Metatron, the latter of whom stands in the same relation to the higher, as the latter to the supreme God. Examples of this may be found in numerous passages of the Jewish writings themselves. The doctrine concerning the lower Metatron, who is supposed by many to be Enoch, is probably founded upon Ex. xxxii. 34. The higher Metatron is not infrequently identified with the Shechinah. Thus, for example, in the book Tikkune Sohar (in Glaesener's theol. Soharica, p. 37) we read, " Metatron est ipsissima Schechina et Schechina Metatron Jehovae vocatur, uia corona est decem Sephirarum." (Compare the elaborate proof in Danz, p. 733, sqq., and Edzardi Tract. Berach., p. 232). There are other passages, however, which show that the Metatron and the Shechinah were distinguished in other respects, and that the two were identified only so far as the latter was concentrated and personally manifested in the former. In the book of Eschel Abraham, for example (Danz, p. 735), it is stated that "Columna medietatis est Metatron, in quo apparet sanctus ille benedictus in Schechina sua." And in another passage in Sommer, (p. 36): "Deus O. M. ejusque Schechina sunt intra Metatronem, quippe qui vocatur Schaddai." This is expressed still more clearly in a passage of R. Moses Corduero (Danz, p. 734), "Angelus hic vestimentum est Schechinae et Schechina occultat sese in ejus medio, suasque ipsa ostendit operationes per eundem. Non tamen Schechina ipsa-sed si dicere fas esset Schechinae

doctrine concerning Mithras has a physical, rather than a moral signification (see Rhode das Religions-system des Zendvolkes, p. 264 sqq.). Lastly, whilst on the one hand the original appellative signification of the word would lead us to conclude, that it was not borrowed from the Persians, on the other hand no analogy whatever can be adduced in its favour; whereas it is possible to prove, that names have frequently been borrowed from the Greek and Latin. Compare, for example, Armillus, the Greek pnuoλaos, and Matrona, which occurs so frequently in the Cabbalistic writings.

1 The omission on the part of Eisenmenger to distinguish between these two has caused great confusion. We will quote one or two passages only. R. Ruben fil. Hoschke (Danz, p. 736) says, "Shechina longe excelsior est Henocho convenienter cum illo quod per traditionem accepi, fore metatorem magnum et metatorem parvum, quorum magnus est ipsissima Schechina e qua ille emanat et de nomine ejus Schechina vocatur Metatron ;" and in another passage, "Invenimus in Sohar, quod duo sint metatores, Metatron maximus et Metatron parvus creatus." For other passages see Danz, p. 730— 735. The assertion made by several Rabbins, to the effect that with Jod denotes the higher Metatron, and without Jod the lower, is incorrect, as Schmieder (p. 28) has proved from the paraphrase of Jonathan, Gen. v. 24, where the word is written with Jod, though the lower Metatron is referred to.

מיטטרון

vocarem exilium." For other passages see Knorr a Rosenroth, Kabbala denudata, i., p. 528; also Sommer, p. 37, where R.

the" שכינה חתומה בתוך מטטרון,Moses Corduero says

Shechina is enclosed in' the Metatron."-The Metatron is not created, but an emanation. Compare R. Mose ben Hoshke, in Danz, p. 737, "Manifestum hinc est, quod sit Metatron emanationis et Metatron creationis, qui est nuntius. Metatron autem emanationis est ille, qui Mosi apparuit in rubo." He is connected with the supreme God by unity of nature. R. Bechai (in Edzardi Tract. Talm. Berachoth, p. 231), says, "Rabini p. m. verba explicarunt : ne permutes me in illo (ut alium me, alium illum esse putes) dicitque hoc ideo deus ad Mosem, ut intelligeret, utrumque unum esse et arctissime unitum, absque separatione. Est ille dominus ipse et legatus domini." In the Talmud (see the passages in Sommer, 1. c. p. 45) he is called, "the prince of the world." He is the visible revealer of God. Vid. Sohar, in Sommer, p. 38, "Indumentum TOUT est Metatron." He is designated the angel, "cujus nomen sicut nomen domini sui.” Talm. tract. Sanhedrin in Sommer l. c.). He rules over every created thing: "Metatron servus Jehovae, senior domus ejus, qui est principium creaturarum ejus, dominium exercens super omnia, quae ipsi sunt tradita. Tradidit vero ipsi dominium deus O. M. super omnes exercitus suos." (Sohar in Sommer, 1. c. p. 35). Othioth Rabbi Akkiva, in Eisenmenger ii., p. 396 says, "the Metatron is the angel the prince of the countenance, the angel the prince of the law, the angel the prince of wisdom, the prince of strength, the prince of glory, the prince of the temple, the prince of kings, the prince of governors, the prince of the high and lofty, the many and glorious princes, who are in heaven and on earth." All the glorious titles, which are given to him singly in other passages, are collected together in a remarkable passage of the cabalistic book Rasiel in Edzard, p. 234.

