able extent from the Old Testament, and draws a parallel between him and Mohammed, "from this," he says, "it is sufficiently obvious that the founder of this doctrine was well versed in the sacred writings of the Jews, from which the whole seems clearly to have been taken, and that the cunning deceiver reduced it into the shape, that corresponded best to the ancient religion of the Medes and Persians, upon which he propped it." Hyde, whose researches are of the most thorough description, in his work veterum Persarum religio, c. 10, affirms that "the religion of the Persians coincided in many respects with that of the Jews, and to a great extent was taken from it," and at p. 176 he writes, "in genere autem innuam, quod ex lege Mosaica eis plurima suggessit eorum propheta Zerduscht, quem in illa satis versatum fuisse constat."

In the case of the doctrine of Zervane Akerene, however, there are very special reasons for supposing it probable that it was borrowed. In the religious books of the Persians it has a somewhat obscure and uncertain character." It is only, so to speak, "It through a vail," as de Sacy observes (in Spiegel's Morgenl. Zeitschrift, vol. v., p. 20), "that this important doctrine can be discovered, either in the books which the Parsees have preserved, or in the teaching of their priests." Moreover, it never assumed any fundamental importance, and occurs in but comparatively few passages. Röth (Anzeige von Röths Geschichte der abendl. Philos. p. 253) says, "Among the invocations, contained in that portion of the Yaçna, which has been sufficiently explained by Bürnouf, there is not one which expresses the so-called highest notion of the deity. And it is easy enough to see from the translation of Anquetil, that this notion is mentioned very rarely in those portions of the Zend books, which are confessedly the earliest. This might have directed the attention of the author to the possibility of the abstraction in question being of a later date. To this we may add that no Greek or Latin author, before the Christian era, mentions any such idea (? Aristotle); but, on the contrary, Theodore of Mopsuestia is the first to mention the name of Zaruam. As examples the author quotes one passage from the recent Pehlewi-book Bundehesh, another from a prayer to the sun, and lastly a third from the 19th section of the Vendidad, the most complete of the Zend books." Lastly, this doctrine is apparently at variance.

with the original religious system of the Persians, and hence appears to be merely grafted upon it. Spiegel maintains this most distinctly in the Avesta, p. 271, where he says, "From the Persian mythology I might select with the greatest confidence (as an example of borrowing), the doctrine of Zervanaakarana, or infinite time. This doctrine is but sparingly hinted at in the Parsee books. In the whole of the original

religious system of the Persians this doctrine is a complete discord." He also says (Morgenl. Zeitschrift, vol. v., p. 230), “ At all events we repeat that the doctrine of infinite time (a supreme, abstract deity, p. 224), is foreign to the original Parsee system, and was interpolated into it at a comparatively recent period;" and again in vol. vi., p. 79," Zervana-akarana is a recent interloper and a disturbing element, which was never even fully recognised as belonging to Parseeism.”1

If this result, then, is obtained, that the doctrine of Nervane Akerene did not exist originally among the Persians, but, on the contrary, was borrowed from the Jews, the argument will assume this unanswerable form: to produce such an impression upon the Persians, the conviction of the divine nature of the Maleach Jehovah must have become a settled national doctrine among the Jews. But such a doctrine could hardly have originated in any other way, than as the result of a lively tradition, dating from the period in which the sacred writings were composed. Hand in hand with this argument goes the following, from which it is evident, that the doctrine respecting the angel of the Lord, which we have defended, had taken deep root among the Jews.

The testimony of the Jews confirms the Church's view of the doctrine of the angel of the Lord. In all the passages, in which the angel of God is spoken of, the early Jews understood neither an inferior angel, nor a natural cause, nor the invisible God himself, but the one mediator between God and the world, the author of all revelation, to whom they gave the name Metatron. This name was originally an appellative, which might therefore be used of different beings, and a careful dis

Spiegel is somewhat wavering, for at one time he tries to explain away this doctrine, and at another recognises its existence, but is at great pains to prove, that it cannot be original.

