Part 4 — Chapter IV. The Works Of God; Or The Execution Of The Decrees. (continued 5)

As intimated above, there is no reason to believe that even the invisible presence of angels is a constant one. Doddridge's dream of accident prevented by angelic interposition seems to embody the essential truth. We append the passages referred to in the text. Job 38:7—“When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy”; Deut. 33:2—“Jehovah came from Sinai ... he came from the ten thousands of holy ones: At his right hand was a fiery law for them”; Gal. 3:19—“it [the law] was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator”; Heb. 2:2—“the word spoken through angels”; Acts 7:53—“who received the law as it was ordained by angels”; Luke 2:13—“suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host”; Mat. 4:11—“Then the devil leaveth him; and behold, angels came and ministered unto him”; Luke 22:43—“And there appeared unto him an angel from heaven, strengthening him”; Mat. 28:2—“an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it”; Acts 1:10—“And while they were looking steadfastly into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel”; Mat. 25:31—“when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory.”

Secondly,—that their power, as being in its nature dependent and derived, is exercised in accordance with the laws of the spiritual and natural world. They cannot, like God, create, perform miracles, act without means, search the heart. Unlike the Holy Spirit, who can influence the human mind directly, they can influence men only in ways analogous to those by which men influence each other. As evil angels may tempt men to sin, so it is probable that good angels may attract men to holiness.

Recent psychical researches disclose almost unlimited possibilities of influencing other minds by suggestion. Slight physical phenomena, as the odor of a violet or the sight in a book of a crumpled roseleaf, may start trains of thought which change the whole course of a life. A word or a look may have great power over us. Fisher, Nature [pg 454]and Method of Revelation, 276—“The facts of hypnotism illustrate the possibility of one mind falling into a strange thraldom under another.” If other men can so powerfully influence us, it is quite possible that spirits which are not subject to limitations of the flesh may influence us yet more.

Binet, in his Alterations of Personality, says that experiments on hysterical patients have produced in his mind the conviction that, in them at least, “a plurality of persons exists.... We have established almost with certainty that in such patients, side by side with the principal personality, there is a secondary personality, which is unknown by the first, which sees, hears, reflects, reasons and acts”; see Andover Review, April, 1890:422. Hudson, Law of Psychic Phenomena, 81-143, claims that we have two minds, the objective and conscious, and the subjective and unconscious. The latter works automatically upon suggestion from the objective or from other minds. In view of the facts referred to by Binet and Hudson, we claim that the influence of angelic spirits is no more incredible than is the influence of suggestion from living men. There is no need of attributing the phenomena of hypnotism to spirits of the dead. Our human nature is larger and more susceptible to spiritual influence than we have commonly believed. These psychical phenomena indeed furnish us with a corroboration of our Ethical Monism, for if in one human being there may be two or more consciousnesses, then in the one God there may be not only three infinite personalities but also multitudinous finite personalities. See T. H. Wright, The Finger of God, 124-133.

B. The employments of evil angels.

(a) They oppose God and strive to defeat his will. This is indicated in the names applied to their chief. The word “Satan” means “adversary”—primarily to God, secondarily to men; the term “devil” signifies “slanderer”—of God to men, and of men to God. It is indicated also in the description of the “man of sin” as “he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God.”

Job 1:6—Satan appears among “the sons of God”; Zech. 3:1—“Joshua the high priest ... and Satan standing at his right hand to be his adversary”; Mat. 13:39—“the enemy that sowed them is the devil”; 1 Pet. 5:8—“your adversary the devil.” Satan slanders God to men, in Gen. 3:1, 4—“Yea, hath God said?... Ye shall not surely die”; men to God, in Job 1:9, 11—“Doth Job fear God for naught?... put forth thy hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will renounce thee to thy face”; 2:4, 5—“Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will renounce thee to thy face”; Rev. 12:10—“the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accuseth them before our God night and day.”

Notice how, over against the evil spirit who thus accuses God to man and man to God, stands the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, who pleads God's cause with man and man's cause with God: John 16:8—“he, when he is come, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment”; Rom. 8:26—“the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” Hence Balaam can say: Num. 23:21, “He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, Neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel”; and the Lord can say to Satan as he resists Joshua: “Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee” (Zech. 3:2). “Thus he puts himself between his people and every tongue that would accuse them” (C. H. M.). For the description of the “man of sin,” see 2 Thess. 2:3, 4—“he that opposeth”; cf. verse 9—“whose coming is according to the working of Satan.”

On the “man of sin,” see Wm. Arnold Stevens, in Bap. Quar. Rev., July, 1889:328-360. As in Daniel 11:36, the great enemy of the faith, he who “shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every God”, is the Syrian King, Antiochus Epiphanes, so the man of lawlessness described by Paul in 2 Thess. 2:3, 4 was “the corrupt and impious Judaism of the apostolic age.”This only had its seat in the temple of God. It was doomed to destruction when the Lord should come at the fall of Jerusalem. But this fulfilment does not preclude a future and final fulfilment of the prophecy.

