Of idolatry a discourse, in which is endeavoured a declaration of, its distinction from superstition, its notion, cause, commencement, and progress, its practice charged on Gentiles, Jews, Mahometans, Gnosticks, Manichees Arians, Socinians, Romanists : as also, of the means which God hath vouchsafed towards the cure of it by the Shechinah of His Son / by Tho. Tenison ...

PART 5. Of the Shechinah of God from Moses to the Captivity.

BEfore this Temple was built or shewn, so much as in the model of it to Moses, the Word of God a 1.1 assuming an Angel, appeared to him in the luster of flame in a bush on Mount Horeb. Moses calleth him in the second verse of the third of Exodus, the Angel of God; and God in verse the fourth; and in the sixth verse he stileth himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and in the eighth verse he is said to have de∣scended. “Now he (saith Justin Martyr b 1.2) that call∣ed himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was not the Universal Creator, but the minister of his will. With him agree Eusebius c 1.3, St. Hilary d 1.4, and St. Ambrose e 1.5. The words of St. Ambrose are to this sense:

The God himself who was seen by Moses, saith, my name is God. This is the Son of God who is therefore called both Angel and God, that he might not be thought to be he of whom are all things; but he by whom are all things.

Philo the Jew himself * 1.6 calleth the Voice to Adam, to Abraham, to Jacob, to Moses from the Bush, the effect of the Lo∣gos of God.

This Lord afterwards when the people of Israel had under the Conduct of Moses, begun their Journey from Egypt, did miraculously direct them by the con∣tinued Shechinah of a Pillar f 1.7 of cloud by day, and of fire by night. This we read in the 13th of Exodus. He who in that Chapter is called the Lord, is in the following Chapter g 1.8 called the Angel of God, who as formerly he had gone before the Camp for their

Guidance, so now the Egyptians pursuing, he stood behind it as their defence. With allusion to this ap∣pearance Eusebius having first proposed it as the Title of his Chapter a 1.9,

That the Logos of old appeared, and then began the Chapter with some places of Scripture relating to the cloudy Pillar:

he procee∣deth in making this demand,

Who was he that spake, but the Pillar of Cloud which had formerly appeared to the Fathers in the figure of Man?

And indeed whilst Moses is not contented with the promise of an assistant-Angel b 1.10, but expresly petitioneth for the continuance of Gods Presence; he leaveth not us in want of a Commentator to tell us what kind of An∣gel was present with him. That Angel no doubt it was who is called by that name in the Hebrew of the 6th Verse of the 5th of Ecclesiastes, but by the Seventy In∣terpreters, the Face of God c 1.11. Lactantius will have this Angel to have gone before the Israelites, and divi∣ded the Waters d 1.12. His Power might do it, but that his Shechinah did so, is contrary to the Sacred Text e 1.13.

The people being arrived nigh Mount Sina in Arabia, Moses especially beheld the Shechinah of God, whilst the Word assuming, it may be a principal Angel, and being attended (as Jupiter by his Satellites, if I may compare small things with great) by a numerous reti∣nue of other blessed Spirits, did with solemnity f 1.14 and terror deliver the Law.

Where the Psalmist alludeth to that Solemnity in which God appeared with many Chariots of the Hea∣venly Host; he in the very next verse useth the words which the New Testament interpret of Christ, Thou art gone up on high, thou hast led captivity captive. As if both at Sinah and Sion, and the Mount of the Messi∣ahs Ascension, God had triumphed in the Shechinah of

his Son.

He (saith Tertullian a 1.15) who spake to Mo∣ses, was the Son of God, who was always seen.

That is, whenever the Divinity vouchsafed a visible appear∣ance, it was not by the Father but by the Son. This Pamelius reckoneth as one of the Errors of Tertullian; but by doing so, he perhaps ran into one himself. Ter∣tullian doth not only affirm this, but secondeth his Au∣thority with a reason. For Jesus, said he, not Moses, was to introduce the people into Canaan. Theodoret in his Commentary on the second to the Colossians, men∣tioneth certain defenders of the Law, who induced o∣thers to worship Angels, saying that the Law was gi∣ven by them. They had been much more in the right if they had urged the worship of Christ the Angel of that Covenant. The Law was given by Angels in the hand of a Mediator b 1.16, which whether it be meant of Moses or of Christ, is a dispute amongst many; though the margent of some of our English Bibles c 1.17 inter∣preteth it of the former. That Title might have been as well applied to Christ, not yet God-man, yet the Minister of the Father. And so St. Chrysostome and Theophylact do apply it. And St. Chrysostome teacheth that therefore Christ gave the Law, that he might have Authority, when it was convenient, to put an end to it. And they who stiffly oppose such Ministra∣tion of the Logos, give suspicion to jealous heads, as if they look'd towards Racovia. For if there were a second Person, he surely must be fit for that great Of∣fice. But I forbear to urge a place of uncertain sense, and chuse rather to consider what the same Apostle saith in his first Epistle d 1.18 to the Corinthians. He there saith, concerning the Israelites, that they tempt∣ed Christ in the Wilderness. And this Christ whom they tempted, is in the Old Testament called Jehovah. Hence therefore it followeth, that he who appear'd to

the people in the Wilderness was the Logos of God.

This opinion which ascribeth to the Logos the deli∣very of the Law, is by the learned Hugo Grotius in his Notes on the Decalogue, branded with the name of a grievous error. And it is not the manner of that great Wit to rail at Opinions without offering reasons for his contrary judgment: and here he offereth two.

The First he taketh from those first words of the Epistle to the Hebrews: God who at divers times, and in divers manners spake to our forefathers by the Prophets, hath in these last times spoken to us by his Son.

The Second he taketh from the second and third verses of the second Chapter, in which the Holy Au∣thor preferreth the Gospel before the Law, because

the Law was given by Angels; (that is, saith he, by the Angel sustaining the person of God, and for that reason mentioned by St. Steven a 1.19 in the singular number, and by many more such spirits making up that glorious train:) but the Gospel by the Lord Jesus the Son of God.

Upon the seeming force of such Reasons, I find Curcellaeus b 1.20 and others c 1.21 a∣greeing in the sentence of Grotius.

Now for the first Objection, I may remove it out of the way by saying no more than that God spake for∣merly by his Son as his Logos or Minister, and in the latter times by him, as his Son Incarnate, or as begot∣ten by the Holy Ghost of the substance of the Blessed Virgin. The same Author of the Epistle to the He∣brews saith of the Throne of Christ, as Gods Logos, that it was from everlasting; and yet we well know that his Kingdom as Messiah, Mediator Incarnate, or the Word made flesh, was but then at hand when his Harbinger John took upon him the Office of Baptist: And Justin Martyr thought not himself in an error,

when he said a 1.22,

That the Logos both spake by the Prophets things to come, and also by himself, being made subject to like infirmities with us.

The Word was Gods Minister b 1.23 before and under the Law, but not in the same quality as under the Gospel. In those times he spake not himself immediately; for how can a Divine Subsistence be, meerly of it self, corporally vocal? But he spake (I conceive) by some principal Angel, assumed (as hath been said) without personal union, assisted by him in a miraculous motion of the air or brain. Under the Gospel he spake with his own mouth, as having assumed human nature into u∣nity of Person [This word Person (if I may make a digression of two or three lines) deserveth not the clamour with which Socinians hoot at it; especially when we consider it, as now we do, with relation to Christ as the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Face, or personating Shechinah of God]. They then that rightly distinguish betwixt Christ as Gods Word and Shechinah under the former Covenants, and as Mediator and Gods Son incarnate, under the Gospel, will not much be perplexed with such places of Scripture as speak sometimes of Christs Praeexistence, and oftner of his coming into the world in the fulness of time. And thus much Monsieur le Blanc himself taketh notice of c 1.24 in his Theological Theses:

He there favoureth the opinion of Christs praeexistence. He owneth him as the Minister of God of old, but not properly as Mediator; which (he saith) including Christs Priestly Office, did of neces∣sity require not only a mission of one Divine Person by another, but a Divine Person incarnate.

