The same remarks apply to the doctrine of John respecting the Logos. The manner in which John treats of the Logos shows very clearly, that his intention is not to make known this doctrine for the first time, but simply to show the relation in which Christ stands to the doctrine alluded to. The very name Logos was not originally a term peculiar to John, and does not occur at all among the terms which he ordinarily employs. That there must be some connexion between the Logos of Philo and the Logos of John is a thought which immediately suggests itself, and the attempt to do away with this connexion has been altogether futile. And, beside this, the correspondence between the Logos and the angel of the Lord, which strikes any one at the first glance, would be very remarkable if it were merely elicited by exegesis. Whenever Jesus speaks of having lived before man or before the world, he assumes the existence of the doctrine of the angel of the Lord, in the form maintained by the Church. There would, otherwise, have been no link of connexion whatever between these doctrines and the minds of the hearers. What was new was simply the personal application.

Lastly, the angel of the Lord, whom we meet with constantly throughout the whole of the Old Testament, disappears entirely from the New.-We will not confine ourselves to the name, but look also at the facts of the case. An angel, who usually speaks in the name of Jehovah, and is represented as the guardian of the Church, has completely disappeared (the passage in Rev. xxii. 7, where an angel speaks in the name of Christ, stands quite alone in the whole of the New Testament), unless he is to be found in Christ. With the Church's view of the Maleach Jehovah the enigma is solved, and the connexion between the two Testaments, as well as their perfect harmony, brought into the clearest light.

With these distinct and manifold confirmations, which the orthodox view receives from the New Testament, the few plausible arguments, by which the attempt has been made to prove that the New Testament regards the "angel of Jehovah," referred to in the Old, as merely an ordinary angel, are deprived of all their force.

Delitzsh observes (p. 334), “Wherever ἄγγελος κυρίου (the Greek rendering of 7), is mentioned in the New

Testament, whether he be called ἄγγελος κυρίου or ὁ ἄγγελος Kupiov, confessedly a created angel is intended." But as we have already shown, ó äyyeλos Kvpíov (the angel of the Lord) and not ayyeλos kupiov (an angel of the Lord) corresponds to and the former is never found, except in cases in which the angel has been mentioned before. Matt. i. 24, for example, "he did as the angel of the Lord (ó ǎyyeλos Kuplov) had bidden him," is very instructive in this respect, when compared with ver. 20, "behold an angel of the Lord (ayyeλos Kuρíov) appeared unto him in a dream;" also Luke i. 11, "there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord" (ayyeλos Kuρiov), when compared with ver. 13, "but the angel (o ayyeλos) said unto him." Compare also Matt. xxviii. 2 with ver. 5, and Acts xii. 7 with ver. 8. But if the case had been different, if ó äyyeλos Kupiov (the angel of the Lord) were used in any instance entirely by itself, with reference to an ordinary angel, this would prove nothing. We have already admitted that

does not of necessity denote the Logos, but that there are passages in which the angel may possibly be regarded as an ideal person. And ὁ ἄγγελος κυρίου would in such cases have to be explained in the same way. The proof that in a considerable number of passages in the Old Testament the angel of the Lord can only be the Logos, we have already found in the fact that this term, which points to a person exalted infinitely above the angels, is applied to the angel who speaks and acts in the name and person of God. It would be necessary therefore to point out the same fact, in connexion with those passages (if any existed), in which ὁ ἄγγελος κυρίου occurred.

Testamento.

"But," continues Delitzsch, "the New Testament furnishes still more direct testimony against the divine nature of the Old Testament In Acts vii. 30, Stephen calls the angel of Jehovah, who appeared to Moses in the burning bush, ayyeλos Kuρlov."-In the original passage, Ex. iii. 2, it is stated that "the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the thorn-bush." In Acts vii. 30, "There appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai äyyeλos kupiov in a flame of fire in a bush." Thus in the Acts of the Apostles we find first of

all a general term. But this proves nothing. The angel is also an angel. And it is evident from what follows immediately afterwards that it is not an ordinary angel that is intended. In ver. 31, we read of "the voice of the Lord," and in ver. 32, "I am the God of thy fathers," &c. On ver. 30, Bengel observes, "The Son of God (see following verses): at first Moses did not know who it was, but immediately afterwards he recognised Him from the voice."

Again," says Delitzsch, p. 335, “the angel, of whom he says in ver. 38 that he spake to Moses in Sinai, cannot have been regarded by him as a divine being, for in ver. 53 he says, 'who have received the law by the disposition of angels (eis diarayas ȧyyéλwv)'; and with this Paul agrees in Gal. iii. 19 and Heb. ii. 2."-In Acts vii. 38 we read, "this is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and spake with our fathers, who received the lively oracles to give unto us." Moses is placed between the angel and the congregation, in connexion with the giving of the law. Bengel correctly observes, that " Stephen does not say with the angels, but with the angel of the covenant;" compare Mal. iii. 1. In the original account there is no allusion to an angel at all. Moses converses with Jehovah. But the angel is understood as a matter of course, since all the revelations of Jehovah are made through him. Moreover there is in Mal. iii. 1, a distinct scriptural authority, for the intervention of a Mediator on this occasion. And, on the other hand, Stephen would never have ventured to supply the mediation of an angel on his own authority merely. Let any one read Ex. xix. and see for himself, whether the scene is one befitting an ordinary angel. And even ver. 53 (" who received the law by the disposition of angels") does not favour such a hypothesis; (compare Gal. iii. 19, where the law is called Starayeìs di' ȧyyéλwv). Again, if an ordinary angel were intended in ver. 38, the expression in ver. 53 would be directly contradictory. In the one case we have an angel, (only one can be regarded as speaking Toû Xaλoûvtos aur;) in the other, on the contrary, we have a plurality of angels. But the case is entirely different, if the angel of the Lord is alluded to there. He is usually attended by a retinue

