4. It is most important to observe the extra ordinary resemblance of the cherubim, as described in Scripture, to the symbolical religious fancies of heathen nations. It is not true in any sense to say with Kurz that the animal character is far more predominant in the emblems of heathen pantheism. Even if we concede (which is more than doubtful) that the simplest conception of Cherubim was re presented by winged men, we find four-winged and six winged human figures in the sculptures of Nine veh (Layard, i. 125). In fact, there is no single che rubic combination, whether of bull, eagle, and man (Layard, Nineveh, i. 127) ; man, lion, and eagle (Ibid., pp. 349); man and eagle (Ibid. , i. 64); man and ]ion (Ibid., ii. 463) ; or to take the most pre valent (both in Scripture and in the Assyrian sculp tures), man and bull (Ibid., i.), which may not be profusely paralleled. In fact, these woodcuts might standfor direct illustrations of Ezek. xli. 19 ; Rev. iv. 6, sq.; r Kings vii. 29, etc. ; and when we also find ' wheels within wheels' represented in the same sculptures (Ibid., ii. 448), it is Mr. Layard's natural inference, that Ezekiel, `seeking to typify certain divine attributes, chose forms familiar not only to himself, but to the people whom he addressed' (Id., Ibid.; see, too, Nineveh and Babylon, ii. 643); or, as we should greatly prefer to see it expressed, the familiar decorations of the Assyrian temples moulded the forms of his imagination, even at its most exalted moments. But, as we have already seen, Ezekiel was far more likely to have been supplied with this imagery by the sacerdotal sympathies which im pressed his memory with the minutest details of the temple at Jerusalem ; and the same symbols were not exclusively Assyrian, but were no less familiar to the Egyptians (Porphyr. de A bstinent. iv. 9; Ritter, Erdkunde, viii. 947; Witsius, .,Egypt. ii. 13), the Persians (Hdt. iii. 716; iv. 13; Ktes. Ind. xii ; P]in. vii. 22 ; Wilkinson's Ant. Egypt., passim; Chardin's and Niebuhr's Travels) ; the Greeks (Pausan. i. 24, 6) ; the Arabians (D'Herbelot,Bibl. Orient, s. v. Simourg. Anka), and many other na tions (Plin. x. 49, 69; Parkhurst's Lexicon, s. v.) On this subject generally, see Creuzer Symbol, i. 495 ; Rhode, Heil. Sage S., 217 ; and Rtidiger in Ersch. and Gruber, s. v. Cherub. The similarity to the sphinx is such as to have led even in early times to a very strong belief that the idea of the Mosaic cherubim was in some way derived from them (Clem. Alex., Strom. V., cap. vi., sec. 37, ed. Sylb. p. 240 ; Orig., c. Cels., iii. p. 121 ; Euseb. Prop. Evans:, iii. 12). For a number of weighty arguments to this effect, see Bochart, Ilieroz., II. xviii. xxxiv. and xli. ; Spencer, de Legg. Ritt., III. iv.; and especially Hengstenberg, Die BE. Mos. 11. "Es: S. 557, sq. And besides these external coincidences, still more striking, perhaps, are the cherubic functions ascribed in Greek mythology to the fiery-breathing bulls which guarded the golden fleece (0v., Met. vii. to4), to the winged dragon of the Hesperides, to the resuscitated Phoenix, to the Gryphons (lion-eagles) who kept the Arimaspians from their guarded gold (./Esch., Prom. v. 843 ; Meld. ii. t ; comp. Milton, Par. Lost, ii. 943), and to the thundering-horses that draw the chariot of Jupiter (Hor., Oar. i. 34, 7). Influenced by too ex clusive an attention to these single resemblances, Herder identifies the cherubim with the mythic gold-guarding monsters of antiquity (Geist. der Hebr. Pas. i. 163), and J. D. Michaelis with the Equi Tonantes (De Cherubic. Comment. Reg. Soc. Gotting. i. 157 ; Velthusenius, Von den Cherubinen, Braunschweig, 1764, etc. ; Schleusner, Lex. N. T s. v. Xepoi/3). Similarly, Justin Martyr considers that Plato borrowed from the Scriptures his wrap& dpna of Zeus (rpos"EXX7was, p. 30). From these conclusions we dissent. It seems far more likely that the Hebrews were in the most ancient times acquainted with a symbol familiar to so many na tions, than to suppose either that they borrowed it from the Egyptians, or that any other nations adopted it from them. In fact, the conception be longs to the common cycle of oriental tradition, frag ments of which were freely adopted by the Hebrew writers, who always infused into them a nobler meaning and an unwonted truth.