Now from that which I have suggested in this an∣swer to the first Objection of Grotius, it will be a mat∣ter of small difficulty to infer a Reply unto his second. For an assumed Angel being us'd by the Divine Logos

as the immediate Minister of himself to the people, and Christ speaking with his own mouth under the Gospel as God-man; and the great mystery of the Gospel consisting in the manifestation of God in the flesh; the Apostle had sufficient reason to prefer the Gospel be∣fore the Law. We have before us a matter of lesser astonishment, when we think of Divinity speaking by an Angel to which it is not vitally united, than when we contemplate it as manifesting it self in the quality of God-man, in unity of Person with human nature. Such were the thoughts of St. Hilary of Poictiers a 1.25, who in our present Argument thus discourseth:

Then God only was seen in [the shew of] man: He was not born.

Now he who was seen, is also born. For Athanasius b 1.26, he contendeth that Christ was call'd the Son long before he was incarnate; and that Mo∣ses himself knew of the future Incarnation, as well as he saw the present Appearance of the unincarnate Logos.

I conclude then, notwithstanding these Objections, That there is almost as good warrant for reading the Preface to the Decalogue in this manner [Christ spake all these words, and said] as the ancient Saxon Prefa∣cer c 1.27 had thus to read, as he does, that part of the fourth Commandment [For in six days Christ made the Heaven and the Earth]. God, who by his Logos gave all Physical Laws to Nature, did also by the same Word give the Moral Law to Israel.

In the beginning of that Law (saith St. Austin d 1.28 God prohibited the wor∣ship of any Image, besides one, the same with him∣self;

that is to say, the Logos his Son, whom Moses saw; it being promised to him e 1.29, that God should apparently converse with him, and that he should be∣hold the similitude or Image, or, as the Seventy ren∣der it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Glory, or glorious Shechinah of God.

Whether, at the giving of the Law, Moses saw the Shechinah in human figure, his Text does not inform us; yet it doth not necessarily follow, that Moses or Aaron saw no figure, because the people did not. For there was much more danger in them who had had the education of slaves, and who labour'd under gross and sensitive apprehensions, than there was in Moses a Learn∣ed and Prudent person, of abusing such similitude in the framing of Idols: and one would think that at the receiving of the Tables a 1.30 he saw something in human figure; for he is said to have seen the back∣parts of God, or his Shechinah, or the shew of a man inverted, or rather a less degree of luster in the She∣chinah; neither he nor any man living being able to behold the face or full luster of it, which perhaps might then appear to the attending-Angels. So that the de∣sire of Moses was, in effect, like that of Eudoxus, who desir'd to see the Sun just by him. If it should have been granted, he must have pay'd down his life as the expence of his curiosity. And indeed the seeing of the Face of God in that sense, was, at that season, the less necessary, because God had, just then, made a pro∣mise of his Shechinah, or presence, in the Tabernacle b 1.31 to go along with him, and to support him against the incredulity of the people, to whose eyes, such a She∣chinah as they could bear, was in wisdom to be accom∣modated.

Whilst Moses was beholding this Pattern in the Moant, and receiving Laws from the Presence of God, the people seeing neither, as at his departure they had done c 1.32; the Glory of God in Clouds and Flame; nor, as in the Wilderness, the Pillar of Fire and Cloud; nor himself whom they judg'd a cause of the Shechinah of God with them; and remaining forty days and forty nights in this forsaken estate, as they were apt to think

it, importun'd Aaron for some symbol of Gods Pre∣sence, with which he might conduct them, as Moses had done in former times. Aaron wearied with their Cries, made them a Golden Image after the manner of some part of Gods Shechinah which he had seen with Nadab and Abihu, and the Seventy Elders, in a certain ascent of the Mount a 1.33. He saw thenthe God of Israel, that is, as the Seventy expound the Hebrew sense, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the place, or the Throne; or as the Targum of Onkelos renders it, the Glory, or Shechinah of God; not, as Oleaster affirmeth, the Pavement only, which is mentioned afterward. And in the Shechinah there was an appearance of Angels; the Author to the Hebrews, where he opposeth the Gospel to the Law in divers particulars b 1.34, mentioning an innumerable company of Angels, in opposition to a smaller company on Mount Sinah. The attending-Angels were usually Cherubim c 1.35, and the Cherubim appear'd with heads like those of Oxen; and because the head only was of that like∣ness d 1.36, therefore (if I conjecture aright) Lactanti∣us e 1.37 and St. Jerome f 1.38 call'd this Golden Image the Golden head of a Calf. This I conceive to have been the figure of a Cherub, though it pleaseth not the Painter, who describeth it by the Face of a young round-visag'd man. Thus much I collect from the Pro∣phet Ezekiel. That Prophet, in the vision of the wheels g 1.39, saith of them, That every one had four Faces. The first Face was the Face of a Cherub; and the second Face was the Face of a man; and the third the Face of a Lyon; and the fourth, the Face of an Eagle. If then the Face of a Cherub was the Face of a man, then each wheel had not four differing Faces, but one had two Faces of human Figure, the second being said to be the Face of a man, as the first was said to be the Face of a Cherub. But if these two had

been alike, the Prophet would then have alter'd his style, and said, The first two Faces were the Faces of a man. But it is evident, by comparing this place in Ezekiel, with the tenth verse of the first Chapter, that * 1.40 the Face of a Cherub is the Face of an Ox. For there he mentions the three latter Faces, as he doth here, cal∣ling them the Faces of a Man, a Lyon, an Eagle: but for the other Face, called here the Face of a Cherub, he calleth it there the Face of an Ox. And the com∣paring of these places, induced the Learned Critick Ludovicus de dieu a 1.41 to be of this opinion, that Che∣rub signifi'd an Ox, and was derived from the Chaldee word Cherub, He, or It, hath plowed. Now by the worshipping of this Figure of the Face of a Cherub or Ox, the sottish people chang'd their Glory (b), the glorious Image or Shechinah of God (call'd, as was even now said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the Seventy, in the 12th of Num∣bers) into the similitude of a man, though useful crea∣ture; whose likeness could, at best, be but the symbol of an Angel, which was no more to the Shechinah of God (nor so much by a great deal), as one spoke of a wheel is to an Eastern Emperor in a triumphant Cha∣riot. They turn'd their Glory (saith Jeremiah c 1.42) into a thing which did not profit them, in Idolum, into an Idol (as is the version of the Vulgar Latine); a helpless statue. They turned the Truth of God (as it is in St. Paul d 1.43 into a Lye: The true Shechinah of God, into an Idol, which is vanity, nothing of that which it pretendeth to be; having no Divinity at∣tending on it. Aaron made it as Gods symbol, which in truth it was not; and the people worship'd it beyond his intention, and after the Egyptian manner; and in their hearts wishing they were again in that Land of Ceremonious Idolatry. This folly kindled the wrath of God and Moses; yet it did not quite remove his fa∣vour:

for Moses was a second time call'd up into the Mount, and thence he brought the renewed Tables and the Statutes of Israel, and the pattern of the Taber∣nacle; and at his descent, Rays of glorious Light did stream from his face, as if he had been a second She∣chinah, reflecting the borrow'd beams of the first.

The Tabernacle which God had now discover'd, and which Moses was ready to frame, was but a model of the Temple built many years after by the Magnificent Solomon. And in it God gave the people, instead of the more aenigmatical and idle Hieroglyphicks of the World in Egypt, a more excellent Scheme of it in this great and typical Fabrick, representing, in the three spaces of it, the three Heavens, which the Jews so of∣ten speak of, the Elementary, and Starry, and Supercoe∣lestial Regions. St. Chrysostom a 1.44 speaking of this workmanship of God, calleth it the Image of the whole World both sensible and intellectual. And he attempteth the justification of his Notion, by the 9th to the Hebrews, and particularly by the 24th verse, in which the holy places made with hands, are call'd the figures of the true or heavenly places.

In this manner, then, God pleas'd to help the ima∣ginations of the Jews, by a visible scheme of his throne and footstool. It were endless here to take particular notice of all things relating to the Tabernacle or Tem∣ple: but if I take not the Ark into my especial con∣sideration, I shall be guilty of greater negligence than any foolish Astronomer, who in his description of the Heavens should leave out the Sun.