Contrasts between the Holy Spirit and the spirit of evil: 1. The dove, and the serpent; 2. the father of lies, and the Spirit of truth; 3. men possessed by dumb spirits, and men given wonderful utterance in diverse tongues; 4. the murderer from the beginning, and the life-giving Spirit, who regenerates the soul and quickens our mortal bodies; 5. the adversary, and the Helper; 6. the slanderer, and the Advocate; 7. Satan's sifting, and the Master's winnowing; 8. the organizing intelligence and malignity of the evil one, and the Holy Spirit's combination of all the forces of matter and mind to build up [pg 455] the kingdom of God; 9. the strong man fully armed, and a stronger than he; 10. the evil one who works only evil, and the holy One who is the author of holiness in the hearts of men. The opposition of evil angels, at first and ever since their fall, may be a reason why they are incapable of redemption.

(b) They hinder man's temporal and eternal welfare,—sometimes by exercising a certain control over natural phenomena, but more commonly by subjecting man's soul to temptation. Possession of man's being, either physical or spiritual, by demons, is also recognized in Scripture.

Control of natural phenomena is ascribed to evil spirits in Job 1:12, 16, 19 and 2:7—“all that he hath is in thy power”—and Satan uses lightning, whirlwind, disease, for his purposes; Luke 13:11, 16—“a woman that had a spirit of infirmity ... whom Satan had bound, lo, these eighteen years”; Acts 10:38—“healing all that were oppressed of the devil”; 2 Cor. 12:7—“a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me”; 1 Thess. 2:18—“we would fain have come unto you, I Paul once and again; and Satan hindered us”; Heb. 2:14—“him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.” Temptation is ascribed to evil spirits in Gen. 3:1 sq.—“Now the serpent was more subtle”; cf. Rev. 20:2—“the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan”; Mat. 4:3—“the tempter came”; John 13:27—“after the sop, then entered Satan into him”; Acts 5:3—“why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?” Eph. 2:2—“the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience”; 1 Thess. 3:5—“lest by any means the tempter had tempted you”; 1 Pet 5:8—“your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”

At the time of Christ, popular belief undoubtedly exaggerated the influence of evil spirits. Savage, Life after Death, 113—“While God was at a distance, the demons were very, very near. The air about the earth was full of these evil tempting spirits. They caused shipwreck at sea, and sudden death on land; they blighted the crops; they smote and blasted in the tempests; they took possession of the bodies and the souls of men. They entered into compacts, and took mortgages on men's souls.” If some good end has been attained in spite of them they feel that “Their labor must be to pervert that end. And out of good still to find means of evil.” In Goethe's Faust, Margaret detects the evil in Mephistopheles: “You see that he with no soul sympathizes. 'Tis written on his face—he never loved.... Whenever he comes near, I cannot pray.” Mephistopheles describes himself as “Ein Theil von jener Kraft Die stäts das Böse will Und stäts das Gute schafft”—“Part of that power not understood, which always wills the bad, and always works the good”—through the overruling Providence of God. “The devil says his prayers backwards.” “He tried to learn the Basque language, but had to give it up, having learned only three words in two years.” Walter Scott tells us that a certain sulphur spring in Scotland was reputed to owe its quality to an ancient compulsory immersion of Satan in it.

Satan's temptations are represented as both negative and positive,—he takes away the seed sown, and he sows tares. He controls many subordinate evil spirits; there is only one devil, but there are many angels or demons, and through their agency Satan may accomplish his purposes.

Satan's negative agency is shown in Mark 4:15—“when they have heard, straightway cometh Satan, and taketh away the word which hath been sown in them”; his positive agency in Mat. 13:38, 39—“the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy that sowed them is the devil.” One devil, but many angels: see Mat. 25:41—“the devil and his angels”; Mark 5:9—“My name is Legion, for we are many”; Eph. 2:2—“the prince of the powers of the air”; 6:12—“principalities ... powers ... world-rulers of this darkness ... spiritual hosts of wickedness.” The mode of Satan's access to the human mind we do not know. It may be that by moving upon our physical organism he produces subtle signs of thought and so reaches the understanding and desires. He certainly has the power to present in captivating forms the objects of appetite and selfish ambition, as he did to Christ in the wilderness (Mat. 4:3, 6, 9), and to appeal to our love for independence by saying to us, as he did to our first parents—“ye shall be as God” (Gen. 3:5).

C. C. Everett, Essays Theol. and Lit., 186-218, on The Devil: “If the supernatural powers would only hold themselves aloof and not interfere with the natural processes of the world, there would be no sickness, no death, no sorrow.... This shows a real, though perhaps unconscious, faith in the goodness and trustworthiness of nature. The world in itself is a source only of good. Here is the germ of a positive religion, though this religion when it appears, may adopt the form of supernaturalism.” If there was no Satan, then Christ's temptations came from within, and showed a predisposition to evil on his own part.

[pg 456]

Possession is distinguished from bodily or mental disease, though such disease often accompanies possession or results from it.—The demons speak in their own persons, with supernatural knowledge, and they are directly addressed by Christ. Jesus recognizes Satanic agency in these cases of possession, and he rejoices in the casting out of demons, as a sign of Satan's downfall. These facts render it impossible to interpret the narratives of demoniac possession as popular descriptions of abnormal physical or mental conditions.

