it fixes our regard upon Him as the representative and bearer of what the appellation imports; and the turn given to it by Bengel (on Revelation 12:7,) as if it were a mark of humility rather than of weakness—as if the possessor of the title pointed away from himself to God—is quite unnatural, and contrary to the Scriptural usage in such appellations. Nor, in that case, would it have formed a suitable designation for the highest of the angels, since it could have indicated nothing as to any peculiar honour or dignity belonging to him. As a distinguished epithet, it is appropriate only to Christ, who actually possesses the unrivalled properties of God; and who, expressly on the ground of his possessing these, and being able to say, “All that the Father hath is Mine,” has charged Himself with the interests of the covenant-people, and is found adequate to the establishment of its provisions (John 5:18; John 16:15; Isaiah 9:6-7; Php 2:6-11.) (2.) Another argument is found in the collateral, and, to some extent, epexegetical, or explanatory designations, which are applied to the same personage. Thus in Daniel 12:1, He is called emphatically the Great Prince (הַנָדֹול הַשַׂר) apparently referring to, and closely agreeing with, the name assumed by the angel of the Lord in Joshua 5:14, captain, or rather, prince of Jehovah’s host (יְהוָה-עְכַא-שַׂר,) that is, the leader of the heavenly forces of the Great King. So again, in Daniel 10:21, Michael is styled the prince of the covenant-people, “Your prince,” the one who presides over their state and destinies; or, as it is at Daniel 12:1, “Who standeth up for the children of thy people,” namely, to protect and deliver them. These descriptions seem plainly to identify Michael with the Angel of the Covenant, who sometimes appears as God, and sometimes as his peculiar representative. Even the Rabbinical Jews could not altogether escape the conviction of the identity of Michael and this personage; for the saying occurs more than once in their writings, that “wherever Michael appeared, there was seen the glory of the Shekinah itself.” The passage, which tended chiefly to lead them in the wrong direction, was Daniel 10:13, where he is called “one (אֶחָר) of the chief princes,” or, as it might equally be rendered, “first of the chief princes,” head of the angel-chiefs. The Jewish writers understood it to indicate merely precedence or superiority in respect to others essentially of the same class. But, taken in connexion with the other passages and expressions in Daniel, it seems intended simply to exhibit the relation of Michael to the angels, to present him to our view as their directing and governing head. It is substantially, indeed, of the same import as archangel, which is never used in the plural, and never receives a personal application but to Michael (Jude 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:16;) so that there is no Scriptural warrant for understanding it as an indication of an angelic hierarchy, or otherwise than as a designation of the head of angelic hosts. (3.) Lastly, the descriptions given of Michael, both of his person and his acts, seem to confirm the same view: they are such as properly belong to the Messiah, the essentially Divine Head and King of His Church, but are scarcely compatible with the position of a created intelligence. Take, for example, the delineation of his person as given in Daniel 10:5-6, “And I looked, and behold a certain man in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz: his body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude”—the description has been almost literally transferred to the vision of the glorified Redeemer by St. John in the Apocalypse (Revelation 1:13-17, Revelation 2:18.) With representations so nearly identical, we naturally conceive the same personages to have been intended by them. Some, indeed, have taken the description in Daniel as refer ring to Gabriel, and not to Michael; but this is plainly against the natural import of the narrative; which represents Gabriel as coming and talking familiarly with the prophet, while the vision of the glorious One was so overpowering, that he was unable to bear the sight. It is necessary, therefore, to understand it of Michael, who appeared in glory at some distance, and on the opposite bank of the river. What is afterwards said of Michael, at Daniel 12:1 as standing up to deliver the Lord’s people in a time of unparalleled tribulation, and the co-relative action ascribed to him in the Apocalypse (Revelation 12:7-9,) of overcoming and casting down from the heaven of his power and glory the great adversary of God and man, serve also to confirm the identification of Michael with Christ. For, the actions referred to are manifestly proper to Christ, as the Head of His Church, not to any inferior agent. Scripture constantly represents it as the sole and peculiar glory of Christ to put down all power and authority that exalts itself against God, or to execute the judgment written upon the adversary. On these grounds we conclude, that Michael is but another name for the Angel of the Covenant, or for Christ. It is the name alone that is peculiar to Daniel; and the reason, apparently, why such a name was chosen in the revelations given through Him, was to render prominent the Divine power and majesty in the angel-mediator, which assured the covenant- people of a triumphant issue out of those gigantic conflicts and troubles that were before them, if only they proved stead fast to the truth. (Compare Ode de Angelis, pp. 1054-58, Hengstenberg on Daniel and on Revelation 12:7-9.)