This Ark of the Covenant consider'd in all the ap∣pendages of it, God vouchsafed to the Jews in place of all the Statues, or Creatures, or appearances of Daemons, which their fancy was apt to adore, and in which Daemons did already, or might afterwards coun∣terfeit

some shews of the glorious Shechinah of God.

Men (saith Maimonides * 1.45) built Temples to the Stars, and placed in them some Image dedicated to this or the other Idol in the Heavens, and gave it unanimous worship. Hence God commanded that a Temple should be built to himself, and that the Ark should be put into it, and that in the Ark should be depo∣sited the Two Tables of stone, in which it was writ∣ten, I am the Lord thy God; and thou shalt have no other Gods besides me.

The whole of it was in singu∣lar manner typical of God-man, who came to destroy the works of the Devil. This virtue of Christ appear∣ing on the Ark was manifested in the miraculous con∣quest of it over Dagon a 1.46, a Sea-god worshipped in Palestine in the City of Ashdod. He fell before the Ark, and laid on the ground a handless and headless Idol, without more shew of Majesty, Power or Wisdom than the Trunk of a Tree.

This Ark was not in it self properly an Image, but a Chest over-laid with Gold as a Conservatory of the precious 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Two Tables. Yet thereby God by way of Hieroglyphick, though not of Image or Picture of representation, did offer himself to the eye as a supreme Governour ruling the Commonwealth of Israel by a written Law. This Moncaeus b 1.47 would have to be taken from the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Chest or Coffin of Apis, mentioned by Plutarch c 1.48. But that was a thing of later date, and not known to the ancient Egyptians. It belonged to the Greek Serapis, who is said thence to take his name.

The whole of the Ark seems to some the Trium∣phant Chariot * 1.49 of God moved by Angels, set forth by the form of Beasts, who drew the Chariots of the Eastern Kings: whose Pomp the Poets exalted into Heaven in the Chariots of their gods. This of the true

God is represented as moving by Angels in the Clouds, not as any fixed Throne in it self: the Power and Pro∣vidence of God, whose Chariot hath Wheels with Eyes, making all the World its circle; though often it took its way to the Tabernacle and Temple. Why Cherubims were added, the cause hath been often in∣timated already; to wit, by reason that the Logos ap∣pearing as Gods Shechinah, was attended with Angels, and especially with Cherubim. Though Maimonides d 1.50 reckoneth the Cherubim to be of the lowest order excepting those which he calls Ischim; such in his con∣ceit as spake to inspired men, and were by them seen in Prophetical Visions. For the entire Figure of the Cherubim, I am not desirous to inquire with nice and accurate diligence, whether it were such as the Angels usually appeared in, or whether it were a mere Em∣blem of their Properties. The Scripture shews that they move swiftly, as flame and wind, and all under∣stand that wings are the instruments of a quick motion. The Scripture also representeth them as dazled at the Glory of God, and therefore needeth no further Com∣ment on the Faces of the Cherubim as covered with their wings. But curiously to interpret each particu∣lar spoken of them, and of the Ark in which they were placed, is the ready way to create such significations by our fancy, as the wisdom of God did never intend. Of this kind sure is that conceit of S. Greg. Nyssen a 1.51, who will have the Rings of the Ark to signifie the An∣gels sent as Rings or pledges of favour to the Heirs of Salvation. It is enough if we look upon the Ark as an holy vessel representing Gods Majesty with his Coele∣stial Retinue, and the Rule of his Law, and as a Type of Christ, without forcing every staff, and ring, and pin, into unnatural Allegory. And for some such rea∣son Mr. Calvin b 1.52 did on purpose forbear to pry too critically into the Ark.

Betwixt the Cherubims, and upon the Cover of the Ark appeared as in a Chariot of Majesty, the Divine Logos in admirable lustre, yet tempered with Clouds. So he appeared to the people when Moses was taken up into the Mount. So Ezekiel in his Vision c 1.53 saw him in a cloud with brightness about it; and this he calls the Glory upon the Cherubims. And doubtless that Vision was in part a Vision of the Temple, though not wholly after the pattern of the Tabernacle, but as furnished by the voluntary devotion of Solomon, who added Oxen and Lions to the Brazen-Laver. These some think to have been steps to his future Idolatry: as if he began to allude to the Lions under the Chariot of the Sun d 1.54, mentioned by Horus Apollo. But these Images being of servile use there was the less danger in them. Touching the appearance of the Logos in a cloud of brightness, we may further observe, that the Glory of God was said to have appeared in or at the Tabernacle: That in the Psalms e 1.55 the Ark is called Gods Glory, or his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (the word of the Seventy) his beautiful luster; that the same David speaks of ha∣ving seen f 1.56 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (the word of the Seventy for Gods Shechinah) the Glory or radiant Presence of God in the Sanctuary. And lastly, that the Cherubims on the Ark are in the ninth Chapter to the Hebrews call∣ed Cherubims of Glory. Now it further appeareth, that it was the Logos whose Glory shone on the Ark, by the many places of Scripture which speak no other∣wise of the Ark than as of the Type of God Incarnate. Christ before his Incarnation sitting on the Propitia∣tory as his Throne, with the Ark and Law at his feet, (for that holy Vessel is in Scripture called his foot-stool g 1.57), seemeth to shew himself before-hand in the Offices of King, and Prophet, and Priest. As King, whilst he sits on his Golden Throne, and exhibiteth

the Law; as Prophet, whilst he answereth when con∣sulted from between the Cherubims; with relation to which Oracle the Hebrews called the Sanctuary the house of Counsel h 1.58; and as a Priest establishing his seat as a Propitiatory or Mercy-seat. When I come in due place to speak of the Word made flesh, it will be pro∣per to insist on those citations of Scripture which point him out to us as the true Ark of God. In the mean time I will content my self with that one of the Apostle, who speaking of the Mysteries of the Divine Wisdom and Love in the Incarnation of Christ, allu∣deth manifestly to the Ark, and to the Faces of the Cherubim turned towards the Shechinah: Which things (saith he a 1.59 the Angels [called as before was noted, the Cherubims of glory, or of the glorious Presence of God] with flexure of curiosity look into. This Ark of the Mosaick Covenant is in the Psalms b 1.60 called the Face, that is, the Shechinah of God. Nay the Scripture elsewhere c 1.61 giveth to it, taken entirely and together with the Presence of the Logos, the very name of God.

God having condescended to his so eminent Shechi∣nah, it was thenceforth certainly the more unlawful for the People to frame, without Divine permission, any Statues of a true or a false God. And thereby the second Command newly given, was much enforced: for how could they be confident in setting up any new Shechinah, when one was provided them by God him∣self. A Shechinah which did not lessen Gods Majesty as Images would have done in the opinion of Clemens of Alexandria d 1.62, and in the judgment of truth it self. For this was not any Representation of the Godhead, but only a very glorious visible sign of Gods invisible presence and ready assistance.