Possession may apparently be either physical, as in the case of the Gerasene demoniacs (Mark 5:2-4), or spiritual, as in the case of the “maid having a spirit of divination” (Acts 16:16), where the body does not seem to have been affected. It is distinguished from bodily disease: see Mat. 17:15, 18—“epileptic ... the demon went out from him: and the boy was cured”; Mark 9:25—“Thou dumb and deaf spirit”; 3:11, 12—“the unclean spirits ... cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he charged them much that they should not make him known”; Luke 8:30, 31—“And Jesus asked him, What is thy name? And he said, Legion; for many demons were entered unto him. And they entreated him that he would not command them to depart into the abyss”; 10:17, 18—“And the seventy returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject unto us in thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven.”

These descriptions of personal intercourse between Christ and the demons cannot be interpreted as metaphorical. “In the temptation of Christ and in the possession of the swine, imagination could have no place. Christ was above its delusions; the brutes were below them.” Farrar (Life of Christ, 1:337-341, and 2:excursus vii), while he admits the existence and agency of good angels, very inconsistently gives a metaphorical interpretation to the Scriptural accounts of evil angels. We find corroborative evidence of the Scripture doctrine in the domination which one wicked man frequently exercises over others; in the opinion of some modern physicians in charge of the insane, that certain phenomena in their patients' experience are best explained by supposing an actual subjection of the will to a foreign power; and, finally, in the influence of the Holy Spirit upon the human heart. See Trench, Miracles, 125-136; Smith's Bible Dictionary, 1:586—“Possession is distinguished from mere temptation by the complete or incomplete loss of the sufferer's reason or power of will; his actions, words, and almost his thoughts, are mastered by the evil spirit, till his personality seems to be destroyed, or at least so overborne as to produce the consciousness of a twofold will within him like that in a dream. In the ordinary assaults and temptations of Satan, the will itself yields consciously, and by yielding gradually assumes, without losing its apparent freedom of action, the characteristics of the Satanic nature. It is solicited, urged, and persuaded against the strivings of grace, but it is not overborne.”

T. H. Wright, The Finger of God, argues that Jesus, in his mention of demoniacs, accommodated himself to the beliefs of his time. Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, 274, with reference to Weiss's Meyer on Mat. 4:24, gives Meyer's arguments against demoniacal possession as follows: 1. the absence of references to demoniacal possession in the Old Testament, and the fact that so-called demoniacs were cured by exorcists; 2. that no clear case of possession occurs at present; 3. that there is no notice of demoniacal possession in John's Gospel, though the overcoming of Satan is there made a part of the Messiah's work and Satan is said to enter into a man's mind and take control there (John 13:27); 4. and that the so-called demoniacs are not, as would be expected, of a diabolic temper and filled with malignant feelings toward Christ. Harnack, Wesen des Christenthums, 38—“The popular belief in demon-possession gave form to the conceptions of those who had nervous diseases, so that they expressed themselves in language proper only to those who were actually possessed. Jesus is no believer in Christian Science: he calls sickness sickness and health health; but he regards all disease as a proof and effect of the working of the evil one.”

On Mark 1:21-34, see Maclaren in S. S. Times, Jan. 23, 1904—“We are told by some that this demoniac was an epileptic. Possibly; but, if the epilepsy was not the result of possession, why should it take the shape of violent hatred of Jesus? And what is there in epilepsy to give discernment of his character and the purpose of his mission?” Not Jesus' exorcism of demons as a fact, but his casting them out by a word, was our Lord's wonderful characteristic. Nevius, Demon-Possession, 240—“May not demon-possession be only a different, a more advanced, form of hypnotism?... It is possible that these evil spirits are familiar with the organism of the nervous system, and are capable [pg 457]of acting upon and influencing mankind in accordance with physical and psychological laws.... The hypnotic trance may be effected, without the use of physical organs, by the mere force of will-power, spirit acting upon spirit.” Nevius quotes F. W. A. Myers, Fortnightly Rev., Nov. 1885—“One such discovery, that of telepathy, or the transference of thought and sensation from mind to mind without the agency of the recognized organs of sense, has, as I hold, been already achieved.” See Bennet, Diseases of the Bible; Kedney, Diabolology; and references in Poole's Synopsis, 1:343; also Bramwell, Hypnotism, 358-398.

(c) Yet, in spite of themselves, they execute God's plans of punishing the ungodly, of chastening the good, and of illustrating the nature and fate of moral evil.

Punishing the ungodly: Ps. 78:49—“He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, Wrath and indignation, and trouble, A band of angels of evil”; 1 K. 22:23—“Jehovah hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets; and Jehovah hath spoken evil concerning thee.” In Luke 22:31, Satan's sifting accomplishes the opposite of the sifter's intention, and the same as the Master's winnowing (Maclaren).

Chastening the good: see Job, chapters 1 and 2; 1 Cor. 5:5—“deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”; cf. 1 Tim. 1:20—“Hymenæus and Alexander; whom I delivered onto Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme.” This delivering to Satan for the destruction of the flesh seems to have involved four things: (1) excommunication from the church; (2) authoritative infliction of bodily disease or death; (3) loss of all protection from good angels, who minister only to saints; (4) subjection to the buffetings and tormentings of the great accuser. Gould, in Am. Com. on 1 Cor. 5:5, regards “delivering to Satan” as merely putting a man out of the church by excommunication. This of itself was equivalent to banishing him into “the world,” of which Satan was the ruler.

