Arks, surmounted by mysterious winged guar dians, were used in the religious service of most ancient nations, and especially in Egypt (Plut. de Isid., xxxix. ; Wilkinson's 'Inc. Egypt, v. 271; See ARK), but none of them involved the sublime and spiritual symbolism of the cherubim on the mercy seat,—at once* guardians of the Divine oracles and types of God's presence for the expiation of sin. But a question here arises, how the profuse intro duction of these figures into the tabernacle was reconcileable with obedience to the second com mandment. It is certain that the rigid observance of this commandment was as serious a hindrance to the plastic arts among the Jews as the similar in junctions of the Koran are to the Mohammedans ; and yet no word of condemnation was breathed against the cherubim, though Josephus even ven tures to charge Solomon with distinct disobedience to the Law for placing oxen under the brazen sea (ituapreiv PTUXEY sal rep1 livXasciir ruwv pautika,v). The cherubim, in deed, were made in obedience to a distinct com mand ; but how was it that they did not offend the consciences or seduce the allegiance of the theo cratic Hebrews ? The answer seems to be, that the second commandment only forbids the plastic arts when prostituted to the direct object of idola try, and Tertullian is right in defending the intro duction of cherubim on the ground that they were a simplex ornamentum (c. Marcion, ii. 22) ; even the Talmudists allowed the use of images for purely decorative purposes (Kalisch on Exod., p. 346). Besides, they represented created beings as created beings, and also as themselves in the atti tude of humility and adoration (Exod. xxv. 20; I Pet. i. 12), so that instead of violating the com mandment they expressed its highest spirit, in thus vividly symbolising God's supremacy over the crea tures which stood on the highest step of life, and were, in fact, the ideal of absolute and perfect created existence (Bahr, Symbol. i. 340, sy.) We may add that the danger was less, because, in all probability, they were seen by none but the priests (Cornel. a Lapide on Exod. xxv. S); and when, in the desert, the ark was moved from place to place, it was covered over with a triple veil (Num. iv. 5, 6), before which even the Levites were not suffered to approach it (Bochart, Hieroz. II. xxxiv. ad. ff.) It may even be the case that the shape of the cherubim was designedly considered as indefinite and variable—' einet wandelbare H iero glyphe '—that the tendency to worship them might still further be obviated. This wavering and in distinct conception of them was due to their sym bolical character, a fact so thoroughly understood among all Oriental nations as at once to save the Jews from any strong temptation, and to raise them above the breath of suspicion. It is both important and necessary to bear this in mind, be cause it will save us from futile inquiries as to the objective reality, as well as the ideal truth of cherubic existences. Had they been a likeness of anything,' instead of a changeable emblem, they could hardly have been regarded as otherwise that idolatrous ; but in the words of S. Thomas Aqui nas, Non ponebantur ad cultum, quod prohibeha tur primo legis prmcepto, sed in signum mysterzi.' We again find here an argument in favour of a shape other than that of a mere winged man. Such figures, the direct representations of angels, would have been far more dangerous and questionable than such a compound enigma as a husaan-faced and winged ox. The latter would be in direct ac cordance alike with the letter and spirit of the Decalogue ; the former would be only defensible if it resulted from a direct command.
A remarkable comparison in Ezekiel (xxviii. 14-17) throws great light on our views about the nature and object of these cherubim on the Cap poreth, and also serves to bring them into connec tion with the vengeful guardians of Paradise, and to confirm their purely emblematical character. In thiN passage the king of Tyre, in his 'wisdom, beauty, magnificence, and perfection,' under his robe and canopy of ruby, chrysolite, and chryso prase, and in the midst of flutes and tabrets, is compared to one who has been in Eden the gar den of God,' to the anointed cherub that covereth,' and to the covering cherub from the midst of the stones of fire.' The first of these expressions (v. 14) is rendered by St. Jerome, Tu es cherub extentus et protogens sc. arcanz,' and is obviously an allusion to Exod. xxv. 20, I Kings vi. 24, as is clear from The reference, in the same verse, to the 'holy moun tain of God ;' the stones of fire,' or gems of fiery splendour (cf. Mart., xiv. tog; Stat., Theb. ii. 276) are the hidden palace-treasures of the secluded monarch (cf. Lucan., Pharsal x. 112); while the king himself, guarding them in the midst of his lonely splendour, recalls to the mind the glorious beings who protect the material beauties of Para dise, and the mysterious moral treasures of the Divine Covenant. That these beings are typically
regarded, appears yet further in the opening ex pression (v. 12), thou art the seal of similitude, and the crown of beauty' (LXX. vers.)—i.e., thou art like a splendid hieroglyph of created pre eminence.