(2.) In regard to the other specific name, GABRIEL, it is clear, both from the name itself, and from the historical notices given of the bearer of it, that a created angel is to be understood. The word may have a slightly different explanation put upon it, according as the iod is held to be paragogic merely, or the pronominal affix: in the former case, it means hero, or mighty one of God; in the other, my hero, or mighty one, is God—God is my strength. Either way the leading thought conveyed by it is much the same; it embodies a twofold idea—that the bearer of the name is distinguished by heroic might, and that he has this might, not of himself, but of God. Such an appellation could only be given to a created intelligence, to one whose part it was to recognise his dependence upon God, and in the exercise of his might to show forth something of the almightiness of the Creator. Appearing under this designation, it indicated that the business, which led to his appearance, was one that would call for the manifestation of heroic energy, such as could be found only in close connexion with the all-sufficient Jehovah. The times and circumstances referred to in the vision of Daniel, in which Gabriel acted a prominent part (Daniel 8:1-27, Daniel 9:21,) were precisely of such a description; they bore respect to the great struggles and conflicts, through which ultimate security and blessing were to be attained for the covenant-people; and the revelation of the progress and issue of the contest by one, whose very name carried up the soul to the omnipotence of Jehovah, was itself a pledge and assurance of a prosperous result. Nor was it materially different at the commencement of the Gospel, where the name of Gabriel again meets us in Divine communications. These communications bore upon matters encompassed with peculiar difficulty, and capable of being brought about only by the supernatural agency of Godhead. The very first stage in the process lay across a natural impossibility, since to furnish the herald of the new dispensation an aged and barren woman (Elizabeth) must become the mother of a child. The next, which was presently afterwards announced to Mary, involved not only a natural impossibility, but the most astounding and wonderful of all mysteries—the incarnation of Godhead. In such circumstances, what could be more fitting and appropriate, than that the Divine messenger, sent from the Upper Sanctuary to disclose the immediate approach of such events, should come as the personal representative of the heroic might and energy of Heaven?—should even make himself known as the Gabriel, the God-empowered hero, who in former times had disclosed to Daniel the purpose of God to hold in check the powers of evil, and in spite of them to confirm for ever the eternal covenant? The remembrance of the past, in which the purpose of God had been so fearlessly proclaimed and so successfully vindicated, now came in aid of the testimony, which the same Divine messenger was sent to deliver; so that the tidings, all strange and startling as they might appear, should have met from the children of the covenant with a ready and believing response.

Even the miraculous, temporary suspension of the power of speech, with which the appearance of Gabriel to Zacharias came to be attended, was full of meaning and in perfect keeping with the whole circumstances of the time. Viewed in connection with these, the aspect of harshness, which at first sight it may seem to carry, will be found to disappear. That the measure of unbelief, which arose in his mind on seeing the angelic vision, and on first hearing the announcement made to him, was deserving of rebuke, must be regarded as certain from the rebuke actually administered; no such, even slight and temporary, punishment would have been inflicted, had it not been amply justified by the existing state of mind in Zacharias. But Zacharias is chiefly to be contemplated here as a representative of the people, whose prayers he was at the time symbolically offering; and in him, as such, were embodied, along with the better elements that continued to work among them, a portion also of the worse. The unbelief, therefore, that discovered itself in connexion with the angelical announcement, was but too sure an indication of the evil that slumbered even among the better part of the covenant-people. And the instant, and visible, though still comparatively gentle rebuke it met with in the case of Zacharias, was meant to be a salutary and timely warning to the people at large; and, taken in connexion with the name, Gabriel, made known along with it, it was also a palpable proof that this name was no empty title, but gave assurance of the immediate operation of the infinite power of Godhead. Thus the miracle of dumbness wrought upon Zacharias became a sign to all around—a sign of the certainty with which the things should be accomplished that were announced by Gabriel (whatever might be required of miraculous power for their performance,) and a sign also of the withering and disastrous result, which should infallibly emerge, if the manifestations of Divine power and goodness that were at hand should be met by a spirit of distrust and unbelief.

It thus appears, when the history and relations of the subject are duly considered, that there is nothing greatly peculiar in the use of the names Michael and Gabriel, whether in the Book of Daniel, or in New Testament Scripture. The names here also, as in those of Immanuel. Branch of the Lord, Angel of the covenant, Satan, were really descriptive of nature and position. And their appearance only in the later revelations of the Old covenant finds a ready explanation in the circumstance, that the progressive nature of the Divine communications necessarily led to a progressive individualizing, both in regard to the Messiah Himself, and to the various persons and objects connected with His undertaking. Hence, it naturally happens, that in the later books of the Old Testament, and in those of the New, the individual features and characteristics of all kinds are brought most distinctly out. In this respect, therefore, the appearance is precisely as the reality might have led us to expect.

