The only scientific conception which to some minds seems to foster the belief in angels is the Law of Evolution, or, to speak more accurately, the anticipation of gradation of being, encouraged by that law. T. G. Selby, in his volume of ser- mons headed by one on 'The Imperfect Aii_il.' contends that a true .science welcomes tlic l.cli^f in angels as intervening between man and (i<iil. ' It is surely not unscientific,' he says, ' to assume the existence of the pure and mighty beings spoken of by seers and prophets of the olden time.' ' Tlie spirit of inspiration, in seeking to convey to us .some faint hint of the strict ;uid awful and abso- lute holiness of God, dcpiits r.uiks df angels in- definitely higher and better tliaii the choicest saints on earth: and then tells us that these angels, which seem so lofty and stainless and resplendent, are creatures of unwisdom and shiiitc(pming in comparison with the ineflable wisilem and surjinss ing holiness of God' (p. 7). Ciodet in his liililinil Studies on the 02' has elaborateil a scientitic «y;o- logia on behalf of angels. He contends that science recognizes three forms of being : species without individuality, in the vegetable world ; individuality under bondage to species, in the animal world ; individuality overpowering .species, in the human race. He holds, therefore, that it is antecedently probable that there is a fourth form of being — individuality \vithout species — each individual owing his existence no longer to parents like himself, but iumiediately to the Creative WOl. This fourth form would exactly be the angel (p. 2 ft-.).
It remains now to show that a belief in angels is in precise accord with the fundamental views of God and the world which present themselves in the recorded life and teaching of the Lord Jesus. Were the belief in angels at variance with Christ's personal religious outlook, we might readily regard it as an exeresci'iice which iiiud.Tii tlionght might lopolVwithi.iit in\ieh ileliiiiieiil : hilt if il^is chisely allied le (Mil- l,(.r,rs fiiniliiiiH'iilal duel lines, thuii this will surely ceiilinii (he in from other evidence, thai .lesu in the reality of angels, and v
from the belief the s.-u ■,
which He did. Where shall
i..„ .arrived at eiely believed ia\ e us derive anil support :.k with more
for the first | Jesus than to the 1
Saviour taught His disciples to '.say, ' Our Fatln liich art in heaven. Hallowed be thy name. .
s of the doctrine of layer? There our
liy will he ilone on earth as it is in heaven.' Be- iiid all contradiction, then, it is an axiom of the eed of .lesus that there are beings in heaven
sayings of the Apostles, but not to sayings of the Master. His sayings owe their eternal permanence to the fact thai they appeal to that whicli is com- mon to all 111(11 I he iiiiieiiiiost in all men— the heart— the reli-ii.ii, n.aiiie. To conceive of God as the Aljsuhile. oi the I'iist Cause, ma.y satisfy the reason; l.ui hef,,ie ihe heart can be satisfied, it must know (h..! as I ai her, the 'Father in heaven.' But tlie very |ilMa i- ■ I atlier in heaven' .seems to iiiqily tliat lie lias n,,,is in heaven. And that this substan-
■d, is irrefragably substa li.h follow: 'Thy will
done 1111 eaiih a, it is in heaven.' Surely no one can ileiiy th.it < hrist firmly believed that there are beings in heaven who do God's will, to say the least, far more perfectly than we do, since their obedience is the model to which we are constantly taught to pray that we may attain. Again, it was the outstanding feature of Judaism to push God aloof from men and the world, whereas Jesus brought God nearer to men, as a Father who takes a minute interest in all that concerns us. But if .lesus thus brought heaven nearer to man. He must, in tlie very act, have brought the occupants of heaven nearer, and must wisli us to believe that they also are deeply interested in our welfare. There is no need that angels should tell God any- thing that concerns us. He knows already far more than they can tell. Those who object to the doctrine of angels because it interposes a barrier between our prayers and our Father's love, mis- understand Christ's teaching. His disclosure of the Fatherliness of God wa.-, meant to correct Judaism, in so far as it made angels the bearers of our players and the informants to God of our requirements. Those Christians also who approach Cod through angels contravene in this way Christ's teaching: and also His miiii/i/r, for in the garden He said to Peter (Mt Jli ■) : 'I could pray the Father, a,nd he would acfu/ . . . angels.' Christ's teaching and example both show that it is our duty and privilege to have direct intercourse with God in prayer and fellowship. But this is not to say that there is no room for the ministry of angels. We may still believe that angels are sent on errands of mercy. Indeed, we may well say to those who on this subject are of doubtful mind, as the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews said : ' Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service on behalf of those who shall inherit salvation?' (1"). There is nothing at all in the Gospel doi^triiie of angels which is at variance with the religious needs of the most cultured among us. It ni.-iy laeieiiLdillienkies to reason, as everything which is .-uiieiiiimu.al does; but the heart of man which loM's (old iiin-t surely rejoice to think that the heavenly Father lias also a ' faniily in heaven ' as on earth (Kph . ■)'■'). It nin^l alwiM lind a re- sponsive chord 111 the nature oi mkii v ho .illow the heart a place in their creed, lo he loM ihal, there are beings who 'coiitiiiuallv heliold the face of our Father,' who are deeiily ini.ae~te,l in us (Mt IS'") ; that our penitence gi\es the aiigeN joy (Lk 15'") ; that in our times of depiessiou and anguish it may be our privilege to have ' an angel sent from heaven, strengthening ' us (Lk i-l*'), as in our times of gladness it is our' privilege to ' give thanks to the Father from M hom the whole family in heaven and earth is named' (Eph S"'-).