priest in us.[210] In this power he finds a sure refutation of
skepticism; for in virtue of the Divine voice man may secure moral
certitude: and he finds also a philosophical value for popular
superstition. It was a common notion of the pagans as well as
the Jews of the time that an intermediate order of beings passed
between heaven and earth and brought supernatural aid to men; and also
that a familiar spirit, or Daemon, dwelt within the soul of each man.
The finer spirit of Philo resolves the attendant Daemon and the
messenger-daemons or angels into the spiritual effluences of the one
Deity; save for a few places where he makes a pose of agreement with
popular notions and speaks of winged denizens of Heaven[211] who
descend to earth, he habitually expounds angels as inward revelations
of God.

As the revelation of God to the individual is a Logos, so, too, is his
revelation to the whole of mankind. It was pointed out in the last
chapter that Philo identified the Torah with the law of nature, and he
did this by regarding it as the Divine Logos. The more perfect
emanation of God is in one view the power by which He directs the
physical creation, in another the perfect law which He set up as the
model of conduct for His highest creatures. The rabbis, indeed, were
prone to glorify the law as the primal creation of God, and the
instrument of all the later creations, [Hebrew: kli hmra shbu gbrao
shmim].[212] They speak of it as the light, the pillar, and the bond
of the universe, the model whereon the architect looked;[213] and Philo
amplifies this simple poetical concept and develops it afresh in the
light of Greek idealistic and cosmical notions,[214] so that the Torah,
as the Logos of God, is equated with the source of all being, wisdom, and
knowledge, with the ideal world which is the archetype of the
material, and with all the law and order of nature. And as the Torah
is the Logos, so also its particular precepts are Logoi.

It seems difficult to trace the unity among all these different
aspects of the "Word," but in fact they are only different expressions
of the Divine activity in the universe. All these are comprehended in
the Logos, and then again divided out of it, so that it is, as it
were, a crystal prism reflecting the light of the Godhead in a myriad
different ways. One curious illustration of the universal sense in
which Philo understood the Logos is his interpretation of the manna;
it is typical also of