III. Having so far cleared our way to a right understanding of the subject of angels, by examining the language employed, both in its more general and its more specific forms, we naturally turn to inquire next, what, according to the revelations of Scripture, is their personal state?—the state, namely, of those, who are always understood, when angels generally are spoken of—the angels in heaven. In Scripture they are uniformly represented as in the most elevated condition of intelligence, purity, and bliss. Endowed with faculties which fit them for the highest sphere of existence, they excel in strength, and can endure, unharmed, the intuition of God (Psalms 103:20; Matthew 18:10.) Nor in moral excellence are they less exalted; for they are called emphatically “the holy angels,” “elect angels,” “angels of light” (Mark 8:38; 1 Timothy 5:21; 2 Corinthians 11:14;) and are represented as ever doing the will of God, doing it so uniformly and perfectly, that men. on earth can aim at nothing higher or better than doing it like the angels in heaven. In the sphere, too, of their being and enjoyment, all is in fitting harmony with their natural and moral perfections; not only no elements of pain or disorder, but every essential provision for the wants and capacities of their immortal natures; so that to have our des tiny associated with theirs, to have our condition made equal to theirs, is presented to our view as the very glory of that resurrection-state to which Christ has called His people (Luke 20:36; Hebrews 12:22.) The two, indeed, may not be in all respects identical, can hardly, indeed, be so; but that which is made to stand as the pattern cannot in anything of moment be inferior to what is represented as bearing its likeness. That the angelic state was from the first substantially what it still is, can scarcely be doubted from the general tenor of the Scriptural representations. Yet in these a certain change also is indicated—not, indeed, from evil to good, or from feebleness to strength, but from a state, in which there was, at least, the possibility of falling, to another in which this has ceased to be possible—a state of ever-abiding holiness and endless felicity. The actual fall and perdition of a portion of their number, implies that somehow the possibility now mentioned did at one period exist; and the angels, that kept their first estate, and have received the designation of elect angels, nay, are assigned an everlasting place among the ministers and members of Christ’s kingdom, must have made some advance in the security of their condition. And this, we inevitably conclude, must infer some advance also in relative perfection; for absolute security to rational beings in the enjoyment of life and blessing, we can only conceive of as the result of absolute holiness; they have it—they alone can have it—we imagine, in whom holiness has become so deeply rooted, so thoroughly pervasive of all the powers and susceptibilities of their being, that these can no longer feel and act but in subservience to holy aims and obedience to principles of righteousness. So far, therefore, the angels appear to have become what they now are, that a measure of security, and, by consequence, a degree of perfection (whether as regards spiritual knowledge, or moral energy) is now theirs, which some time was not. From the representations of Scripture, there is room also for another distinction in regard to the state of angels, though, like the one just noticed, it cannot be more than generally indicated or vaguely apprehended. The distinction referred to is a certain diversity in rank and power, which there seems ground for believing to exist among the heavenly hosts. There are indications in Scripture of something like angelic orders. For, though the term archangel cannot be applied in this connexion, being used (as we have seen) only as the designation of a single personage, and that, apparently, the Messiah, yet the name Gabriel, when assumed as a distinctive epithet, appears to imply that he stood in a nearer relationship to God than certain others, or partook to a larger extent than they of the might of Godhead. So also in Revelation 18:21, we read of “a mighty angel,” as if not every angel could be called such. And in various places there is an accumulation of epithets, as of different orders, when referring to the heavenly intelligences; as in Ephesians 1:20-21, where Christ is said to be exalted “above all principality and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come;” and in 1 Peter 3:22, where He is again said, in His heavenly exaltation, to have “angels, principalities, and powers made subject to Him.” But if such expressions appear to render probable or certain the existence of some kind of personal distinctions among the angels of glory, it leaves all minuter details respecting it under a veil of impenetrable secrecy. An d to presume like the ancient Jews, to single out four or seven primary angels; or, like the Rabbins, to distribute the angelic hosts into ten separate classes; or, still again, with many of the Scholastics, to range them in nine orders, each consisting of three classes, regularly graduated in knowledge and authority, the class below ever standing in dependence upon the one above: —to deal with the matter thus, is to do precisely what the apostle has discharged any one from attempting on such a subject, “intrude into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind” (Colossians 2:18.) Of persons who discourse familiarly upon such points, and discuss the most subtle questions regarding angelic being and agency, Gerhard very justly, as well as wittily said, “They naturally dispose one to ask, how recently must they have fallen from heaven!” (quam nuper sint de cœlo delapsi.) And Calvin with his accustomed sense and gravity remarks, “If we would be truly wise, we shall give no heed to those foolish notions, which have been delivered by idle men concerning angelic orders without warrant from the Word of God” (Inst. i. c. 14, 4.)

We are assuredly entitled to affirm, that in whatever the distinction among angels may consist, or to whatever extent it may reach, it cannot in the least interfere with the happiness they individually enjoy. For this happiness arises, in the first instance, from each standing in a proper relation to the great centre of life and blessing; and then from their being appointed to occupy such a sphere, and take part in such services and employments, as are altogether adapted to their state and faculties. These fundamental conditions being preserved, it is easy to conceive, how certain diversities, both in natural capacity, and in relative position, may be perfectly compatible with their mutual satisfaction and general well-being, and may even contribute to secure it.