Evil spirits illustrate the nature and fate of moral evil: see Mat 8:29—“art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” 25:41—“eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels”; 2 Thess. 2:8—“then shall be revealed the lawless one”; James 2:19—“the demons also believe, and shudder”; Rev. 12:9, 12—“the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world ... the devil is gone down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time”; 20:10—“cast into the lake of fire ... tormented day and night for ever and ever.”

It is an interesting question whether Scripture recognizes any special connection of evil spirits with the systems of idolatry, witchcraft, and spiritualism which burden the world. 1 Cor. 10:20—“the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God”; 2 Thess. 2:9—“the working of Satan with all power and signs of lying wonders”—would seem to favor an affirmative answer. But 1 Cor. 8:4—“concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world”—seems to favor a negative answer. This last may, however, mean that “the beings whom the idols are designed to represent have no existence, although it is afterwards shown (10:20) that there are other beings connected with false worship” (Ann. Par. Bible, in loco). “Heathenism is the reign of the devil”(Meyer), and while the heathen think themselves to be sacrificing to Jupiter or Venus, they are really “sacrificing to demons,” and are thus furthering the plans of a malignant spirit who uses these forms of false religion as a means of enslaving their souls. In like manner, the network of influences which support the papacy, spiritualism, modern unbelief, is difficult of explanation, unless we believe in a superhuman intelligence which organizes these forces against God. In these, as well as in heathen religions, there are facts inexplicable upon merely natural principles of disease and delusion.

Nevius, Demon-Possession, 294—“Paul teaches that the gods mentioned under different names are imaginary and non-existent; but that, behind and in connection with these gods, there are demons who make use of idolatry to draw men away from God; and it is to these that the heathen are unconsciously rendering obedience and service.... It is most reasonable to believe that the sufferings of people bewitched were caused by the devil, not by the so-called witches. Let us substitute ‘devilcraft’ for ‘witchcraft.’... Had the courts in Salem proceeded on the Scriptural presumption that the testimony of those under the control of evil spirits would, in the nature of the case, be false, such a thing as the Salem tragedy would never have been known.”

A survey of the Scripture testimony with regard to the employments of evil spirits leads to the following general conclusions:

First,—the power of evil spirits over men is not independent of the human will. This power cannot be exercised without at least the original [pg 458] consent of the human will, and may be resisted and shaken off through prayer and faith in God.

Luke 22:31, 40—“Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat.... Pray that ye enter not into temptation”; Eph. 6:11—“Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil”; 16—“the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one”; James 4:7—“resist the devil, and he will flee from you”; 1 Pet. 5:9—“whom withstand stedfast in your faith.” The coals are already in the human heart, in the shape of corrupt inclinations; Satan only blows them into flame. The double source of sin is illustrated in Acts 5:3, 4—“Why hath Satan filled thy heart?... How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thine heart?” The Satanic impulse could have been resisted, and “after it was” suggested, it was still “in his own power,” as was the land that he had sold (Maclaren).

The soul is a castle into which even the king of evil spirits cannot enter without receiving permission from within. Bp. Wordsworth: “The devil may tempt us to fall, but he cannot make us fall; he may persuade us to cast ourselves down, but he cannot cast us down.” E. G. Robinson: “It is left to us whether the devil shall get control of us. We pack off on the devil's shoulders much of our own wrong doing, just as Adam had the impertinence to tell God that the woman did the mischief.” Both God and Satan stand at the door and knock, but neither heaven nor hell can come in unless we will. “We cannot prevent the birds from flying over our heads, but we can prevent them from making their nests in our hair.” Mat 12:43-45—“The unclean spirit, when he is gone out of a man”—suggests that the man who gets rid of one vice but does not occupy his mind with better things is ready to be repossessed. “Seven other spirits more evil than himself”implies that some demons are more wicked than others and so are harder to cast out (Mark 9:29). The Jews had cast out idolatry, but other and worse sins had taken possession of them.

Hudson, Law of Psychic Phenomena, 129—“The hypnotic subject cannot be controlled so far as to make him do what he knows to be wrong, unless he himself voluntarily assents.” A. S. Hart: “Unless one is willing to be hypnotized, no one can put him under the influence. The more intelligent one is, the more susceptible. Hypnotism requires the subject to do two-thirds of the work, while the instructor does only one-third—that of telling the subject what to do. It is not an inherent influence, nor a gift, but can be learned by any one who can read. It is impossible to compel a person to do wrong while under the influence, for the subject retains a consciousness of the difference between right and wrong.”

Höffding, Outlines of Psychology, 330-335—“Some persons have the power of intentionally calling up hallucinations; but it often happens to them as to Goethe's Zauberlehrling, or apprentice-magician, that the phantoms gain power over them and will not be again dispersed. Goethe's Fischer—‘Half she drew him down and half he sank’—repeats the duality in the second term; for to sink is to let one's self sink.” Manton, the Puritan: “A stranger cannot call off a dog from the flock, but the Shepherd can do so with a word; so the Lord can easily rebuke Satan when he finds him most violent.”Spurgeon, the modern Puritan, remarks on the above: “O Lord, when I am worried by my great enemy, call him off, I pray thee! Let me hear a voice saying: ‘Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; even Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee!’ (Zech. 3:2). By thine election of me, rebuke him, I pray thee, and deliver me from ‘the power of the dog’! (Ps. 22:20).”