That this doctrine was originally of Jewish origin, and not borrowed from the Persians, is evident from the fact that, in all the passages in which it occurs, its connexion with the Old Testament is very obvious. On every hand we either find the passages of the Old Testament, in which the is mentioned, distinctly quoted, or an evident allusion to them. Many

proofs might be adduced of its great antiquity. That the doctrine was in existence, when the Septuagint version was made, is apparent from Is. ix. 5, where y is rendered peyáλns Bovλîs äyyeλos,—probably, as Gesenius observes, on theological grounds, to show that it would not be the Supreme Deity himself, who would appear in the Messiah, but his revealer. R. Alschech on Gen. xviii. 2 (Danz p. 734), speaks of this doctrine as traditional, "omnis angelus absolute dictus in Scriptura est princeps facierum Metator, cujus nomen est sicut nomen domini ejus, secundum sermonem doctorum nostrorum p. m. ad textum biblicum: ecce ego missurus sum angelum ante facies tuas etc., et ecce angelus meus ibit etc." If this doctrine had been one of recent origin, it would be difficult to account for the extent to which it had spread; for it occurs, not only in the Cabbalistic writings, but in works of the most diverse tendencies. And there are not a few passages in the New Testament, particularly in Paul's epistles, which favour its antiquity-passages in which it is impossible to resist the conclusion, that expressions, which the Jews were in the habit of applying to the Metatron, are transferred to Christ. The similarity between these passages from the New Testament, and those from the Rabbinical writings is too great to be accidental. Lastly, the antiquity of this doctrine may be inferred from its occurring in Philo (quis rerum divinarum hæres p. 50): τῷ δὲ ἀρχαγγέλῳ καὶ πρεσβυτάτῳ λόγῳ δι' ἀρετὴν ἐξαίρετον ἔδωκεν ὁ τὰ ὅλα γεννήσας πατὴρ, ἵνα μεθόριον στὰς τὸ γενόμενον διακρίνῃ τοῦ πεποιηκότος· ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς ἱκέτης μέν ἐστι τοῦ θνητοῦ κηραίνοντος ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ ἄφθαρτον,

1

1 Although Tholuck (de ortu Cabbalae, Halle 37, p. 21) assigns the composition of the Cabbalistic writings to a recent date, he supposes the groundwork to have belonged to an early age. And Schmieder (p. 25) has correctly observed "Cabbalistica de Mitatrone doctrina in libro Sohar ita exculta est, ut nec illa aetate recens inventa, sed variis multorum meditationibus versata et aucta jam fuisse videatur."

2 Compare the passages quoted from Othioth R. Akkiva with Eph. i. 21 sqq. In Sohar f. 77, Sulzb., (Sommer p. 35) the Metatron is called

מקים בריותיו של

"the beginning of the creatures of God." Compare Col. i. 15, "the firstborn of every creature." The Metatron is called "the glory, the covering of God," "he through whom God is known," "he who bears the image of God," "the being in whose image man was created," (R. Bechai, in Edzard, p. 232; Jalkut Chadasch, p. 237; Sohar l.c.; and p. iii. f. 91; Sulz. Sommer p. 36). Compare Col. i. 15, "the image of the invisible God; Heb. i. 3, "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person;" and 2 Cor. iv. 4.