IV. The proper function and employment of angels relatively to us, is what next calls for consideration; and on this point we are furnished in Scripture with information of a more varied and specific nature, as it is that which more nearly concerns ourselves. In not a few passages we find their know ledge of what pertains to affairs on earth distinctly intimated, and also their interest in it, as proving to them an occasion of joy, or yielding a deeper insight into the purposes of God. Thus, they appear taking part in communications made from heaven to earth, desiring to look into the things which concern the scheme of salvation, learning from the successive evolution of the Divine plan more than they otherwise knew of God’s manifold wisdom, rejoicing together at the birth of Jesus, and even over the return of individual wanderers to His fold (1 Peter 1:12; Ephesians 3:10; Luke 2:13; Luke 15:10.) But there are other passages, in which a still closer connexion is indicated—passages which represent them as engaged indirectly and actively ministering to the good of believers, and shielding or delivering them from the evils incident to their lot. The office of angels in this respect was distinctly understood even in Old Testament times; as appears alone from the designation, “Lord of Hosts,” so commonly applied to God in respect to the forces He has at command for the execution of His purposes; and still more from the frequent interposition of angels to disclose tidings or accomplish deliverances for the covenant-people, as well as from express assurances, such as these: “The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear Him, and delivereth them” (Psalms 34:7.) “He shall give His angels charge concerning thee, to keep thee in all thy ways; they shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone” (Psalms 91:11-12.) Similar representations of angelic agency are found in New Testament Scripture, and come out, indeed, with greater prominence there, conformably to the general character and design of the Gospel, in rendering more patent the connexion between this lower region and the world of spirits. So that it is only what we might have expected beforehand, to learn that our Lord in the days of His flesh was from time to time ministered to by angels; that on ascending to the regions of glory, He had the angels made subject to Him for carrying forward the operations of His kingdom; that commissions of importance were executed through their instrumentality during the life-time of the apostles; and that, generally, they are declared to be “all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to those who are heirs of salvation” (Mark 1:13; Luke 22:43; Php 2:10; 1 Peter 3:22; Acts 12:1-25; Hebrews 1:14.) In regard, however, to the kind of services which are actually rendered to believers by the ministry of angels, or the benefits which may justly be expected from it, we know too little of the nexus, which binds together in any particular case the world of sense with the world of spirits, to be able with much accuracy to determine. Negatively, there are definite boundaries that may be set down; we must hold as excluded from their agency the actual communication of life and grace to the souls of men. Nowhere is this ascribed to them in Scripture; on the contrary, it is uniformly represented as an essentially Divine work, and, as such, lying beyond the agency of created beings. Father, Son, and Spirit are here the only effective agents, working, in so far as subordinate means are employed, through a human, not through an angelic instrumentality. The things which come within the sphere of angelic ministrations, bear incidentally upon the work of salvation, rather than directly touch it; and as regards the ordinary history of the Church and the common experience of believers, they have to do with the averting of evils, which might too seriously affect the interests of righteousness, or the bringing about of results and operations in the world, which are fitted to promote them. When it is reflected how much even the children of God are dependent upon the circumstances in which they are placed, and how much for the cause of God, whether in the world at large or in the case of single individuals, often turns upon a particular event in Providence, one can easily see what ample room there may be in the world for such timely and subtle influences as the quick messengers of light are capable of imparting. It might be too much to say, as has occasionally been said by divines, and seems to be held by Mr. Kingsley, that all the active powers of nature are under angelic direction, and every event—at least every auspicious event—is owing to their interference; there are certainly no testimonies in Scripture sufficient to warrant so sweeping an inference. But, on the other hand, it is equally possible to err in the opposite direction; and as we have explicit information in Scripture of the fact, that there are myriads of angelic beings in heavenly places, who are continually ascending and descending on errands of mercy for men on earth, it may not be doubted, that in many a change which takes place around us, there are important operations performed by them, as well as by the ostensible actors, and by the material agencies of nature. But whatever individuals, or the collective body of believers, may owe to this source, there are certain laws and limitations, under which it must always be understood to be conveyed. The fundamental ground of these is, that the efficiency of angels is essentially different from that of the several persons of the Godhead; it is such merely as one finite being is capable of exercising toward another. Consequently, it never can involve any violent interference with the natural powers of reason in those who are the subjects of it: it must adapt itself to the laws of reciprocal action established between finite beings, and so, can only work to the hand, or set bounds to the actings of nature, but cannot bring into operation elements absolutely new. Hence, as a further necessary deduction, all that is done by angels must be done in connexion with, and by means of natural causes; and only by intensifying, or in some particular way directing these, can they exert any decisive influence on the events in progress. Thus, at the pool of Bethesda, the angel’s power wrought through the waters, not independently of them; at Herod Agrippa’s death, through the worms that consumed him; at the jail of Philippi, through the earthquake that shook the foundations of the building:—and if thus in these more peculiar, certainly not less in the more regular and ordinary interpositions of their power. But this takes nothing from the comfort or efficacy of their ministrations; it only implies, that these ministrations are capable of being viewed apart from the channels through which they come, and that the beings who render them are not to be taken as the objects of personal regard or adoring reverence. Hence, while the hearts of believers are cheered by the thought of the ministry of angels, the worshipping of angels has from the first been expressly interdicted (Colossians 2:18; Revelation 22:9.)

