As we have already indicated, the exact form of the Ark has not been discovered from the statements of Scripture. Certain similarities be tween arks of the ancient Egyptians, and the description of the Ark, have led to a curious in quiry, -which we shall state in the words of Dr. Kitto, from the earlier editions of this work. The mere form, however, is not the only matter involved ; the inquiry opens the question whether Moses adopted, or was commanded to adopt, anything from the Egyptians. If this question be answered affirmatively we must remember that the Egyptian religion preserved traces of a primxval revelation (Enc. Brit. Egypt), and also that many rites or observances of Egypt may have been of human origin and yet harmless. It is very important to remark that we have no evidence, as far as the writer is awarey of the use of arks in Egypt before the date of the Exodus, according to Hales's reckoning ; and therefore, as the Egyptians adopted divinities from their heathen neighbours, there is no reason why they should not have taken the use of arks from the Israelites, when they had heard of the events of the conquest of Canaan.
°We now come to consider the design and form of the Ark, on which it appears to us that clear and unexpected light has been thrown by the dis coveries which have of late years been made in Egypt, and which have unfolded to us the rites and mysteries of the old Egyptians. The subject may be opened in the following words, from the two volumes on the Religion and Agriculture of the Ancient Egyptians, which have been published by Sir J. G. Wilkinson since we first had occasion to notice this subject (see Pictorial Hist. of Palestine, pp. 247-25o) :—'One of the most important cere monies was the procession of shrines,' which is mentioned in the Rosetta stone, and is frequently represented on the walls of the temples. The shrines were of two kinds : the one a sort of canopy ; the other an ark or sacred boat, which may be termed the great shrine. This was carried with grand pomp by the priests, a certain number being selected for that duty, who supported it on their shoulders by means of long staves passing through metal rings at the side of the sledge on which it stood, and brought it into the temple, where it was deposited upon a stand or table, in order that the prescribed ceremonies might be performed before it. The stand was also carried in procession by another set of priests, following the shrine, by means of similar staves ; a method usually adopted for carrying large statues and sacred emblems, too heavy or too important to be borne by one person. The same is stated to have been the custom of the Jews in some of their religious processions (comp. Chron. xv. 2, 15 ; 2 Sam. xv. 24 ; and Josh. iii. 12), as in carrying the Ark unto his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy [place],' when the Temple was built by Solomon (I Kings viii. 6).' .. Some of the sacred boats, or arks, contained the emblems of Life and Stability, which, when the veil was drawn aside, were partially seen ; and others presented the sacred beetle of the sun, over shadowed by the wings of two figures of the god dess Thmei, or Truth, which call to mind the cherubim of the Jews' (Anc. Egyptians, 3d ed. V. pp. 271, 272, 275, and woodcut No. 469, p. 276).
In reading this passage, more points of resem 'olance than occurred to Sir J. G. Wilkinson will strike the Biblical student, and will attract his close attention to the subject. In the above description
three objects are distinguished :—t. The 'stand ;' 2. The boat or 'ark ;' 3. The 'canopy.' This last is not, as the extract would suggest, an alter native for the second ; but is most generally seen with and in the boat. This is shewn in the first cut, which exhibits all the parts together, and at rest.
as an authentic illustration of its •form. Then the cherubim of the Hebrew ark find manifest represen tatives in the figures facing each other, with wings spread inwards and meeting each other, which we find within a canopy or shrine which sometimes rests immediately upon this 'stand,' but more ge nerally in the boat, which itself rests thereon. These are shewn in the annexed cut (75), in which The points of resemblance to the Jewish Ark in the second cut are many and conspicuous : as in the 'stand,' which, in some of its forms, and leaving out the figures represented on the sides, bears so close a resemblance to the written descrip tion of the Hebrew Ark, that it may safely be taken the winged figures are, in their position, if not in their form, remarkably analogous. We direct attention also to the hovering wings above, which are very conspicuous in all such representations. This part of the subject is interesting ; but, as it will obtain separate attention [CHERuurm], we omit particular notice of it here. Other analogies occur in the persons who bear the shrine—the priests ; and in the mode of carrying it, by means of poles inserted in rings; and it is observable that, as in the Hebrew Ark, these poles were not with drawn, but remained in their place when the shrine was at rest in the temple. Such are the principal resemblances. The chief difference is, the entire absence, in the Jewish Ark, of the boat, in which most of the idolatrous objects were as sembled. There are, indeed, circumstances which might suggest the idea that the 'mercy-seat' was not, as commonly supposed, the lid of the Ark, but such a covering or canopy as we see in the Egyptian shrines. The ground relied upon as shewing that it was the lid, namely, that its di mensions were the same as those of the Ark, applies equally to the canopy, the bottom of which is usually of the same dimensions as the top of the stand or chest which answers to the Jewish Ark. The fact, however, that the cherubim stood upon the mercy-seat, seems to shew that it was the lid, and not the canopy; and the absence of this must therefore be taken as another difference. To shew the effect of these conclusions, we take the stand, as already represented (in cut 74), and we place thereon, without alteration (but without the canopy), the winged figures as they appear in an Egyptian shrine (the same as in cut 75); and we need not point out that the representation, thus formed without any alteration of the parts, affords a most striking resemblance to one of the two forms of the Ark with the cherubim above, which scholars and artists, wholly unacquainted with Egyptian antiquities, have drawn from the descriptions of the Jewish Ark which we find in Exodus, as represented in the annexed cut (77). Again, we take the same stiff-necked and rebellious people were incapable (as a nation) of adhering to that simple form of ark, and place thereon the figures of another shrine (78); and we compare this with another of worship and service which is most pleasing to God.