lonem in quâ Ezechiel erat) vel illius rivus sive ramentum. Est regium flumen, sive NAHAR-MALCA. Non placet, Cur huic alveo,qui nomen suum in Scripturis habet, Gen 2. 14. alterum nomen obscurius tribuitur? Num credibile est Judæos in ipso Babylonis umbilico, adeòque in regiâ fermè ipsâ habitâsse? Resp. 2. Fluvius hic est Mesopotamiæ dictus Straboni et Ptolemæo Chaboras et Amm. Marcell. Aborras-Arabi Geographo Chabor, qui ex Masio monte in Euphratem influit ad oppidum ejusdem nominis Chabora, quod in confluenti hujus fluvii et Euphratis situm est. Hìc domicilium Judæis est assignatum, vel ne immiscerentur indigenis, vel ut regios hortos, ad fluminis ripas consitos, excolerent, vel ut munitiones extruerent, vel quia gens hæc odiosa illis erat, et graviter olens."

Poole contains an ingenious idea concerning the signification of the forms of the Cherubim, rendering it conformable to the hieroglyphic manner of the Egyptians, and refers the wholevision of Ezechiel to God the Saviour of Israel; bears before him the insignia of victory, triumphant over the Ægyptians, &c and adds, "If any ingenious Ægyptian would describe that history by hieroglyphics, what images better suited to his purpose could he choose than God seated on his throne? Next, in the place of the angel (who smote them) he would draw an eagle as the best symbol of the angelic nature, on account of its velocity and lofty flight: for the furious and bitter king (of the Ægyptians) he would place a lion, (to which animal both leaders and kings are frequently compared, Gen. 49. 9. Num. 24.9. 2nd Sam. 1. 23) for himself, a man, (for a man can only be properly represented by his own figure): for the sacrifice, he would draw a heifer, of all sacrifices the most excellent. But how would the ingenious Egyptian comprehend the four images in our figure? Beyond a doubt he would make the image of a man, and take the most conspicuous parts of the rest ;-from the eagle he would take the wings, from the lion the breast and shaggy shoulder, from the heifer the cloven hoofs. Hence would he represent a winged man, clothed with lion's skin, shodden with heifer's hoofs."

If any person should conceive this to be the real solution and

intention of the figures, it will surely correspond with the derivation given of the word: for the Cherubim are rendered expressive of the power and majesty of God-of the mighty arm with which he delivered his people Israel from Ægyptian bondage. Poole also by the car represents the Babylonish army, and maintains the hypothesis by the fire borne in the car, as it was the custom that fire should precede the Chaldee forces, and argue that Nabuchodonosor's manners are in a wonderful manner expressed by the four animals ;-in Jer. 48. 40.Ez. 17. 3. he is called an eagle; and Jer. 5. 6. he is calleda lion. Also in Jer. 23. 19. the Chaldee army is compared to a whirlwind; and in Job. 38. 1. the judgments of God are described by a whirlwind. But it was the south wind, and Babylon lies to the south of Judæa. The dark and thickening cloud is an apt image for the vehicle of an angry God, and the fire expresses his thunderbolts. Then the four animals either were the leaders of the camp of Israel, the four evangelists, or the gospels, or angels, &c. But it remains to state the Hutchinsonian opinion of these Cherubim. The Hutchinsonians say, that "those in the Holy of Holies were emblematical of the ever-blessed Trinity in covenant to redeem man, by uniting the human nature to the second person, which union was signified by the union of the face of the lion, and of the man in the Cherubic exhibition." The reason which is assigned that they represent the Trinity, is because the Cherubim "in Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle, were by Jehovah's order made out of the matter of the mercy seat, or beaten out of the same piece of gold as that was ;" and as the mercy seat was an emblem of the Divinity of Christ, so they represented not the angelic, but the divine nature; and "because the typical blood of Christ was sprinkled before them on the great day of atonement."

*

That the derivation given of this word is the true, we have as authority that o; in the Syriac language, signifies powerful, great, strong and by the flaming sword, with which we find these Cherubim armed at the expulsion of man from the garden of Eden, a strong indication is given of their terribleness and their executive powers.

Now if the Hutchinsonian system be correct as to their intention, how could God be said to have placed the Cherubim before