The Ark then being neither God nor his Image, was

never to be worshipped, though it had no doubt a ve∣ry high respect payed towards it, and was separated from the uses of common vessels. It was a sacred Chest, yet not to be adored, like that of the Mammonist, for a God. It is true (what Volkelius e 1.63 observeth rightly against Bellarmine, who alledgeth the instance of the Ark in favour of Images) there is great difference be∣twixt such an Image or Embleme as was constituted by the express command of God, and to which he was by his Word eminently present; and those which he nei∣ther commands, nor consecrates with his Presence. But here it ought not to be imagined, that the Ark or Che∣rubims were by Gods appointment objects of worship. The Heart was only to worship the Immense God, ap∣pearing in the Shechinah; though in that act the Re∣verence of the Body could not but pass towards the Ark; and the Mind it may be did not always use nice abstraction, any more than we now do, when with ci∣vil reverence we bow to the King, not considering just then his clothes and chair of state apart from him; yet then it is to the Prince, and not to his Robes or seat that we bow. It is therefore absurd to say with Bellar∣mine f 1.64, that the Cherubims over the Ark were of necessity worshipped with the Ark it self; for neither were ador'd, no not the luster of the Shechinah it self; it not being immediately assumed by the Logos, but only used as a sign of his gracious Presence; but God only, who was the object of the worship, whilst they were but circumstances and appendages of his Glory, towards, and not to which the external sign of adora∣tion used by the High-Priest was directed. For we must not here conceive of the Typical Ark, as of the real Ark, the Lord Incarnate; in whom the Humane and Divine Nature are so united, that the Christians have worshipped him always as God-man, though as

St. Cyril professeth in his first Book of Answers to Juli∣an, they had all 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Man-worship, in ab∣horrence. I know that very often a 1.65 the words of Da∣vid are alledged for the worship of the Ark; but with as little ground, as other Scriptures are often produced by men who first take up opinions, and then seek co∣lour for them in the Bible. We read the words b 1.66 af∣ter this manner: Fall down before his Footstool, for it, or he, is holy; and we have amended the Translation with Reason; it being read of old, Worship the foot∣stool of his feet: a Reading indiscreet as that of lifting up the hands unto thy holy Ark most high, in the singing Psalms c 1.67 which are rather permitted than allowed. The Divine Poet intended no more in that place to urge the Israelites to a precise adoration of the Ark it self, than any other Poet d 1.68 designs to worship the very knees or feet of the King, or Pantofle of the Pope, when in his raptures of humility he speaks of falling prostrate before them. Genebrard himself thinks David to make allusion to such Rites. And the Hebrew rea∣ding La-hadhom is surely to be interpreted at his foot∣stool, unless the Lamed signifieth nothing; which Dr. Vane either did not, or would not observe when he * 1.69 so magisterially accus'd the Protestants of translating falsly. A greater Doctor by far hath reckoned together the Brazen Serpent and the Cherubims f 1.70, as other things than Images of worship: so far he is from that, that he calls the Cherubim on the Ark a simple orna∣ment accommodated to that Throne or Chair, whence Oracles were dispensed. But St. Hierom it seems estab∣lisheth the worship of the Ark in these words:

The Jews in time past did worship or reverence the Holy of Holies, because there were the Cherubims, the Propitiatory, the Ark.

So T. G. g 1.71 translateth him ci∣ting his 17th. Epistle ad Marcellam. But if he had plea∣fed,

he might have left out the word Worship, and used that of Reverence only. The holy Father indeed in that Epistle a 1.72 penned by him for Paula and Eustochium, owneth a reverence due to them. So do we very rea∣dily an high honorary respect, but not a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (the word of the Seventy) a giving them the homage of the external sign of bowing in a Temple, and in our time of devotion; for that so circumstantiated belongeth to God. So did putting off the shoos; it was a giving as 'twere to God by that sign possession of that place; although a forbearing to trample rudely there might be also a relative respect to the consecrated place. Nei∣ther did St. Hierom in that place, design such reverence or worship; for in the following part of the Epistle which T. G. did forbear to cite, the Manna, the rod of Aaron, the Golden Altar which the High-Priest did not worship, although he reverenced them, and separated them from vile use, are reckoned in the same Classis of things to be rever'd with the Ark and Cherubims; as also the Sepulchre of Christ, which the Primitive Christians no more ador'd than they in Socrates b 1.73 worshipped the body of Babylas the Martyr, who dan∣ced about his Coffin singing Psalms, and deriding the worship of Idols, whilst they removed it into the City of Antioch from Daphne c 1.74. But in this Argument I need not abound. Others have said a great deal in it, and I will not transcribe them, but rather refer to them d 1.75. I will note only here an odd assertion of Grotius e 1.76, which I wonder how it dropped from the Pen of that great man:

Whilst (said he) the Catho∣licks (meaning the Papists) profess that they exhibit the signs of honour to Christ, whom many Prote∣stants acknowledg to be present in the Sacrament, they are no more 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Bread-worshippers, then the Jews were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, worshippers of the Ark

when they exhibited the honour of God at it.

But the Jews did not worship the Ark at all, much less as the body of the Logos, whilst such Catholicks worship not only Christ as present, but that very substance which is under the shew of bread as the natural body of Christ; and therefore if it prove bread, they wor∣ship bread, whatever they think it; for the false opi∣nions of men change not the nature of things; and bread is bread, and the worship of that which is bread is certainly Bread-worship; though it be judged of, and honoured as another thing. And Barnabas and Paul were no other persons, though the Lycaonians thought one to be Jupiter and the other Mercury, be∣ing induced to that misbelief, and an inclination to offer sacrifice to them, by perceiving a miracle wrought by a word of their mouth a 1.77.

This Ark which I am speaking of as the instrument of the Shechinah, but not as an object of worship in it self, was a while placed in Shiloh; but it was not till Davids, or rather Solomons time properly, fixed in one certain place of the Holy Land: God causing his favour to be valued by the suspence of it, and shewing thereby that he was not confined to any particular place.

Besides the Shechinah in the Tabernacle, and after∣wards in the Temple, God vouchsafed the Jews ano∣ther especial Presence of his Logos by the High Priest, and the Sacerdotal Appendages of the Ephod and Breastplate. Of the appointment of these we read in the eight and twentieth Chapter of Exodus. And in that Chapter it is said concerning the Breast-plate of the High-Priest b 1.78 [called also the Breast-plate of Judgment] that the Urim and the Thummim, should be put into it. Our English Bible hath retained these words in their Original; and where they are transla∣ted,

in other Versions, the Reader is still left uncer∣tain of their meaning, and sometimes led into a mi∣stake. Such is like to be the fate of those who are gui∣ded meerly by the vulgar-Latine Version [Doctrine and Truth]; or that of the Seventy [Demonstration and Truth]; or that in the Syriack[the Lucid and the Per∣fect]; or that in one Reading of the Samaritan Tran∣slation [Elucidations and Perfections]; or lastly, that of the Arabick[Dilucidations and Certainties]. Our Eng∣lish Translators, and Arias Montanus, and Onkelos, spake e'n as intelligibly, when they only transcrib'd the very Hebrew words of Urim and Thummim. I beg leave of the Reader, in this dark and disputable subject, to in∣terpose my conjecture; and it is at his pleasure whether he will favour or reject it. If he shall do the latter, he will not be offensive to me; for I pretend not, in this Argument, to Demonstration.

Thus, then, I conceive of this Levitical appoint∣ment. I suppose the High-Priest, consider'd especially as a Type of Christ, to be the walking-Temple of God. His Garments and Breast-plate, together with the Urim and Thummim, I take to be the apparatus of this Shechinah, in imitation of that other whose In∣struments were the Ark and the Cherubims. Of the High-Priest Philo confesseth a 1.79, that they esteemed not of him as of a meer man; but they look'd on him as [a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or] the Divine Word. And for that reason (saith b 1.80 Dr. Jackson) the Breast-plate was call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For his Ornaments, Grotius c 1.81 doth parallel them with those of the Temple.

The Four colours (said he) are the same. The Seven Garments d 1.82, if you reckon in the Plate of Gold, an∣swer to the seven Lamps; the Twelve Jewels to the Twelve Loaves; the inner-linings of the Ephod, to the vail and six Curtains.

And it is observable, that

in Hosea e 1.83 the more fixed, and this walking Shechi∣nah, are joined together. The place to which I refer, is that in which God threatneth,

That the children of Israel shall abide many days without a King, and without a Prince, and without a Sacrifice, and with∣out an Image [or a Standing or Statue, as the Mar∣gent readeth it; without a fixed Shechinah, such as that of the Ark] and without an Ephod; and with∣out f 1.84 Teraphim [or Urim].

Christopher Castrus judg'd these to be the same: and a very learn'd and ex∣cellent person of our own Nation g 1.85, with whose leave I publish this Discourse, hath given us Argu∣ments to persuade to the belief of that which Castrus just hinted without proof or illustration. To him I send the doubtful Reader, taking it my self for a most probable opinion, That Urim were Teraphim; and al∣so, that Teraphim were Seraphim; of which the Sin might be first mispronounced as Zain, and after∣terwards as Tzade, and at last as Thau. And both U∣rim and Seraphim have the same signification of Burn∣ings h 1.86. By Thummim I mean something of a very different nature; and, in due place, I shall shew my opinion concerning it, and offer to the Curious a new, and I hope an inoffensive and probable notion. But order requireth that I first speak of Urim, Seraphim, or Teraphim. Where I would build something new also, though upon an old foundation.