Various fanciful and groundless notions have been entertained on the subject of angelic ministrations, and have sought for countenance in isolated statements of Scripture. It has been held, for example, that a part of their number are separated for the special work of praise in the heavenly places, and observe hours of devotion; that angels act at times as subordinate intercessors, mediating between believers and Christ; that individual angels are appointed to the guardianship of particular kingdoms, and even of single persons; and that they have also, whether individually or collectively, a sort of charge to be present in the assemblies of the saints. As this latter class of notions still extensively prevails, and has an apparent foundation in certain passages of Scripture, it will be necessary to subject it to a particular examination.

(1.) In regard to the guardianship or protection of particular kingdoms by individual angels, the notion can scarcely, perhaps, be said to exist, as a substantive belief in the present day, in Protestant Christendom; but it is held by not a few interpreters of Scripture as a doctrine of the book of Daniel, though not a doctrine they are themselves disposed to accredit. Rabbinical writers have certainly from an early period found it there. On the supposition, that Michael was a created angel, and the guardian angel of the Jews, (designated as such, “their prince,”) coupled with the further supposition, that what is said in the same book of the prince of the kingdom of Persia, who is represented as withstanding Gabriel for twenty-one days, (Daniel 10:13,) has respect to another angel, exercising a like guardianship over the Persian empire:—on these suppositions, the notion became prevalent, not only among the doctors of the synagogue, but also among the Christian fathers, from whom it went down, like other crudities, as a heritage to the Catholic theologians, that the several states or kingdoms of the earth have each their protecting genius, or tutelary angel—a created, but high and powerful intelligence. The idea—as the divines of the Reformation justly contended—is at variance with all right views of the general teaching of Scripture respecting those kingdoms, which are represented as in a condition that must have placed them beyond the pale of any such guardianship, even if it had existed; nor do the particular passages leaned upon, when fairly interpreted, countenance the idea of its existence. We have already seen, how the proof fails in respect to Michael, he not being an angel, in the ordinary sense, but the Lord Himself as the Angel of the Covenant. He, the Jehovah-Mediator, the King and Head of the Old, as well as of the New Dispensation, was fitly denominated the שַׂר, or Prince of the covenant-people. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia, who stands, by way of contrast, over against this Divine Head of the Theocracy, is the mere earthly potentate, the only real head of that kingdom. Such also is the prince of Grecia afterwards mentioned. The Lord in the heavens, by His angelic agencies, and providential arrangements, contends with these earthly powers and dominions: in the exercise of the freedom granted them, and the resolute application of the resources they possessed, they might succeed in gaining certain advantages, or creating a certain delay, but in such an unequal contest the result could not belong doubtful; and the victory is soon announced to be on the Lord’s side. This is the substance of the representation in Daniel, which contains nothing at variance with the other representations in Scripture, nor any thing, indeed, peculiar unless it be the designation of the heads alike of the Divine and of the human kingdoms by the name of prince, instead of using the more common appellation, king. A peculiarity scarcely deserving of notice. (For a similar contrast between the Divine Head of the Jewish state, and the merely earthly heads of the surrounding states, see the explanation given in Part Third of Isaiah 7:14, as quoted in Matthew 1:23.)

(2.) The idea of guardian-angels for each particular believer, or, as it is often put, for each individual child—the natural child in the first instance, then the spiritual—has met with much more general acceptance than the one already noticed, and still has the support of distinguished commentators. It is chiefly based on our Lord’s statement in Matthew 18:10, “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father, which is in heaven.” Alford, as well as Meyer, holds the plain teaching of the passage to be, that individuals have certain angels appointed to them as their special guardians; and on Acts 12:15, where he again refers to the passage, he affirms, not only that the doctrine of guardian-angels had been distinctly asserted by our Lord, but that the disciples, on the ground of His teaching, naturally spoke of Peter’s angel, and believed that the guardian-angel sometimes appeared in the likeness of the person himself. So also Stier, (on Matthew 18:10,) while he admits, that the language points only by way of allusion to special guardian-angels of persons, holds the doctrine on this ground, and the unanimous sense of the Fathers, to be beyond any reasonable doubt. “Every child,” he affirms, “has his angel until sin drives him away, as we may still be able to trace in the reflection of the angelic appearance in the countenance and aspect of children. Every believer, again, who may have come into a saved condition through the grace of redemption, gets, as a new spiritual child, his angel again, whom now he especially needs in the weakness of his spiritual commencement, for deeper-reaching experiences of guardianship and admonition, than weak and foolish children in times of bodily danger.” I am no way moved by these high authorities and confident assertions; for they seem to me to impose a sense upon the words of our Lord, which they neither necessarily bear, nor naturally convey. The readiness and unanimity with which the Fathers found in them the doctrine of guardian-angels, is easily understood from the universal belief in the heathen world—a belief accredited and often largely expatiated upon in its highest philosophy—of attending genii or demons attached to single persons; and which naturally begat in the Father?, whose early training was to a greater or less degree received in the school of heathenism, a predisposition to discover the same doctrine in a Christian form. On such a point they were peculiarly disqualified for being careful and discriminating guides; of which the following comment of Jerome on the passage may serve as a sufficient proof: “Because their angels in heaven always see the face of the Father: the great dignity of souls, that each should have from his natural birth (ab ortu nativitatis) an angel appointed for his