5. It may appear presumptuous to inquire into the phenomena which suggested the germ of the cherubic symbol. Yet we think that there are
traces in the Bible that the primary type of these celestial beings was derived from those wreathing fires and rolling storm-clouds which were always regarded as the most immediate proofs of divine proximity. The clouds, which are God's chariot, were early and naturally personified as sentient attendants ; and the creatures of poetic metaphor— inseparable from Semitic modes of thought—were soon invested with objective existence. It would have been impossible for a Hebrew poet to speak of the dark and fleeting storms and vivid lightning flashes without attributing them to a living agency; and hence the air, and the fire, and the wind, were to him the attendants of Jehovah, and he did fly upon the wings of the wind,' is the natural epex egesis of he rode upon a cherub and did fly.' The magnificent passage in Ps. civ. 3, 4, is, in fact, a distinct recognition of this method of description. In Zech. vi. a vision of four chariots represents the four spirits, or winds,' of heaven ; and the Jews call the doctrine of angels (which they con sidered to be revealed in Ezek. i.) by the name of rIVIM, or opus vehicnli. In confirmation of this view, compare Dem. xxxiii. 26 ; Exod. xix. 18 ; Ps. lxviii. 4 ; Hab. iii. 5, with Ezek. i. 4, 13. For the seraphim, sec SERAPHIM ; several cir cumstances distinguish them clearly from the Cherubim, and we disagree with Hcndewerk, who regards them as identical (De Cher. et Ser. in Biblici, non divernis, 1836).
6. We may now proceed to the derivation of the name, but we can only give the chief conjec tures, with their several authorities. They will be explained and justified for the most part by what has been already said, but it is impossible to decide between their respective merits. From Semitic sources we have the following conjectures—I. That the word is derived from aravit, and means the plougher ' or `ox;' as it is used for liC) in Ezek. i. to; x. t4. This is the derivation most generally adopted. 2. By metathesis from 2171, a chariot,' Ps. xviii. is, etc. (Lud. de Dieu, Rodiger, etc.) 3. For zi-v, near,' meaning the angels nearest God (Hyde, de Rel. vett. Pers. p. 263). 4. From b15, 'noble,' (Maurer on is. vi.
2, cf. b+Mt). 5. From N'anz, 'like a boy ;' adopted by most of the Rabbis (Otho, Lex. Rob., s.v.;Buxtorf, Hist. Arc, p. too). 6. From rnri, he consecrated' = guardian, or attendant. 7. From like, 21, powerful, like Cabeiri = Owl bbvaroi. See Ps. ciii. 20 ; aVilditets, I Pet. iii. 22 ; dpXai, Eph. i. 21.`Scripture solet vocare Cheru bim quidquid patens est.' Procopius on Gen. iii.; Theodor. in Gen. yu. xlvi. S. From a Syriac root meaning to cut (cf. carve). This is suggested by Havernick on Ezek., p. 5. Hence Abenezra says that cherub is the same thing as rmy, and means any artistic figure (Schulten's Pray. Salom on p. 472). Keil on x Kings v. 9. The oldest derivation is from ,rt and 1:), as though it meant abundance of knowledge,' a meaning once uni versally adopted (Philo de Vit. Mos. p. 688 ; Clem. Alex., Strom. V. p. 240, ed. Sylb., 7rXijelos yuthaecos; Lex. Cyrilli, IrlyvcoaLsrXn0ougn; Fragm. J. Lex. Origen. p. 114 ; 'Multitudo scientim ;' Jerome on Is. 'Si. 2 ; Dionys. de cad. Hier., vii. p. 96 ; Spencer, de Legg. III. 3. t, etc.) Hence the remark of Thomas Aquinas, Nomen Seraphim imponitur ab ardore, qui ad charitatem pertinet, nomen autem Cherubim imponitur a scuntni' (I. i. qu. xo8, cap. vii.) This distinction between the fiery zeal of seraphs and the wisdom of cherubim is often alluded to in our earlier divines, as in Jeremy Taylor ; there are some holy spirits whose crown is all love, and some in whom the brightest jewel is understanding' (Sermon on Advent). To this long list of Semitic derivations (which by no means exhaust the conjectures of the learned) we may add one from the Persian root griftan, (Sanskr. gribh; Goth. gripan, Greek yptiib,^ypinros) seize' (Eichhorn, and Vatke ; see Gesen. Thes. II. p. 71o). If among these conflicting conjectures we might give an opinion, we should most readily adopt the first, which, on philological grounds, is wholly unobjectionable, and which, when taken in connection with the arguments which prove the predominance of a bovine shape in the cherubic symbol, becomes exceedingly probable.