As yet we have only heard of cherubs presented as single figures, but the composite creature-forms, with which we are familiar through Ezekiel and the Apocalypse, had their archetypes also in the tem ple. For we are told that, on the borders of the molten sea, and on the plates of the ledges, Solo mon graved lions, oxen, and cherubim, and cheru biins, lions, and palm-trees' (i Kings vii. 29, 36). Villalpandus explains these passages by ap position, as though the lion and oxen were them selves cherubic emblems ; and in this there is little doubt that he is right, as may be seen from the parallel description in Ezek. xli., where the figures of men and young lions between palm-trees are called cherubim (vv. IS, 19). Indeed it seems clear that a figure with either of the four component faces may be called a cherub, and the shapes of Ezekiel's vision, which were the fullest and completest em blem of these existences, might be ideally indi cated by a single shape and face. Besides, as a quadriform shape could not, in days when per spective was unknown, he represented in alto relievo on alias' surface, the artist, whether a Beza leel or a Hiram, could only represent two, or one face as visible at a time, and by the faces give the full type. The absence of eagle headed figures in Solomon's actual, and Ezekiel's mystic temple, is the less surprising, because the aquiline element was abundantly symbolised by the mantling wings (Spencer, de Legg. Hebr. L c.) We cannot, however, agree with Grotius, Spencer, etc., in supposing that, n44, means appearances and not faces, so that the cherub would be regarded as a single-headed figure composed of four elements ; an opinion obviously untenable, and amply refuted by Gataker, NiscelL Advers., IL x., p. 323 (see Rosenmiiller, Schol. in Ezek. i. to).
We now pass to the chariot' or vision of Ezekiel, always be regarded as the locus classicus respecting cherubs. In the first of these sublime visions (Ezek. i. 4-28), the prophet sees a whirlwind out of the north, a great cloud and an infolding fire (comp. Gen. iii. 24, a sword :Voiding itself'), and out of the midst of this rolling amber-coloured flame, the dim outline of four quadriform living-creatures, with straight legs, calves feet, and the similitude of a human hand un-' der their four wings. The faces were those of a man, an ox, a lion, and an eagle ; and they flashed to and fro like lightning. They (or it) were up lifted on the broad concentric hands of dreadfully high living wheels, and supported on their heads, or head (for, as they are both masculine and feminine, so they are both four and one, plural and singular, vv. 5, To, 20, 21, 22), a firmament like terrible crystal, whereon gleamed the likeness of a sapphire coloured throne, on which in dim human Epiphany was seen the glory of God. They are silent, and the Prophet did not know what they were, except that they were Tt1, `a living creature,' or ni,n, living creatures.' But in Ezek. x., when they again appear as the gorgeous chariot-throne of Jehovah, then, and then first, lie recapdres that they are cherubim (x. 20), and he adds the additional particulars that their wings sounded like thunder (x. 5, Ps. xxix. 3), and that their bodies, as well as the peripheries of their wheels, were distinct with eyes.' In this new description the prophet adds a single expression, which, in all probability, is the clue to the right understanding of the subject ; for, in v. 14, he says, ' the first face was the face of a cherub,' the second of a man, the third of a lion, and the fourth of an eagle. Comparing this with Ezek. i. to, we find that the face of a cherub is identical ` with the face of an ox.' If we set aside all preconceived prejudices, and the influence of long tradition, we seem driven by this to the* irre sistible conclusion that the idea of the cherubic shape was predominantly bovine ; or, at least, if this inference (unhesitatingly adopted by Grotius, Spencer, Bochart, etc., who speak of them as An geli ,tioo-xoi.topaSoi) should seem to militate against Ezek. i. 5, it is certain that the cherubim, when re presented as single figures, were either repre sented as winged oxen (perhaps with human heads) or as winged men. But Ezek. i. 5 refers, we believe, only to the erect figure, the os sub lime,' while the prominent mention that they had human hands three times repeated (Ezek. i. 8 ; x. 8, 21), would be singularly superfluous if the human figure was their normal type. We have already seen other strong reasons to adopt the belief that they were normally represented as winged oxen, and the proofs of that position will accumulate as we proceed.