guardianship. Whence we read in the Apocalypse of John, Write these things to the angel of Ephesus, Thyatira, and to the angels of the other churches. The apostle also commands the heads of women to be veiled in the churches, on account of the angels.” How much sounder and more discriminating, not only than this confused and puerile annotation, but also than the interpretations of the modern expositors referred to above, is the note of Calvin? “The view taken by some of this passage, as if it described to each believer his own peculiar angel, is without support. For the words of Christ do not import, that one angel is in perpetuity attached to this person or that, and the notion is at variance with the whole teaching of Scripture, which testifies, that angels encamp round about the righteous, and not to one angel alone, but to many has it been commanded, to protect every one of the faithful. Let us have done, therefore,” he justly adds, “with that comment concerning a good and evil genius, and be content with holding, that to angels are committed the care of the whole Church, so that they can bring succour to individual members as necessity or profit may require.” This plainly appears to be the correct view of the passage. It does not speak of little children simply as such, but of believers under this character (to which in humility and lowliness of spirit they had immediately before been assimilated;) nor does it speak of individual relationships subsisting between these and the angels, but of the common interest they have in angelic ministrations, which extend to the apparently least and lowest of their number. But of a separate guardianship for each individual there is not a word dropt here, nor in any other part of Scripture. Even in Acts 12:7, where a very special work had to be accomplished for Peter by the ministry of an angel, there is nothing of the historian’s own that implies any individual or personal relationship of the one to the other: the angel is not called Peter’s angel, nor is the angel represented as waiting upon him like a tutelary guardian; on the contrary, he is designated “the angel of the Lord,” and is spoken of as coming to Peter, to do the particular office required, and again departing from him when it was done. It is true, the inmates of Mary’s house, when they could not credit the report of the damsel, that Peter himself was at the door, said, as if finding in the thought the only conceivable explanation of the matter, “It is his angel.” But as Ode has justly stated (De Angelis, Sec. viii. c. 4,) “It is not every thing recorded by the Evangelists as spoken by the Jews, or even by the disciples of Christ, which is sound and worthy of credit. Nor can what in this particular case was true of Peter be affirmed of all believers, or ought it to be so. And, indeed, that Peter himself did not believe, that a particular angel was assigned to him for guardianship, clearly enough appears from this, that when Peter got out of the prison, and followed the angel as his guide, he did not as yet know it to be true, that an angel was the actor, but thought he saw a vision; and at length, after the departure of the angel, having come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent His angel, and delivered me from the hand of Herod.”

(3.) The last notion we were to consider respecting the ministry of angels, is the special charge they are supposed to take of Christian assemblies. This notion rests entirely upon two passages: the one, Ecclesiastes 5:4-6, which has already been examined, and shown to have no proper bearing on this, or any other point connected with angel agency; the other, 1 Corinthians 11:10, in which the apostle says, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, because of the angels.” It is said in the course of the discussion, which the apostle introduces on the subject of female attire in the public assemblies. At the same time, it is proper to bear in mind, what expositors too commonly overlook, that the immediate object of the statement is of a general kind, and has respect to the relation of the woman to the man, as determined by the order of their creation: “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man; neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man: for this cause (namely, on account of that relative position and destiny,) ought the woman to have power on her head, because of the angels.” It is plainly the attire and aspect of the woman, as indicative of her proper place, that the apostle has here more immediately in view, and not merely nor directly her appearance and bearing in the church; this last and more specific point he would derive simply as a practical conclusion from the other. Now, as to the import of what he says on that other and more general subject, there can be little doubt, that what is meant by having power or authority (ἐξουσία) on the head, is having what visibly exhibited that; viz. a veiled, or covered appearance, which is the natural symbol of a dependent or subordinate position. There is no force in the objection to this, that it is rather the want of authority, than the possession of it, which is ascribed to the woman; for it proceeds on a mistaken view of the expression, as if the apostle meant she had the power to use it as her own. The reverse, rather, is what is indicated. The expression is entirely similar to that used by the centurion in Matthew 8:9, when he said of himself, “For I also am a man under authority” (ὑπὸ ἐξουσίας)—he stood, as it were, under its law and ordination—having a right and a call to do whatever it authorized him to do—that, but no more. So the woman here, as standing under the man in a relation of subservience, ought (ἐφείλει) to have authority or power upon her head; in other words, something in the very attire and aspect of her head to denote, that authority lay upon her. Her veiled appearance—naturally, by her long hair, and artificially, by an appropriate head-dress—is such a thing; it is a token of respect and submission toward the higher authority lodged in the man, and betokens that it is hers to do with ministrations of service, rather than with the right of government and control.

Hence the feminine aspect which, in the ancient ordinance of the Nazarite vow, the person bound by it had to assume, in regard to his head. The Nazarite was one who. by a special vow, placed himself in strict subservience to God; the authority of God rested upon him in a manner quite peculiar; and, to mark this, he had to let his hair grow like a woman s; so that, as the woman in relation to man, so he in relation to God, might be said to have power or authority on his head; and the parting with the symbol of his position (as in the case of Samson) was in effect abandoning the covenant-engagement under which he stood—breaking loose from God.