Secondly,—their power is limited, both in time and in extent, by the permissive will of God. Evil spirits are neither omnipotent, omniscient, nor omnipresent. We are to attribute disease and natural calamity to their agency, only when this is matter of special revelation. Opposed to God as evil spirits are, God compels them to serve his purposes. Their power for harm lasts but for a season, and ultimate judgment and punishment will vindicate God's permission of their evil agency.

1 Cor. 10:13—“God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation make also the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it”; Jude 6—“angels which kept not their own beginning, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”

Luther saw Satan nearer to man than his coat, or his shirt, or even his skin. In all misfortune he saw the devil's work. Was there a conflagration in the town? By looking closely you might see a demon blowing upon the flame. Pestilence and storm he [pg 459] attributed to Satan. All this was a relic of the mediæval exaggerations of Satan's power. It was then supposed that men might make covenants with the evil one, in which supernatural power was purchased at the price of final perdition (see Goethe's Faust).

Scripture furnishes no warrant for such representations. There seems to have been permitted a special activity of Satan in temptation and possession during our Savior's ministry, in order that Christ's power might be demonstrated. By his death Jesus brought “to naught him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and “having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it,” i. e., in the Cross (Col. 2:15). 1 John 3:8—“To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” Evil spirits now exist and act only upon sufferance. McLeod, Temptation of our Lord, 24—“Satan's power is limited, (1) by the fact that he is a creature; (2) by the fact of God's providence; (3) by the fact of his own wickedness.”

Genung, Epic of the Inner Life, 136—“Having neither fixed principle in himself nor connection with the source of order outside, Satan has not prophetic ability. He can appeal to chance, but he cannot foresee. So Goethe's Mephistopheles insolently boasts that he can lead Faust astray: ‘What will you bet? There's still a chance to gain him, If unto me full leave you give Gently upon my road to train him!’ And in Job 1:11; 2:5, Satan wagers: ‘He will renounce thee to thy face.’ ” William Ashmore: “Is Satan omnipresent? No, but he is very spry. Is he bound? Yes, but with a rather loose rope.” In the Persian story, God scattered seed. The devil buried it, and sent the rain to rot it. But soon it sprang up, and the wilderness blossomed as the rose.

II. Objections to the Doctrine of Angels.

1. To the doctrine of angels in general.

It is objected:

(a) That it is opposed to the modern scientific view of the world, as a system of definite forces and laws.—We reply that, whatever truth there may be in this modern view, it does not exclude the play of divine or human free agency. It does not, therefore, exclude the possibility of angelic agency.

Ladd, Philosophy of Knowledge, 332—“It is easier to believe in angels than in ether; in God rather than atoms; and in the history of his kingdom as a divine self-revelation rather than in the physicist's or the biologist's purely mechanical process of evolution.”

(b) That it is opposed to the modern doctrine of infinite space above and beneath us—a space peopled with worlds. With the surrender of the old conception of the firmament, as a boundary separating this world from the regions beyond, it is claimed that we must give up all belief in a heaven of the angels.—We reply that the notions of an infinite universe, of heaven as a definite place, and of spirits as confined to fixed locality, are without certain warrant either in reason or in Scripture. We know nothing of the modes of existence of pure spirits.

What we know of the universe is certainly finite. Angels are apparently incorporeal beings, and as such are free from all laws of matter and space. Heaven and hell are essentially conditions, corresponding to character—conditions in which the body and the surroundings of the soul express and reflect its inward state. The main thing to be insisted on is therefore the state; place is merely incidental. The fact that Christ ascended to heaven with a human body, and that the saints are to possess glorified bodies, would seem to imply that heaven is a place. Christ's declaration with regard to him who is “able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mat. 10:28) affords some reason for believing that hell is also a place.

Where heaven and hell are, is not revealed to us. But it is not necessary to suppose that they are in some remote part of the universe; for aught we know, they may be right about us, so that if our eyes were opened, like those of the prophet's servant (2 Kings 6:17), we ourselves should behold them. Upon ground of Eph. 2:2—“prince of the [pg 460]powers of the air”—and 3:10—“the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places”—some have assigned the atmosphere of the earth as the abode of angelic spirits, both good and evil. But the expressions “air” and “heavenly places” may be merely metaphorical designations of their spiritual method of existence.

The idealistic philosophy, which regards time and space as merely subjective forms of our human thinking and as not conditioning the thought of God, may possibly afford some additional aid in the consideration of this problem. If matter be only the expression of God's mind and will, having no existence apart from his intelligence and volition, the question of place ceases to have significance. Heaven is in that case simply the state in which God manifests himself in his grace, and hell is the state in which a moral being finds himself in opposition to God, and God in opposition to him. Christ can manifest himself to his followers in all parts of the earth and to all the inhabitants of heaven at one and the same time (John 14:21; Mat. 28:20; Rev. 1:7). Angels in like manner, being purely spiritual beings, may be free from the laws of space and time, and may not be limited to any fixed locality.