πρεσβευτὴς δὲ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος πρὸς τὸ ὑπήκοον. At the same time, in maintaining the antiquity of the doctrine, we do not intend to maintain the antiquity of the name Metatron, as an exclusive title of the archangel. On the contrary, it is evident from the remarkable passage of R. Menachem von Rekanat (in Eisenmenger, p. 374), that the angel was already called by a number of different appellatives, until at length one of them, namely Metatron, became a standing title and a kind of proper name. In Jonathan on Ex. iii. the angel of Jehovah is called Segansagel; in Jalkut Schimoni (Eisenmenger, p. 375) and many other passages (see Danz, p. 733, 734), Michael.

We believe that we have now adduced sufficient reasons to prove, that by the angel of God we are to understand the revealer of God, who shares in His divinity, is associated with Him by unity of essence, and was the medium of all his communications, first of all to the patriarchs, and afterwards to the Mosaic economy. We have also shown, that this revealer of Jehovah was expected to appear as a Redeemer. This is implied in such passages of the Old Testament as ascribe to the Messiah divine. names, attributes, and operations. For if the Messiah was to be Divine, according to the Old Testament system of religion he must necessarily stand in the same relation to God, in which the angel of the Lord is said to have stood. Distinct declarations are first made by the prophets after the captivity, namely in the passages already quoted, and also by Malachi, who calls the Messiah the angel of the covenant (chap. iii. 1), applying this term, the angel of the Lord, on account of his being employed as a messenger in the interest of the covenant, and because his coming to punish and to bless would be the necessary consequence of the covenant.

This identity of the angel of Jehovah or Metatron with the Messiah was also admitted by the later Jews, as the passage cited from the Septuagint version sufficiently proves. The New Testament writers, as we may learn from the passages already quoted, assume it as a generally admitted fact. We will simply add a remarkable passage from the Sohar (Sommer l.c. p. 35), "Cum dicitur servus ejus, intelligitur servus Jehovae, senior domus ejus, paratus ad ministerium ejus. Quis vero ille est ? Metatron hic est, sicuti diximus, futurus ut conjungatur corpori

(i.e. corpus humanum adsumat) in utero materno." For other passages see Edzardi Cod. Talm. Berachoth, p. 230.

Let us sum up briefly the result of the whole enquiry. In the writings of the prophets there is ascribed to the Messiah a divine, as well as a human nature. At the same time every polytheistic idea is precluded by the fact, that His essential unity with the supreme God is always assumed. It was expected, that the angel or revealer of Jehovah, who had previously appeared in a transient manner, and who had been the medium of all communications from Jehovah to the Israelitish nation, would at some future period assume human nature, and appear as the Saviour of Israel and the heathen world.

But the question arises here, if the distinction between the revealed and the unseen God was already known, even under the Old Testament economy, wherein consists the superiority, in this respect, of the New Testament above the Old? In the fact, we reply, that under the Old Testament the distinction between the revealing one and the Unseen necessarily retreated more into the background, and therefore might appear to be founded less upon a relation existing in the Godhead itself, than on a relation between the Deity and those to whom the revelation was made. Under the Old Testament the Mediator generally spoke and acted in the name of the God whom he revealed-it could not be otherwise, so long as the Logos had not yet been made flesh --and hence the revealing one and the being whom he revealed were lost, as it were, the one in the other, and such ideas as those of Sabellius might easily arise. Under the New Testament, on the other hand, the distinction between the revealer and the revealed assumed the form of the distinction between the Father and the Son. This was an advance in two directions. On the one hand religion became more spiritualised, whilst, on the other, it was brought more completely within the range of the senses. It was spiritualised, inasmuch as the contracted notions of the spirituality, omniscience, and omnipresence of God, which had arisen out of the failure to distinguish between the revealing one and the revealed, now fell away; and it was brought within the range of the senses, since the Son of God, by his life, suffering, and death, brought the divine being nearer to the human race, than the occasional appearances of the angel