I cannot here assent to the opinion of Grotius, who i 1.87 is inclin'd to think the Teraphim of the same form with the Cherubim. He citeth, for this, the Authority of St. Hierom ad Marcellam; and there I find that Fa∣ther k 1.88 so expounding the Theraphim in the third of Hosea, as if they were [not the Statues, but] the Pi∣ctures of Cherubims upon the Ephod, in allusion to those on the vail of the Tabernacle l 1.89, And he fur∣ther

observeth, that where the word Cherubim, in Ex∣odus, is written without the Letter Vau, it signifieth Pictures; but where it is written with it, it generally signifieth living Creatures. The Text, sure, in his time was written otherwise than now it is; for now the Cherubim on the Ark and on the Vail are written a∣like. Whether those on the Vail were intire Pictures or Figures of Cherubim, as Onkelos calls them, or [O∣pus Plumarium] a kind of Feather-work, according to the Vulgar and Samaritan Versions, or representati∣on of the Wings of the Cherubs, may deserve the fur∣ther consideration of Philologers. But whatsoever the opinion was which St. Hierom had of Teraphim, it is certain that he supposed the Seraphim to be distinct from the Cherubim. The Cherubim he representeth, as the more immediate Attendants on the Throne of God; the Seraphim, as Angels dispatched on lower Ministrations a 1.90. And he sheweth it to be the custom of some in his days, to use in their prayers this compel∣lation, Thou who sittest upon the Cherubim and Sera∣phim. And though in his Comment on the sixth of Isaiah, he disliketh that form; yet that displeasure was not conceiv'd against the distinction of Cherubim and Seraphim; but at the insinuation, by those words, of this Doctrine, which he esteemed false, that the Sera∣phim were the Angels appertaining immediately to the highest Shechinah, or Heavenly Throne. If Cherubim had been the same with Urim and Seraphim, Moses would scarce have changed their name in the pursuit of the same discourse; first calling them Cherubim no less than seven times in the space of five verses b 1.91, whilst he speaketh of the Mercy-feat; and then giving them a new title of Urim, whilst he describeth the Breast-plate, which was but the lesser and more expo∣sed Ark. Teraphim he might well lay aside, because of

their private use, or rather their abuse; for which rea∣son the name of Baal was never appli'd to the God of Israel, though in it self proper enough. But let us come nearer to the point, from which we have, as yet, kept at some distance.

Urim and Thummim, whatsoever was their myste∣rious importance, were, in themselves, material things, and things distinct from the Gems; for they were to be put into the Pectoral c 1.92. Who the Maker of them was, it is not distinctly reported. They are not found in the Inventory of Bezaliel's Workmanship, un∣less they are included in the general name of the Pe∣ctoral, used for it self and its Contents.

In enquiring into their nature, we must consider them with some relation to Gods Shechinah on the Ark. For the High-Priest was, here, a Type of the Logos; and the Pectoral, a Quadrangular hollow Instrument with Rings, and wrought without like the Veil of the Holiest, was a little model of the Ark of the Cove∣nant.

Wherefore, for Urim, Teraphim, or Seraphim, I con∣ceive that they answer, in part, to the Cherubim, which were Images of Angels. In part, I say; for it is my conjecture concerning these Seraphim, that they were Images or Symbols of Ministring-Angels in the form of fiery flying Serpents; as Cherubim were such Sym∣bols with the Faces of Oxen. And towards the pro∣bability of this new and odd conceit, I offer the fol∣lowing Conclusions, which I desire the Reader jointly to consider ere he derides it.

First, The word Saraph it self, is used in signifying a fiery flying Serpent. This is its signification in the Book of Numbers a 1.93, where it is said, That the Lord sent Seraphim, or fiery serpents among them. And again, it is there remembred, how God said to Moses, Make

thee a Saraph, and set it upon a Pole. To which I add that in the Book of Deuteronomy b 1.94, a Burning Ser∣pent is called Nachash Saraph.

Secondly, There were in Egypt, Arabia, Lybia c 1.95, and other places, flying fiery Serpents. The Prophet I∣saiah mentioneth such creatures d 1.96; and Kimchi, on the place, saith they are found in Ethiopia; meaning, it may be, the Arabian Ethiopia. They were called Fie∣ry, not only because of the heat of their venom, cau∣sing extraordinary inflammations and thirsts in the body bitten by them; but also because they appeared such when they flew in the Air, being a kind of animated Meteors. Hence Abarbanel saith of such flying Ser∣pents, that they were reddish, after the colour of brass e 1.97: If that was their natural colour, great addition might be made to it by the swift motion of their wings, and the vibration of their tayls, in the bright Atmo-spheres of Arabia and Egypt.

Thirdly, In the earliest Ages and inhabited Coun∣tries of the world, the creatures on earth principally reverenc'd, were Oxen and Serpents. That Oxen were so, has been already shew'd; as likewise that the Che∣rubim, Appendages to the S•…•…echinah in the most holy Place, had the faces of such Beasts. Serpents were lately worship'd in America, as appeareth from Acosta, and the Discoverers in Hackluit. And we read in Mr. Gage f 1.98, of the great Golden Snakes adjoin'd to the Idols Tezcatlipuca and Vitzilopuchtli. And, of old, Serpents were sacred in Egypt. Herodotus mentioneth the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 g 1.99 or sacred Serpents about Thebes, which when they were dead, were buried by the su∣perstitious in the Temple of Jupiter. We see no Ta∣ble of Isis, or Osiris, or Bac•…•…hus, without a Serpent h 1.100. The sacredness of that Beast is said, by Pignorius, to have prevail'd among the Arabians, Ba•…•…ylonians, Cartha∣thaginians,

Baeotians, Epirots, Sicyonians, Epidaurians, Romans. He might have added the Indians, with Maximus Tyrius a 1.101; and with Erasmus Stella b 1.102 the Borussians and Samogetes. And the Hereticks, call'd Ophitae or Ophiani, have not escaped the notice of any who have looked into the History of the Christian Church c 1.103.

For the worship both of Serpents and Oxen toge∣ther, it is represented in the Egyptian Hieroglyphick d 1.104 of a winged Ox with humane face, vomiting flames, having a Globe on its head, and under its feet, an undulated Serpent.

Serpents were thus honoured for many reasons. Be∣cause they could twine themselves into all figures e 1.105. Because there was a mighty Energy in their venom f 1.106. Because of their mighty Bulk, by which some of them were able (saith Diodorus g 1.107) to conquer Ele∣phants. Because (saith Vossius h 1.108) they live to great Age; are of quick and piercing sight; renew their youth by putting off their skin. Last of all, by reason (saith Pignorius i 1.109) that the Heathen were overpowered with the craft, malice and pride of the Devil who deluded man in that shape, and would, as it were, redeem the loss he sustained in the curse of that creature, by turning it into a venerable Idol.

Fourthly, Serpents, thus sacred, were not the ulti∣mate objects of worship, but the symbols or shrines of some Angels or Daemons. Thus the Serpents of Thebes, spoken of by Herodotus k 1.110, are said, by him, to be sacred to Jupiter. And the Symbol of Cneph, was the Symbol of an Agatho-demon l 1.111.

Fifthly, There were, not only such living Symbols and shrines, but also Images made by mens hands. Such we see in the Tables of Isis, and in the Images of Car∣tari. Such we read of in the Scripture, under the

name of Teraphim, which were much in use in the world a while after the flood. In the Ramessean Obe∣lisk a 1.112, a good Daemon is represented by an Asp sitting next Osiris. And a Dragon, a creature of the Serpent-kind, is usually annexed to the statue of AE∣sculapius b 1.113.