We prefer therefore to leave the question of place undecided, and to accept the existence and working of angels both good and evil as a matter of faith, without professing to understand their relations to space. For the rationalistic view, see Strauss, Glaubenslehre, 1:670-675. Per contra, see Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, 1:308-317; Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 127-136.

2. To the doctrine of evil angels in particular.

It is objected that:

(a) The idea of the fall of angels is self-contradictory, since a fall determined by pride presupposes pride—that is, a fall before the fall.—We reply that the objection confounds the occasion of sin with the sin itself. The outward motive to disobedience is not disobedience. The fall took place only when that outward motive was chosen by free will. When the motive of independence was selfishly adopted, only then did the innocent desire for knowledge and power become pride and sin. How an evil volition could originate in spirits created pure is an insoluble problem. Our faith in God's holiness, however, compels us to attribute the origin of this evil volition, not to the Creator, but to the creature.

There can be no sinful propensity before there is sin. The reason of the first sin can not be sin itself. This would be to make sin a necessary development; to deny the holiness of God the Creator; to leave the ground of theism for pantheism.

(b) It is irrational to suppose that Satan should have been able to change his whole nature by a single act, so that he thenceforth willed only evil.—But we reply that the circumstances of that decision are unknown to us; while the power of single acts permanently to change character is matter of observation among men.

Instance the effect, upon character and life, of a single act of falsehood or embezzlement. The first glass of intoxicating drink, and the first yielding to impure suggestion, often establish nerve-tracts in the brain and associations in the mind which are not reversed and overcome for a whole lifetime. “Sow an act, and you reap a habit; sow a habit, and you reap a character; sow a character, and you reap a destiny.” And what is true of men, may be also true of angels.

(c) It is impossible that so wise a being should enter upon a hopeless rebellion.—We answer that no amount of mere knowledge ensures right moral action. If men gratify present passion, in spite of their knowledge that the sin involves present misery and future perdition, it is not impossible that Satan may have done the same.

Scherer, Essays on English Literature, 139, puts this objection as follows: “The idea of Satan is a contradictory idea; for it is contradictory to know God and yet attempt rivalry with him.” But we must remember that understanding is the servant of will, [pg 461]and is darkened by will. Many clever men fail to see what belongs to their peace. It is the very madness of sin, that it persists in iniquity, even when it sees and fears the approaching judgment of God. Jonathan Edwards: “Although the devil be exceedingly crafty and subtle, yet he is one of the greatest fools and blockheads in the world, as the subtlest of wicked men are. Sin is of such a nature that it strangely infatuates and stultifies the mind.” One of Ben Jonson's plays has, for its title: “The Devil is an Ass.”

Schleiermacher, Die Christliche Glaube, 1:210, urges that continual wickedness must have weakened Satan's understanding, so that he could be no longer feared, and he adds: “Nothing is easier than to contend against emotional evil.” On the other hand, there seems evidence in Scripture of a progressive rage and devastating activity in the case of the evil one, beginning in Genesis and culminating in the Revelation. With this increasing malignity there is also abundant evidence of his unwisdom. We may instance the devil's mistakes in misrepresenting 1. God to man (Gen. 3:1—“hath God said?”). 2. Man to himself (Gen. 3:4—“Ye shall not surely die”). 3. Man to God (Job 1:9—“Doth Job fear God for naught?”). 4. God to himself (Mat. 4:3—“If thou art the Son of God”). 5. Himself to man (2 Cor. 11:14—“Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light”). 6. Himself to himself (Rev. 12:12—“the devil is gone down unto you, having great wrath”—thinking he could successfully oppose God or destroy man).

(d) It is inconsistent with the benevolence of God to create and uphold spirits, who he knows will be and do evil.—We reply that this is no more inconsistent with God's benevolence than the creation and preservation of men, whose action God overrules for the furtherance of his purposes, and whose iniquity he finally brings to light and punishes.

Seduction of the pure by the impure, piracy, slavery, and war, have all been permitted among men. It is no more inconsistent with God's benevolence to permit them among angelic spirits. Caroline Fox tells of Emerson and Carlyle that the latter once led his friend, the serene philosopher, through the abominations of the streets of London at midnight, asking him with grim humor at every few steps: “Do you believe in the devil now?” Emerson replied that the more he saw of the English people, the greater and better he thought them. It must have been because with such depths beneath them they could notwithstanding reach such heights of civilization. Even vice and misery can be overruled for good, and the fate of evil angels may be made a warning to the universe.

(e) The notion of organization among evil spirits is self-contradictory, since the nature of evil is to sunder and divide.—We reply that such organization of evil spirits is no more impossible than the organization of wicked men, for the purpose of furthering their selfish ends. Common hatred to God may constitute a principle of union among them, as among men.

Wicked men succeed in their plans only by adhering in some way to the good. Even a robber-horde must have laws, and there is a sort of “honor among thieves.” Else the world would be a pandemonium, and society would be what Hobbes called it: “bellum omnium contra omnes.” See art. on Satan, by Whitehouse, in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible: “Some personalities are ganglionic centres of a nervous system, incarnations of evil influence. The Bible teaches that Satan is such a centre.”