We see, then, the fitness and propriety of the veiled appearance of the woman’s head—it is the becoming sign of her place and calling, as made of man, and, in a sense also, for man. But why should this be said to be because, or for the sake of the angels? Whatever may be meant by the expression, one thing should be distinctly understood regarding it—that, from the brief and abrupt manner in which the allusion is made—not a word of explanation going before or coming after—it can have reference to no recondite or mysterious point—nothing in itself of doubtful speculation, or capable of being ascertained only by minute and laborious search. Points of such a nature, together with the Rabbinical or heathen lore, on which they are grounded, must be out of place here, as the allusion (had it referred to such) could only have tended to perplex or mislead. Proceeding, therefore, on the ground now laid down, we have to dismiss from our minds all the peculiar and unusual applications of the term angels sometimes adduced by commentators; and also all fanciful notions regarding the acts of real angels—such as their supposed habit of veiling their faces before God (which is never mentioned of angels, strictly so called), or having a sort of superintendence and oversight of Christian assemblies (a matter also nowhere else intimated in any earlier Scripture:) and we have simply to consider, whether there be any broad and palpable facts respecting the angelic world, which, without violence or constraint, may be fitly brought into juxtaposition with the proper place and bearing of women. We know nothing of this description, unless it be what their very name imports—their position and calling as ministering spirits before God, from which one section of them, indeed, fell, but which the rest kept, to their honour and blessing. This, however, is enough; it furnishes precisely the link of connexion between them and woman. Her place, in relation to man, is like that of the angels of God; it is to do the part of a ministering agent and loving help—not independently to rule and scheme for herself. It is by abiding under law to man, that she becomes either a subject or an instrument of blessing. Hence, when she fell, it was by departing from this order, by attempting to act an independent part, as if no yoke of authority lay upon her, and she might be an authority and a law to herself—quitting her appointed place of ministering, for the coveted place of independent action. So, too, was it, in the higher regions of existence, with the angels that lost their first estate; they strove, in like manner, against the prime law of their being, which was to minister and serve, and aspired to be and act as from themselves. By this vain and wicked attempt they fell; and the fall of Eve, through their instrumentality, was but the image and echo of their own. Now, is it unnatural to suppose that the apostle, while tracing up the matter concerning woman’s place and bearing in society to the origin and fountain of things, should also have reminded them of these instructive facts? should have pointed their thoughts to the higher region of spirits? The order here—he virtually said to them—the order of things in this lower world, serves as an image of the heavenly. Relations of superiority and subservience exist there as well as here; and the harmony and blessedness of both worlds alike depend upon these relations being duly kept; to disregard them, is the sure road to confusion and every evil work. Let the woman, therefore, recognising this, and remembering how the evil that originated in ambitious striving in the heavenly places, renewed itself on earth by the like spirit taking possession of her bosom—feel that it is good for her to wear perpetually the badge of subjection to authority. It is at once safe and proper for her to retain it; and so, instead of constantly repeating the catastrophe of the fallen angels, she will show her readiness to fulfil that angel-relationship, with its ministrations of service, for which she was brought into being, and exhibit before the blessed ministers of light a reflection of their own happy order and loving obedience.

It may be added, in respect to the false views of angelic ministration which we have combated, and as an additional proof of their contrariety to the truth of Scripture, that the countenance they too commonly received from the Fathers produced its natural fruit throughout the early Church in a prevailing tendency to angel-worship. The Fathers, however, opposed this tendency, and sometimes by formal synodal acts denounced the practice, in which it showed itself, of dedicating particular churches to certain angels, and calling them by their names. In the Tightness of this opposition, the in consistency with which it was connected may be overlooked; but it were hard to see how, if the guardianship of distinct regions, of particular persons, and of Christian assemblies, were assigned to individual angels, these should not have received a share in the semi-divine honour that was paid to the saints. Angelic adoration and saint-worship are but different forms of the same idolatrous tendency.