Sixthly, Such good Angels as made up a part of the Shechinah of the Logos, and also ministred in the world, seem to have given some occasion to such Sym∣bols and Images by their appearance, as in the form of winged Oxen or Cherubim; so by their appearance as of the most eminent sort of winged Serpents, with beautiful faces, it may be, of men as had the Harpies, though they had the tail of a Serpent c 1.114, or rather of Eagles, if they appeared not with Serpentine heads. The sacred One in the Sphinx of Kircher d 1.115 had the head of an Hawk or Eagle: so had the famous 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Egypt, as Eusebius relateth from Zoroaster e 1.116. The Egyptians call'd him Cneph, the Phenicians, a good Dae∣mon.

Now, if the Seraphim had not appeared in some such form, it would be very difficult to give any to∣lerable account of the temptation of Adam and Eve by a Daemon in the shape of a Serpent. That Serpent is ridiculously painted in the form of a creeping one be∣fore the fall: and it is impossible to conceive our first Parents so stupid, as to have entered into Dialogue with such a creature without any astonishment. But being used to the Shechinah of the Logos, and to the appearance of ministring Angels, shewing themselves in some such winged form (for that they abode not f 1.117 one night in Paradise, is by many judicious persons e∣steemed a groundless fancy); it is easie to conceive, upon that supposition, how they might entertain some familiar discourse with a creature assuming that Image

in very splendid and glorious manner. The Text assu∣reth us that the form is now changed by Gods curse; and sure the change was more considerable than the al∣teration spoken of by Mr. Mede a 1.118, who thinketh that the Serpent went formerly on the ground, though with his head and breast reared up and advanced. It seemeth a more probable opinion by far, that the change was made from the form of a splendid flying Saraph, to that of a mean creeping Serpent, not moving aloft in the air, but licking the dust. And much more probable, doubtless, it is than that dream which Kir∣cher b 1.119 chargeth on Maimonides; as if that Rabbi had affirmed, that the Devil deceived Eve in the shape of a Camel. But Maimonides c 1.120 saith only from the Rabbies in Medrasch, that the Serpent was rode on, and was as big as a Camel; and that he who rode on him was Samael, or Satan.

Methinks a part of the punishment of Adam and Eve declares the shape of the Serpent or Daemon, by whom they were tempted. For it is said that God guarded Paradise against them by a Cherub and a Flaming-sword, which (as hath been noted already) was estee∣med by the Jews a second Angel; and may be aptly imagined a Saraph, or flaming-Angel, in the form of a a flying fiery Serpent, whose body vibrated in the air with luster, and may be fitly described by the Image of such a sword. And whereas Maimonides d 1.121 interpre∣teth this Sword of the property of an Angel, of which the Scripture speaketh as of a flame of fire; he saith nothing distinctly applicable to the second Angel, but what was common also to the Cherub; whilst some∣thing is pointed at in the Text as peculiar to the se∣cond Angel called a flaming-sword.

It may be further noted to our present purpose, that the word Saraph or Seraphim is used in Scripture both

to denote (as was said) a fiery flying Serpent, and also an Angel of a certain order whom Isaiah representeth e 1.122 as having wings, and flying to him with a coal from the Altar. Accordingly Buxtorf in his little Lexicon in the word Saraph, thus discourseth:

Saraph signifies a fiery and most venemous Serpent. Seraphim is likewise a name of Angels, who from the clearness and brightness of their Aspect are seen as it were fla∣ming and fiery.

But there is an authority in this Ar∣gument to me more valuable, not for the notation of the word, but for the sense so accommodate to my no∣tion. It is that of Tertullian in two places. The first place is in his Book de Praescriptione Haereticorum; There he suggesteth from others,

That a 1.123 Eve gave attention to the Serpent as to the Son of God.

The se∣cond place is in his Book against the Valentinians. There he saith b 1.124,

That the Serpent from the beginning was one that sacrilegiously usurped the Divine Image.

This soundeth as if the Devil in Serpentine form, had re∣presented part of the Shechinab of the Logos, and that Eve conceived him to be an Angel appertaining to his glorious presence, and a minister of his pleasure; and now come forth from him.

Now I here suppose the Seraphim or Urim to be two Golden winged Images, not from the number of the word Urim (for the Jews use that number fre∣quently of a single thing or person) but from that of the Images called Cherubim, which were two Symbols placed on the Ark which is typed in the Pectoral. And I do not think so much (as doth Maimonides c 1.125 that the Cherubim were therefore two, lest the form of a single one should have been mistaken for the Figure of the one God; as that these two (like the Model of the Temple) had reference to Earth as well as Heaven, and, besides Angels, represented Moses and Aaron as the

Ministers of the Logos under the Law; as the four Creatures in the Vision of Ezekiel typed out the four Evangelists as Christs servants under the Gospel. Nei∣ther did the number of the Cherubim prevent miscon∣struction. For St. Hierom reporteth of some, that by the two Seraphim [Cherubim he meaneth] they under∣stood the Son and the Holy Ghost d 1.126.

In the Pectoral I suppose Seraphim, and not Cheru∣bim; this being an Oracle for Civil affairs e 1.127, and not properly the Oracle of the Temple; and the Cheru∣bim being according to St. Hierom before cited, the seven Spirits about Gods Throne, and according to David the Chariots on which he rides; and the Sera∣phim of inferior attendance (though Appendages of the Shechinah) and of more frequent ministration a∣broad in Temporal matters; such as that of the Cap∣tivity of Judah, in the declaration of which to Isaiah, a Saraph assisted.

For the Answer of God by Urim, I suppose it not to have been conveyed through the mouths of these Images, which were to be put into the Ark f 1.128, whilst nothing is mentioned of the taking them out. But it seemeth most probable that as the Logos spake with a voice out of the Glory above the Cherubim, and not by them, their mouths being turned from the High-Priest; so the High-Priest, who here was the Logos of the Logos, the Substitute and Type of Christ, spake by Inspiration over the Pectoral and Saraphs. Neither is it fully proved from the Book of Samuel a 1.129, that God spake Vivâ voce; as the Annotations published out of the Library of the Archbishop of York, would have it to be: for it may well be said, that God spake when through miraculous inspiration he spake by the mouth of his Prophets or Priests * 1.130.

The Urim or Seraphim were put into the Pectoral,

and not set upon it, as the Cherubim were on the grea∣ter Ark; not so much for the concealment of them from the eyes of the people prone to Idolatry, as; for some other cause; for the Ark was often carried in Procession with the Cherubims on it: unless we shall say that the upper cover of the Ark, or Mercy-seat, which is mentioned in Scripture as a distinct piece of Artifice from it b 1.131, was not taken along with it.

But to me this seemeth one reason: the High-Priest was here the Type of Christ-Incarnate, who in the days of his flesh, though he had Angels ministring to him, did not often please to occasion their appear∣ance.

It may be here objected, That this Notion of the Seraphim in the Ark, ascribeth to God the setting up as part of his Shechinah, the Image proper to the De∣vil, for such is that of the Serpent.

I answer, that the contrary is here true; for the groveling Serpent doomed by God is such a Symbol; and such a one the Heathens worshipped. Neither was any other distinctly used in Egypt, or (so far as I have read) in any other Country of the world. For though the Egyptian Cneph had wings, yet he was not a wing∣ed Serpent, but a compounded Symbol, of which the tayl of the Serpent was but a small part adjoined to the breast, wings and head of an Hawk or Eagle. And Eusebius relateth from Philo Byblius, that the Egyptian Hieroglyphick of the World was a Circle, of which the Serpent (the Symbol of a good Daemon as they conceived) was but the Diameter; the whole figure being almost like to the great Θ of the Greeks. And by that it appears that the sacred Egyptian Serpent was the creeping one, and not the winged one of Arabia, whose company they so detested, that they deified the Bird Ibis for destroying it.

But now the glorious winged Serpent was the Sym∣bol of a good ministring Angel. And accordingly God used such a one in the Wilderness; and it is known by the name of the Brazen-serpent, or Saraph c 1.132.

Of that inferior kind of Shechinah it is proper to speak here; it being to be understood from the Con∣tents of the foregoing Discourse.