Paradise? or in other words, if God had placed himself, that is, if Moses had thus understood it, would he have written in so ambiguous a style? And if these were expressive of the Trinity, how is it that they are only two? and would there not be a quaternity of persons? But even on another ground, as we believe in the Trinity, and as no fourth person is rendered a symbol to us of that Trinity, how can we suppose that in their emblems these should be one? which is the case in the four faces of the Cherubim. But if it be to represent the human nature of Christ, how can we reconcile to ourselves, that in Christ the human nature should be the inferior, but in the symbols the superior? for as the others are irrational, the rational head must be superior. But if the Cherubim were expressive of the sacred Trinity, would the name of God be given to man? how then can we understand Ezech. 28. 14. when the king of Tyre is called the anointed Cherub that covereth. Nor can all the various heathen imitations prove any thing with respect to the intention of the Jewish originals. And as it is allowed that the Seraphim and the Cherubim are the same, how can they continually cry (Isa. 6. 3.) holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. But lastly, how can we understand Acts 17.29? Tévos οὖν ὑπάρχοντες τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐκ ὀφείλομεν νομίζειν, χρυσῷ ἢ ἀργύρῳ ἢ λίθῷ, χαράγματι τέχνης καὶ ἐνθυμήσεως ἀνθρώπου, τὸ Θεῖον εἶναι ὅμοιον : for although it was not ἐνθυμήσεως ἀνθρώπου, but by the command of God, yet it cannot be supposed, that what man could carve, could represent the Deity. Nor can these Cherubim correspond with St. John's four living creatures: for to each cherub belonged four faces, whereas the whole of those belonging to the others was only four. And whether we consider them as angels, or emblems of the Trinity and the human nature of Christ, it will be impossible to reconcile to ourselves any reason why ayyeλos and woy should be so particularly mentioned in Rev. 7. 11. and why in the 12th verse they should make such an explanation. And in the like manner, the wheels in Ezech. by no means correspond with the four and twenty elders.

Of what, then, were these Cherubim emblematical? Not of the Trinity, for Ezra 2. 59. Neh. 7. 61. we find Cherub the name of a man: of what, then, but the angels, who act in the

service of God, and whilst they perform his will make known his power? and in this sense, there is a strong analogy between the signification of the words and . We may then

כְרוּב

suppose according to the figurative style, that the eagle face is expressive of their speed: the lion's of their powerful and vindictive office: the ox's on account of his horns, is a fit emblem of God's fearful wrath, as the man's is of his goodness and clemency. The straight feet also designate firmness, and the heifer's hoofs the slowness of the execution of that wrath, which the head describes. The wheels, then, are the vehicles as Virg. Æn. 12.

Turbidus èque rotis magnam respexit ad urbem : and the wheels within wheels fitly show their velocity and speed.

Oxford.

W.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

Anticritical Remarks on the 1st and 2nd Chapters of the Prophet Isaiah.

CHAP. i.-ver. 4. [Classico Mosaic translation]

Ah! nation deviating! a people laden with idolatry! a race of disadvantageous doers! children degenerate !'

J. J. the author of the critical remarks, and of some elegantly classical ingenuity [No. V, pp. 235-239.] is respectfully requested to excuse the anticriticism of an author, who has conceived that Isaiah wrote with Moses for his model in the meaning of words; so that if the import of the original terms in the law-giver can be settled, upon that authority the language of the prophet may be better understood. The Classic Moses, preparing for the Classical Journal, will, if admitted, show from that earliest authority, that the original term, commonly translated 'sın' and' sinful,' denoted deviation: and that generally in one or other of two different metaphorical senses. The former of these senses, when it respects God, is the deviation

from his worship into idolatry; when it respects man, it is the deviation from innocent to injurious conduct. The latter sense is the deviation from happiness into calamity. Thus much with respect to this one word only, the Classic Moses is designed to show, with authorities for the different use of it by the law-giver first, and by succeeding writers his imitators.

In this view of the original word, the prophet does not so much appear to animadvert upon his countrymen in coarse and vulgar abuse,' as to speak plain matter of fact, and to warn them of the consequent invasion and captivity. In the part of the verse which he has quoted, J. J. may discern, if he despises not, the parallels noted by Azanias and Bishop Lowth: in which, to the term expressing deviation, in the former of the first pair, the term for idolatry synonymously corresponds in `the latter; and to the expression of disadvantage in the former of the second pair, similarly in the latter corresponds also that of degeneracy. The remainder of the verse still more expressly marks the notorious idolatry; the disadvantage of which would soon be, that the people of Judah and Jerusalem would become degenerate subjects of Babylonian idolaters. In the same manner as the sense of deviation or idolatry, that of disadvantage physical, [instead of moral] it is proposed to substantiate by authorities in the Classic Moses.

V. 21. [Same transl.] How hath become an hostess a place of concourse settled!' The contradistinction is not, as J. J. appears to presume, between city and brothel; but, between the settled state of a city addicted to the worship of the one Jehovah, and the unsettled state of an hostess, who was the welcomer of all idols. Mosaic authorities will be given for the new translation of all such words as the prophet uses after the law-giver; as settled, and the following. She was full of written law: acquittal inhabited. her: but now murderers [invaded her.]' In opposition to the formerly general observance of the one written law of Jehovah delivered by Moses, and the consequent acquittal from the guilt and punishment of idolatry; the idolatrous reign of Ahaz had occasioned an infliction by the hands of the murderers, Retsin and Rekah, chap. vii. As an hostess' metaphorically denoted the then idolaVOL. IV. No. VIII.

L