of inferior angels,' and so far as Sinai is concerned, the presence of such a retinue is expressly attested in such passages. Deut. xxxiii. 2, "he comes with myriads of holy ones;" ver. 3, "all his holy ones are in thy hand (i.e., serve thee, O Israel);" and Ps. lxviii. 17, "the chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of thousands, the Lord is among them, Sinai in the sanctuary." "The chariots are attended by hosts of angels. In the midst of them is the Lord, as formerly on Sinai. The one thing, which is common to Zion and Sinai, is the presence of the Lord in the midst of the numerous hosts of his angels." In ver. 38 the angel of the Lord occupies just the same place as Jehovah in Ex. xix. The angels in ver. 53 and Gal. iii. 19 are taken from Deut. xxxiii. In the latter passage, however, the angels are not mentioned in the place of the Lord, but the Lord comes attended by them.

The only passage in the New Testament, which presents a difficulty at first sight, is Heb. ii. 2, 3, where the law is apparently placed below the gospel, on account of the latter being "spoken by the Lord," whereas the former was merely " spoken by angels." But it cannot have been the author's intention to ascribe the giving of the law, the most glorious work of the Old Testament, to merely inferior angels, without any direct participation on the part of the Lord and his revealer, in direct opposition to the Old Testament; for in chap. xii. 26 he distinctly affirms that "the voice of the Lord shook the earth at the giving of the law." The only ground, therefore, upon which he can possibly intend to exalt the gospel above the law, is that the was not so perfect as in his incarnation, and for this very reason there is a certain sense in which we must make a distinction between the angel of the Lord and the Son of God, instead of saying directly, as the Fathers and most of the early theologians do, that "the angel of the Lord is identical with the Son."?

מלאך יהוה revelation of the Lord as

There is the less ground for astonishment at finding in

1 Compare Sohar fol. 96 ed. Solisbac. (Edzardi tract. Talm. Berachoth. 227), "quando divina majestas habitat circa hominem, tum innumeri alii exercitus sancti adsunt ibi simul."

2 Compare the remark of Grotius on Ex. 20, "errant graviter, qui hic per angelum intelligunt secundam dei hypostasin. Variis enim multiplicibusque modis deus locutus est patribus; at per filium ultimis demum temporibus."

the Old Testament the doctrine of a revealer of God, who is equal to God, and yet distinct from him, a mediator between God and the world, and we have the less excuse for attempting to remove the traces of this doctrine in a forcible manner, from the fact that there are echoes of the same doctrine to be found elsewhere. We will confine ourselves to the Persians, since the resemblance to the biblical doctrine is most apparent in their case. The religious books of the Persians make a distinction between Zervane Akerene, the unseen God and source of all things,' and Ormuzd the first of the Amshaspands ("the angelprince of Jehovah "), who is the creator of all things, possessed of majesty equal to that of God, the mediator of all intercourse between God and the world, and from whom Zoroaster received all his revelations. Compare Rhode, die heilige Sage des Zendvolkes p. 317, where he says, "Ormuzd, this first of the Amshaspands, and this Being swallowed up in glory, appears under two aspects in the Zend writings. On the one hand

as a creature (?), possessed of a body and nerves, and produced by Zervane Akerene like the rest of the Amshaspands. He belongs to the Amshaspands, and, though the first and greatest, is himself an Amshaspand. But on the other hand, he is also represented as the almighty creator of the heaven and the earth, as the creator and God of the six other Amshaspands, above whom he is infinitely exalted." According to Schlottmann (on Job i. p. 88) Zervane Akerene represents "the Deity in his absolute character, as distinguished from the God who reveals himself in time, and who is not created by the former, but contained within him." How is it possible to overlook the resemblance between the angel of the Lord, or Michael, and Ormuzd as here described.2 This agreement

1 According to Roth (Etymologisches zum Avesta Zeitschrift der D. Morgenl. Gesellschaft vol. 6 p. 247) Zarvan Akarana means time, which has no limits, and knows no end.

2 Whilst this resemblance serves on the one hand as a refutation of those views respecting the angel of the Lord, which deviate from the doctrine held by the Church, on the other hand it is opposed to the assertion made by Baur (das Manichaïsche Religions-system p. 11, 12), J. Müller, Spiegel (Zeitschrift der D. Morgenl. Gesellsch. vol. v. p. 225), Roth (Anzeige von Raths Geschichte unserer abendländischen Philosophie in Fichtes Zeitschr. 47), that Zervane Akerene in the Persian religion is by no means an actual being, in the same sense as Ormuzd and Ahriman, that instead of possessing a nature superior to Ormuzd, he is simply an attribute of Ormuzd. It would be