This then seemeth no other than a winged Saraph, put on a Pole a 1.133, or standard like a Roman Eagle; and constituted as a Symbol of the presence of the Lo∣gos, so far as concerned his Divine Power and Good∣ness in healing them by miracle, who were bitten with fiery Serpents. That this was some sort of the Presence of the Logos appeareth from himself in the New Testa∣ment, where he opposeth to it as Antitype to Type, the natural body of himself crucified. As Moses (said he b 1.134 lifted up the Serpent in the Wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifted up. 'Tis the Son of Man here plainly made the Antitype, and not the old Ser∣pent, (as a learned man c 1.135 would have it) destroyed indeed on the Cross, but not said by the Scripture to be lifted up upon it.

And though the Saraph was not Christ, yet it was the Symbol * 1.136 by which he appeared; and by its stret∣ched-out wings it may seem to the Fancy at least, very aptly to express Christs Crucifixion with arms ex∣tended.

If it be here said that to make this Serpent a Saraph, and a part of Christs Shechinah, is to overthrow that which was suggested before of the concealment of the Seraphim in the Ark, and of the Cherubim behind the Veil, from the eyes of the people prone to Idolatry, this being exposed to their daily sight: I answer in two Particulars.

First, It was agreeable to the Wisdom of God to

give some Type of Christ as crucified, that being one great part of that substance of the Gospel of which the Law was a shadow; though he pleased not to do it too plainly in the shape of an humane body on a Cross. And no other Type (I think) occurreth under Ju∣daism, but this of the brazen Saraph.

Secondly, Here was not such occasion of Idolatry, as might have been taken from the Ark; for that was an Oracle, and a Divine Light shone forth, and a Divine Voice was heard, and signs of Adoration to God were there commanded. But this was no Oracle: It doth not appear that at this symbol any extraordinary cloud or glory shone; that hence any Coelestial thun∣der was heard. Only men were helped in thinking on God by the symbol of an Angel, which executeth Gods will on Earth, whilst a secret virtue from the unseen God made them whole.

He that turned him∣self towards it (saith d 1.137 the Book of Wisdom) was not saved by any thing that he saw, but by Thee that art the Saviour of all.

And if the people had been then prone to Idolize that Symbol, it had not remained undefaced till the days of Hezekiah.

This then is my conjecture (and I offer it no other∣wise) about the Urim; and likewise about the Brazen Serpent.

For Thummim, I imagin it to be a thing of a very differing nature.

So do they who take it to be deriv'd from the Jewel in the Brest-plate of the High-Priest of Egypt, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is true, such a Brest-plate there was in Egypt, and it is mentioned by Diodorus Siculus a 1.138, and AElian b 1.139. And Diodorus supposeth it to have consisted of many Gems; but AElian calleth it an Image made of a Saphire. It is also confessed that the Seventy Interpre∣ters

c 1.140 do render Thummim by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

But here two things are to be observed:

First, This Egyptian Pectoral (deserving the name of truth, it being put on as an ornament for the Bench in the execution of justice and maintenance of truth, as we learn from Diodorus and AElian; and not in or∣der to the delivery of Oracles) may as well have been taken from the Brest-plate of the High-Priest of the Jews. There is no mention of it in Herodotus, and be∣fore the Graecian times. And Diodorus when he speak∣eth of it, he referreth to those days when Heliopolis, Thebés and Memphis were the three head-Cities in Egypt, out of each of which ten Judges were chosen; and for On, or Heliopolis, it had a publick Temple built in it for the Jews, with the consent of Ptolomy Philadelphus, by Onias the High-Priest, who was then by the power of Antiochus deprived of his Authority and Office in Judaea. And concerning the Egyptian Pectoral, its name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is plainly modern.

It may in the second place be observed that upon supposition that this Pectoral was originally Egyptian, it doth not follow that the Seventy meant the same thing by their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that the Egyptians did by theirs. It may be rather guessed, that those Interpreters transla∣ting divers words and phrases, which grated on Egypti∣an matters, in such prudential manner that Ptolomy might not be offended (as is manifest that they did in several places of their Version); they made use of this name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as of a name which would at once re∣commend them to his favour, and well express the sense of Scripture, or the meaning of Thummim.

Now if Urim be Images in the lesser Ark of the Pectoral, answering in some sort to the Cherubim on the greater Ark; what possibly can Thummim be but a copy of the Moral Law put into the Pectoral? a

copy written in some Roll * 1.141, or engraven in some stone according to the pattern of the Tables brought down from the Mount? for what else was there in the other Ark? nothing sure; though some Rabbins, and after them the learned Hugo Grotius believed otherwise a 1.142.

Josephus b 1.143 thought nothing else to be there; and he had ground for his opinion from the holy Scriptures. For it is said in the first of the Kings c 1.144, That there was nothing in the Ark save the two Tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb. And this is repeated in the se∣cond d 1.145 of Chronicles. And to say as some adventure to do, that the Manna and the Rod of Aaron were there in the time of Moses, and taken out in process of time, lest the Manna should putrifie, and the Rod be worm-eaten, (as if they could any-where have been so long preserved without miracle) soundeth very like to a Rabbinical whimsey.

For the places of Scripture alledged by Grotius in favour of his opinion, they answer themselves. For in Exodus e 1.146 it is not said that Moses commanded Aaron to take a pot of Manna and to put it into the Ark, but that he required him to lay it up before the Lord, or before the Ark where the Lord by his Shechinah then dwelt. Also in Numbers f 1.147, it is not said that God commanded Moses to put the Rod of Aaron into the Ark, but that he required him to bring it before the Testimony, that is, the Ark of the Covenant. Where∣fore that of the Author to the Hebrews g 1.148, [In the Ho∣liest of all was the Ark of the Covenant, wherein was the Golden pot that had Manna, and Aarons Rod that bud∣ded, and the Tables of the Covenant], must be inter∣preted as if in signified both in and by. So (saith Ca∣pellus upon the place) it is usual for them who live by Rome, to say they live in it. So in Cariathjarim in the

Book of Judges h 1.149 signifieth, nigh it. They pitched (saith the Text) in Kiriath-jearim in Judah: where∣fore they called that place Mahaneh-Dan unto this day: behold it is behind Kiriath-jearim. Neither doth Gorio∣nides say (as Grotius maketh him) that the Manna and Rod were in the Ark; for he speaketh of the Holiest, and saith they were there, not determining in what part of it they were placed.

Thummim was not an Image as the Urim were; nei∣ther doth the Scripture ever say that God answered by Thummim. It saith not i 1.150 that God did forbear to answer Saul by Urim and Thummim, but only that he did not answer him by Urim. For the Moral Law was a standing Rule, and not an Extemporary Oracle. And we may observe from Diodorus Siculus, that the Egyp∣tian Judg whom he speaketh of, when he put on his glorious 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sign or image, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, had also the Law in Eight Books laying before him, [AElian and Diodorus tell this story in differing man∣ner; and it may be the thirty Judges were so many of the seventy Elders, and the Eight Books of Law were the Ten Commandments; and the Saphire or Gems in the Pectoral were the twelve precious stones according to the number of the Tribes; all used by the High-Priest of the Jews at Heliopolis, where was Schismati∣cally aped the worship and judgment of Jerusalem. For in such matters the blunders of Historians are often more shameful than these. Nay, what if the Book con∣taining the worship of the gods, and bound about with scarlet-threads, mentioned by the same Diodorus a 1.151, should be the Copy of the Moral Law in the Ark, whose outside was wrought with gold, with blue, with purple, with scarlet, and fine-twined linnen? This is none of my Faith; yet many such imperfect Narrati∣ons are to be found in him and other Historians, who

write of things in such ancient and dark times. For the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (though that was given to the Pecto∣ral, or to the illustrious Gem or Gems on it, and not particularly to the Law) yet to the Law of God it well agreeth; David saying concerning it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Thy Law is Truth * 1.152. As congruous is the name of Thummim, or Perfections, the same Royal Prophet saying * 1.153, Thy Law is perfect. 'Tis perfect and without blemish in it, though the Laws of men are stained with divers spots and imperfections. It is perfect as a straight Rule, it bendeth not to mens corrupt wills. It is a com∣pleat Rule extending to all our needful cases. It is ex∣ceeding broad, whilst there is an end of all other pre∣tended Perfections * 1.154. Of the perfection of this Law the Son of Sirach speaketh, saying b 1.155, A man of under∣standing trusteth in the Law, and the Law is faithful un∣to him as an Oracle; or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the reading of the Alexandrian Copy of the Seventy], as the asking of [or the answer to the Interrogatory at] Urim. In which words let the Reader well consider whether the Author does not oppose the Law to the Oracle as the Thummim to the Urim, saying in effect,

The Law laid up in the Ark is as certain a Rule to go by in the Moral course of a mans life; as the Oracle from above the Ark where the Urim was an appendage of Gods Shechinah, was a direction in extraordinary ca∣ses.