2 Very different opinions have been expressed as to the etymology of the The most probable is that of Danz (p. 727 sqq.), and Buxtorf, who

name.

tinction must be made between the higher and the inferior

trace it to the Latin metator, which Suidas has explained as meaning αποστελλόμενος άγγελος πρὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος. The expression appears to have been derived from Is. lxiii. 9, where the revealer of God is called the angel of Jehovah's countenance. Compare Elias Levita, Tischbi f. 536, Eisenmenger, p. 386. "The Metatron is the prince of the countenance (DD), and it is declared of him, that he is the angel, who always beholds the countenance of God." This derivation is favoured by the fact, that metator is very commonly met with in the Rabbinical writings in the sense of legatus, and as a synonyme of (see Buxtorf, c. 1191, Danz, p. 725); that Metatron may be shown to be used as an appellative, with the same signification (see Breschit Rabba in Buxtorf, c. 1193), that the Rabbins almost universally give onyos as the literal meaning of the name, though they differ as to the etymology; and lastly, that several of the Rabbins give this etymology with out any hesitation (see the passages quoted by Danz, p. 724 sqq.). The derivation, which has comparatively the greatest probability next to this, is from the Latin mediator. In the Sohar the Metatron is called THEY

8, columna medietatis (see Sommer theol. Sohar, p. 36). But mediator is not met with anywhere else in the Rabbinical writings; and in addition to this, none of the arguments, by which the former derivation is defended, can be adduced in support of this one. Another derivation, which was suggested by Majus (theol. Jud., p. 72), and has been repeated by v. Meyer (Blätter für höhere Wahrheit iv. 188),—viz., from μrà and gevos, equivalent το ὁ μέτοχος του θρόνου, ὁ σύνθρονος, has still less in its favour. Μετάθρονος is not even a Greek word, and it would be impossible to show that it was ever admitted into the Rabbinical language. Moreover, the Rabbins base the whole doctrine of the Metatron upon passages from the Old Testament, and in all probability they borrowed the expression itself from the Old Testament also. Now there is not a single passage in which the angel of God is called by the name Msrafgovos. But it is a decisive objection, that the name was not originally restricted to the angel of Jehovah. We will quote only one passage, in which it occurs with this general signification (Jalket Rubeni in Danz, p. 731), "Si non fuerit justus in hoc mundo, tunc Schechina vestit sese in quodam Metatron." Compare all the passages, in which the inferior Metatron is mentioned. But Schmieder's hypothesis (in the Programm. nova interpr. 1 Gal. iii. 19) is the one which least commends itself to our approbation. He derives the word from the Persian Mithras (p. 41 sqq. excursus de Mitatrone). There is nothing whatever to favour this derivation except the comparatively trifling resemblance in sound. The similarity between the two beings, on which Schmieder lays particular stress, is only in appearance. As we have already shown, the Metatron of the Jews, the supreme revealer of the invisible God, the participator in his nature and glory, stands on the same level as Ormuzd, from whom all revelations are derived. Mithras, on the other hand, is an inferior being created by Ormuzd, a brave warrior in his army, it is true, but standing far behind the great Bahman, the king of the Amshaspands. It is only in appearance, again, that those passages in Plutarch (de Is. et Os. c. 46) and the Zend books, in which Mithras is called a Mediator, establish a connection between Mithras and Metatron. The Metatron of the Hebrews is the medium of all intercourse between the invisible God and the creation. Mithras, on the contrary, is called a mediator only "so far as he intercepts (comes between) the influences of Ahriman, during the conflict between him and Ormuzd, so as to render them harmless." Moreover, the

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 (Glæsener's theol. Soharica, p. 37) we read, "Metatron est ipsissima Schechina et Schechina Metatron Jehovæ vocatur, quia 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 Schechinæ et Schechina occultat sese in ejus medio, suasque ipsa ostendit operationes per eundem. Non tamen Schechina ipsa-sed si dicere fas esset Schechinæ 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 ignubaass, 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. Rüben 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.

, שכינה חתומה בתוך מטטרון,,Moses Cordauero says

vocarem exilium." For other passages see Knorr a Rosenroth, Kabbala denudata, i., p. 528; also Sommer, p. 37, where R. "the 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 Dy," the prince of the world." He is the visible revealer of God. Vid. Sohar, in Sommer, p. 38, " Indumentum ro est Metatron." He is designated the angel, "cujus nomen sicut nomen domini sui." Talm. tract. Sanhedrin in Sommer 1. c.). He rules over every created thing: "Metatron servus Jehova, senior domus ejus, qui est principium creaturarum ejus, dominium exercens super omnia, quæ 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 connection 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