But the organizing power of Satan has its limitations. Nevius, Demon-Possession, 279—“Satan is not omniscient, and it is not certain that all demons are perfectly subject to his control. Want of vigilance on his part, and personal ambition in them, may obstruct and delay the execution of his plans, as among men.” An English parliamentarian comforted himself by saying: “If the fleas were all of one mind, they would have us out of bed.” Plato, Lysis, 214—“The good are like one another, and friends to one another, and the bad are never at unity with one another or with themselves; for they are passionate and restless, and anything which is at variance and enmity with itself is not likely to be in union or harmony with any other thing.”

(f) The doctrine is morally pernicious, as transferring the blame of human sin to the being or beings who tempt men thereto.—We reply that [pg 462] neither conscience nor Scripture allows temptation to be an excuse for sin, or regards Satan as having power to compel the human will. The objection, moreover, contradicts our observation,—for only where the personal existence of Satan is recognized, do we find sin recognized in its true nature.

The diabolic character of sin makes it more guilty and abhorred. The immorality lies, not in the maintenance, but in the denial, of the doctrine. Giving up the doctrine of Satan is connected with laxity in the administration of criminal justice. Penalty comes to be regarded as only deterrent or reformatory.

(g) The doctrine degrades man, by representing him as the tool and slave of Satan.—We reply that it does indeed show his actual state to be degraded, but only with the result of exalting our idea of his original dignity, and of his possible glory in Christ. The fact that man's sin was suggested from without, and not from within, may be the one mitigating circumstance which renders possible his redemption.

It rather puts a stigma upon human nature to say that it is not fallen—that its present condition is its original and normal state. Nor is it worth while to attribute to man a dignity he does not possess, if thereby we deprive him of the dignity that may be his. Satan's sin was, in its essence, sin against the Holy Ghost, for which there can be no “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34), since it was choosing evil with the mala gaudia mentis, or the clearest intuition that it was evil. If there be no devil, then man himself is devil. It has been said of Voltaire, that without believing in a devil, he saw him everywhere—even where he was not. Christian, in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, takes comfort when he finds that the blasphemous suggestions which came to him in the dark valley were suggestions from the fiend that pursued him. If all temptation is from within, our case would seem hopeless. But if “an enemy hath done this” (Mat. 13:28), then there is hope. And so we may accept the maxim: “Nullus diabolus, nullus Redemptor.” Unitarians have no Captain of their Salvation, and so have no Adversary against whom to contend. See Trench, Studies in the Gospels, 17; Birks, Difficulties of Belief, 78-100; Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1:291-293. Many of the objections and answers mentioned above have been taken from Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:251-284, where a fuller statement of them may be found.

III. Practical uses of the Doctrine of Angels.

A. Uses of the doctrine of good angels.

(a) It gives us a new sense of the greatness of the divine resources, and of God's grace in our creation, to think of the multitude of unfallen intelligences who executed the divine purposes before man appeared.

(b) It strengthens our faith in God's providential care, to know that spirits of so high rank are deputed to minister to creatures who are environed with temptations and are conscious of sin.

(c) It teaches us humility, that beings of so much greater knowledge and power than ours should gladly perform these unnoticed services, in behalf of those whose only claim upon them is that they are children of the same common Father.

(d) It helps us in the struggle against sin, to learn that these messengers of God are near, to mark our wrong doing if we fall, and to sustain us if we resist temptation.

(e) It enlarges our conceptions of the dignity of our own being, and of the boundless possibilities of our future existence, to remember these forms of typical innocence and love, that praise and serve God unceasingly in heaven.

[pg 463]

Instance the appearance of angels in Jacob's life at Bethel (Gen. 28:12—Jacob's conversion?) and at Mahanaim (Gen. 32:1, 2—two camps, of angels, on the right hand and on the left; cf. Ps. 34:7—“The angel of Jehovah encampeth round about them that fear him, And delivereth them”); so too the Angel at Penuel that struggled with Jacob at his entering the promised land (Gen. 32:24; cf. Hos. 12:3, 4—“in his manhood he had power with God: yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed”), and “the angel who hath redeemed me from all evil” (Gen. 48:16) to whom Jacob refers on his dying bed. Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene: “And is there care in heaven? and is there love In heavenly spirits to these creatures base That may compassion of their evils move? There is; else much more wretched were the case Of men than beasts. But O, th' exceeding grace Of highest God that loves his creatures so, And all his works with mercy doth embrace, That blessed angels he sends to and fro To serve to wicked man, to serve his wicked foe! How oft do they their silver bowers leave And come to succor us who succor want! How oft do they with golden pinions cleave The flitting skies like flying pursuivant, Against foul fiends to aid us militant! They for us fight; they watch and duly ward, And their bright squadrons round about us plant; And all for love, and nothing for reward. Oh, why should heavenly God for men have such regard!”

It shows us that sin is not mere finiteness, to see these finite intelligences that maintained their integrity. Shakespeare, Henry VIII, 2:2—“He counsels a divorce—a loss of her That, like a jewel, has hung twenty years About his neck, yet never lost her lustre; Of her that loves him with that excellence That angels love good men with; even of her That, when the greatest stroke of fortune falls, Will bless the king.”Measure for Measure, 2:2—“Man, proud man, Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven, As makes the angels weep.”