V. The doctrine of the fallen angels, and their agency among men, though it should not be totally omitted here, yet does not call for lengthened consideration; since, while it gives rise to many metaphysical questions and baffling difficulties, these have comparatively little to do with the interpretation of Scripture. For the most part, the passages in which the fallen angels are referred to, are plain enough in their meaning; and it is the subjects themselves discoursed of, not the language used in discoursing of them, which more peculiarly exercise the powers of the mind. At present, it will be enough to indicate a few points nearly connected with, or naturally growing out of, the principles that have been unfolded regarding the angels of God. (1.) It is, first of all, to be held fast respecting them, that, in common with those who still retain their place in light and glory, they were originally created good. The teaching of Scripture throughout is altogether opposed to the idea, which, from the earliest times, was so extensively prevalent in the East, of an independent, uncreated principle of evil, whether as embodied in one, or in a multiplicity of concrete existences. Every being in the universe, that is not God, is a part of the creation of God; and, as His works were all, like Himself, very good, the evil that now appears in any of them must have been a perversion of the good, not an original and inherent malignity. And, in the case of the evil angels, the fact of a fall from a preceding good state is distinctly asserted (John 8:44; Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4.) But nothing is said as to the period of this fall, whether it came immediately after their creation, or after the lapse of ages—nor as to the circumstances that gave rise to it, and the precise form it assumed. The expression of our Lord in John’s Gospel, that Satan was a liar from the beginning (ἀπ̓ ἀρχῆς) does not necessarily refer to the commencement of his own existence, but seems rather, from the connexion, to point to the beginning of this world’s history. It is more natural for us to suppose, that the fall of the angels, like that of our first parents, was nearly coeval with their existence, as it is next to impossible for us to conceive how they should, for any length of time, have enjoyed the intuition and the blessedness of God, without having all the principles of goodness in their natures strengthened and rendered continually less capable of turning aside to evil; but this is a region into which Scripture does not conduct us, and it is best to avoid it as one that can only involve matters of uncertain speculation. (2.) The total depravity, and consequent misery of the evil angels, is also constantly asserted in Scripture. In both respects they are represented as the antithesis of the good and blessed angels. Inveterately hostile to God Himself, whatever is of God excites their enmity and opposition: falsehood instead of truth, instead of love, selfishness, hatred and malice, have become the elements of their active being; and, themselves utterly estranged from all good, they appear incapable even of apprehending the feelings of those who love it, and actuated only by the insatiate desire of, in every possible way, resisting and overthrowing it. Hence their policy is characterized by mingled intelligence and blindness, cunning and folly, according as it is directed to those who, like themselves, are inclined to the evil, or to such as are wedded to the good: with the one it is skilfully laid and reaches its aim, with the other it perpetually miscalculates and defeats itself. Of all this the recorded actings of Satan and his angels, in the history of our Lord and His apostles, supply ample proof (comp. besides Matthew 13:39; 1 Peter 5:8; Ephesians 6:12; Hebrews 2:14.) So that sinning and doing evil may be said to have become a moral necessity in their natures, as love and holiness with the elect angels. “Hence they are necessarily miserable. Torn loose from the universal centre of life, without being able to find it in themselves; by the feeling of inward void, ever driven to the outward world, and yet in irreconcilable hostility to it and themselves; eternally shunning, and never escaping, the presence of God; always endeavouring to destroy, and always compelled to promote His purposes; instead of joy in the beatific vision of the Divine glory, having a never-satisfied longing for an end they never reach; instead of hope, the unending oscillation between fear and despair; instead of love, an impotent hatred of God, their fellows, and themselves:—can the fearful condemnation of the last judgment, the thrusting down into the bottomless pit of destruction (Revelation 20:10,) add any thing to the anguish of such a condition, excepting that they shall there see the kingdom of God for ever delivered from their assaults, their vain presumption that they can destroy or impede it scattered to the winds, leaving to them only the ever-gnawing despair of an inward rage, which cannot spend itself upon anything without, and is, therefore, for ever undeceived as to its own impotence!” (Twesten’s Lectures, see Bib. Sacra, i. 793.) (3.) Lastly, in regard to the agency of the evil angels, and the mode in which it is exercised in the world, the general limitations already deduced from Scripture in respect to the good, undoubtedly hold also here. Negatively, it cannot assume a substantive existence or separate action of its own, nor come into direct contact with the minds of men. It has no other way of operating, either upon men’s souls or bodies, but by entering into the series of second causes, and giving such additional potence to these as it may consist with the Divine purpose to admit of being employed. So that the temptations of the powers of evil, and the effects of every kind wrought by them, are not (in ordinary cases) to be distinguished from the operation of the moral and physical laws which prevail in the world. No record is contained of external injuries inflicted by them, except by means of external causes, which they were allowed, in some unknown manner, to intensify—as in the case of Job’s calamities, or Paul’s thorn in the flesh. And the moral hardening, or intense addictedness to evil, which is sometimes ascribed to the working of Satan, or his fellows, always appears as the result of a previous course of wickedness, and as consisting simply in a more thorough abandonment to the carnal lusts and affections, which have gained dominion of the heart. The case of Saul in the Old Testament, of Judas, Ananias, and Sapphira, the followers of Antichrist, etc., in the New, fully confirm this (1 Samuel 16:14; 1 Samuel 18:10; Luke 22:3; Acts 5:1 - 2 Thessalonians 2:11, etc.) The nearest contact with the individual that any of the notices of Scripture give reason for supposing to have ever taken place, or to be compatible with the nature of things, lies in some such operation on the bodily organism, as is fitted to inflame the existing tendencies to evil, and shut their unhappy victim more entirely up to their dominion. And hence the utter fallacy of the whole theory and practice of witchcraft, which proceeded on the assumption of direct personal intercourse with the Wicked One. That the possibility of such a traffic should have been believed in Christian times, and especially that it should have led to the sacrifice of thousands of lives in every state of European Christendom, is one of the greatest scandals in the history of modern civilization.