B. Uses of the doctrine of evil angels.

(a) It illustrates the real nature of sin, and the depth of the ruin to which it may bring the soul, to reflect upon the present moral condition and eternal wretchedness to which these spirits, so highly endowed, have brought themselves by their rebellion against God.

(b) It inspires a salutary fear and hatred of the first subtle approaches of evil from within or from without, to remember that these may be the covert advances of a personal and malignant being, who seeks to overcome our virtue and to involve us in his own apostasy and destruction.

(c) It shuts us up to Christ, as the only Being who is able to deliver us or others from the enemy of all good.

(d) It teaches us that our salvation is wholly of grace, since for such multitudes of rebellious spirits no atonement and no renewal were provided—simple justice having its way, with no mercy to interpose or save.

Philippi, in his Glaubenslehre, 3:151-284, suggests the following relations of the doctrine of Satan to the doctrine of sin: 1. Since Satan is a fallen angel, who once was pure, evil is not self-existent or necessary. Sin does not belong to the substance which God created, but is a later addition. 2. Since Satan is a purely spiritual creature, sin cannot have its origin in mere sensuousness, or in the mere possession of a physical nature. 3. Since Satan is not a weak and poorly endowed creature, sin is not a necessary result of weakness and limitation. 4. Since Satan is confirmed in evil, sin is not necessarily a transient or remediable act of will. 5. Since in Satan sin does not come to an end, sin is not a step of creaturely development, or a stage of progress to something higher and better. On the uses of the doctrine, see also Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, 1:316; Robert Hall, Works, 3:35-51; Brooks, Satan and his Devices.

“They never sank so low, They are not raised so high; They never knew such depths of woe, Such heights of majesty. The Savior did not join Their nature to his own; For them he shed no blood divine. Nor heaved a single groan.” If no redemption has been provided for them, it may be because: 1. sin originated with them; 2. the sin which they committed was “an eternal sin” (cf. Mark 3:29); 3. they sinned with clearer intellect and fuller knowledge than ours (cf. Luke 23:34); 4. their incorporeal being aggravated their sin and made it analogous to our sinning against the Holy [pg 464]Spirit (cf. Mat. 12:31, 32); 5. this incorporeal being gave no opportunity for Christ to objectify his grace and visibly to join himself to them (cf. Heb. 2:16); 6. their persistence in evil, in spite of their growing knowledge of the character of God as exhibited in human history, has resulted in a hardening of heart which is not susceptible of salvation.

Yet angels were created in Christ (Col. 1:16); they consist in him (Col. 1:17); he must suffer in their sin; God would save them, if he consistently could. Dr. G. W. Samson held that the Logos became an angel before he became man, and that this explains his appearances as “the angel of Jehovah” in the Old Testament (Gen. 22:11). It is not asserted that all fallen angels shall be eternally tormented (Rev. 14:10). In terms equally strong (Mat. 25:41; Rev. 20:10) the existence of a place of eternal punishment for wicked men is declared, but nevertheless we do not believe that all men will go there, in spite of the fact that all men are wicked. The silence of Scripture with regard to a provision of salvation for fallen angels does not prove that there is no such provision. 2 Pet. 2:4shows that evil angels have not received final judgment, but are in a temporary state of existence, and their final state is yet to be revealed. If God has not already provided, may he not yet provide redemption for them, and the “elect angels” (1 Tim. 5:21) be those whom God has predestinated to stand this future probation and be saved, while only those who persist in their rebellion will be consigned to the lake of fire and brimstone (Rev. 20:10)?

The keeper of a young tigress patted her head and she licked his hand. But when she grew older she seized his hand with her teeth and began to craunch it. He pulled away his hand in shreds. He learned not to fondle a tigress. Let us learn not to fondle Satan. Let us not be “ignorant of his devices” (2 Cor. 2:11). It is not well to keep loaded firearms in the chimney corner. “They who fear the adder's sting will not come near her hissing.” Talmage: “O Lord, help us to hear the serpent's rattle before we feel its fangs.” Ian Maclaren, Cure of Souls, 215—The pastor trembles for a soul, “when he sees the destroyer hovering over it like a hawk poised in midair, and would have it gathered beneath Christ's wing.”

Thomas K. Beecher: “Suppose I lived on Broadway where the crowd was surging past in both directions all the time. Would I leave my doors and windows open, saying to the crowd of strangers: ‘Enter my door, pass through my hall, come into my parlor, make yourselves at home in my dining-room, go up into my bedchambers’? No! I would have my windows and doors barred and locked against intruders, to be opened only to me and mine and those I would have as companions. Yet here we see foolish men and women stretching out their arms and saying to the spirits of the vasty deep: ‘Come in, and take possession of me. Write with my hands, think with my brain, speak with my lips, walk with my feet, use me as a medium for whatever you will.’ God respects the sanctity of man's spirit. Even Christ stands at the door and knocks. Holy Spirit, fill me, so that there shall be room for no other!” (Rev. 3:20; Eph. 5:18.)

[pg 465]