And whereas Urim is only mentioned, why Scali∣ger should say c 1.156, the meaning is, The Law is faith∣ful to him as Urim and Thummim, he himself best knows. But it may be thought from the force of the Premisses, that he has in effect rendred the saying such a kind of Tautology as this, The Law is faithful as the Law.

Another place there is worthy our observation in this Argument, and the rather, because it is a more

Canonical portion of Scripture. It is that of S. John c 1.157 who saith, that the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. These words, if I will serve my Hypothesis, I must thus Paraphrase.

The Thummim or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Law was received from Gods substitute the Logos, by Moses, who de∣livered it to the people; but the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Chri∣stian Law, of the Gospel of Grace, came, not only from, but by, Jesus Christ, the Logos made flesh, as was said, a verse or two before; and he, even God-incarnate, did publish it with his own mouth.

If this notion hath any truth in it, then that Prayer of Moses, or blessing of Levi d 1.158 [Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy One] may be thus expounded; let thy Law [the ordinary Rule prefe∣rable before any extemporary Oracle] and also thy extraordinary inspiration, together with thy blessing, be present with the linage of Aaron consecrated to the Priest-hood, though thou wert angry with him for his carriage at the waters of Meribah or Massah; and, for that reason, deniedst him an entrance into the land of Canaan.

But I will plainly acknowledge, that notwithstand∣ing all here said by me, that may be true which Mun∣ster said e 1.159, That no mortal man can now tell what the Urim and Thummim were. But, in aiming, with our conjectural Bolts, at Truth, as in shooting, if the white be not hit, it is some kind of felicity to come nigh the Mark.

Now though the Logos appeared on the Ark, both in the Tabernacle and the Temple, and though he was, also, present, with this lesser Ark the Pectoral; yet he did not limit himself to these holy Instruments, and the places of them. He appeared, elsewhere, sometimes, when the emergent occasion was remote

from these Arks, and when the privacy of the Reve∣lation to those who were not High-Priests, was expe∣dient, or necessary; unless we should say, that the less solemn, and less majestick Apparitions were made by Angels.

That it was the Logos who shew'd himself to Joshu∣ah a 1.160, giving to him a promise of defence, is the joynt opinion of Justin Martyr, Eusebius, and Theo∣doret b 1.161, and likewise of one more modern, yet not unworthy to be named amongst them, the most learned Archbishop of Armagh d 1.162. But a fragment of an antient and venerable Greek Scholion, produced by Valesius, will have it to be Michael, and not the very Son of God. Be it the one, or the other, I hold •…•…ot my self much obliged to concern my self, as a par∣ty, in the dispute. Only I am inclined to think it the Logos, because the place of the appearance, was sa∣cred; Joshuah pulling of his Shoes, in token of a Di∣vine, rather than of an Angelical presence.

Little is recorded of Gods Shechinah from the time of Joshua to David. But David in his Psalms, is ve∣ry frequent in celebrating Gods presence in the Sanctu∣ary on Mount Sion. And of his being there where God was present by his Image or Shechinah (in the Temple, though not in the holiest place of it), after deliverance from his enemies, who stood in his way both to the holy City and holy Temple, some a 1.163 interpret these words of his in the 17th Psalm b 1.164; As for me, I will behold thy face (or Shechinah) in righteousness: I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness. Or (as I find it expounded in the Septua∣gint c 1.165) when I shall see thy glory, or glorious presence: Thy Temunah (the word in the Hebrew) thy Image, of the Logos. In Solomon's time the Ark was placed in a most magnificent Temple, which when

it had received the holy Vessel, a Cloud, and the Glo∣ry of the Lord d 1.166, a most venerable mixture of light and darkness filled the holy House. It is called in the Book of Kings e 1.167 thick darkness, i. e. such whose solemnity hindred the sight of any other object but the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or glory of the Shechinah, which dazled the eye, rather than enlightned the medium. In the first Book of Kings this is omitted by the Lxx, but in the 2d of Chronicles f 1.168 it is mentioned. And by those Interpreters 'tis called barely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or darkness. But they had before g 1.169 called it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the cloud of the Glory of the Lord; a cloud like that which, in S. Matthew h 1.170, is called a bright one, and said to overshadow the Apostles, when Christ was transfigured and owned as Gods Son, by a voice out of the Cloud. After the dedication of this House, God appeared in a dream, a second time, to Solomon i 1.171, having done so once before at Gibeon k 1.172, and made a promise to him that his eyes and heart, that is, his especial presence, should be in that consecrated House.

In the time of Ahab, Elijah being in Israel, and not in Judah, though he worshipped not God in the San∣ctuary; yet the Logos of God, when he was fled as far as Horeb, Gods Mountain l 1.173, instructed him in a still small voice, after his spirit was made solemn, by wind, earthquake, and fire; for it was the Lord (saith the Text) that spake then to him, not a created An∣gel. But that God ever spake at Dan or Bethel, or ap∣peared in any Glory, we neither read nor believe. So that the setting up the Symbol there was presumption, and the trusting that God was present there, Idolatry: for that was an act due to Gods true presence, mispla∣ced on his false one, and such as was not only false, but, in terms, forbidden. In the times of Isaiah S.

Hierom m 1.174 observeth that the Idolatries of the people were exceedingly encreased; yet himself saw the Shechinah n 1.175 in a vision: And St. John o 1.176 sheweth that it was a vision of the Logos, saying that Isaiah saw Christs glory.

The Israelites rather increasing, than repenting of, their provocations, it pleased God to withdraw his presence, and, as he is represented in the visions of E∣zekiel p 1.177, to go up from the earth; and to permit the powers of Babylon to destroy the holy Temple, and to suffer the glory of it, the Ark, to depart, and ne∣ver to appear again in its former condition; for the 2d Temple did, in this particular especially, come short of the first. And I know not what to make of a pas∣sage in the Jew q 1.178, whose Cippi Hebraici are tran∣slated by Hottinger; and who there mentions a part of the Ark extant in Sion in his time; unless I esteem it (for sure 'tis no other) a Jewish fable. That it may not go alone, I will add a story of equal credit out of the Elucidarium ascribed to S. Anselm. There r 1.179 the Disciple asking what became of the Ark of the Covenant, the wise Master answers thus:

It was hid, at Gods command, by Jeremiah, in the Sepulcre of Moyses, when Hierusalem was ready to be destroy∣ed by the Babylonian forces. And, in the last times, it will be brought out by Enoch and Elias; God re∣vealing it to them.

Notes

• a 1.1

  See Just. Martyr in Apol, 2. p. 95.
• b 1.2

  Id. ibid. p. 96. and in his Dial. cumTryph. p. 356. B.
• c 1.3

  Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 2. p. 7, 8.
• d 1.4

  S. Hil. de Trin. p. 70, 71.
• e 1.5

  S. Ambros. Tom. 4. Op. p. 222. See Athan. contra Arianos. Orat. 4. p. 467. A. B.
• * 1.6

  Philo de vit â Mosis, p. 594, 595.
• f 1.7

  Exod. 13. 21, 23.
• g 1.8

  Exod. 14. 19.
• a 1.9

  Euseb. de de∣monstr. Evang. l. 5. c. 14. p. 241.
• b 1.10

  See Exod. 33. 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. compar'd with Chap. 23. v. 21, 22, 23.
• c 1.11

  Eccl. 5. 6.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—
• d 1.12

  Lactant. de verâ Sap. l. 4. p. 374.
• e 1.13

  Exod. 14. 19, 20, 21, 22.
• f 1.14

  Psal. 68. 17.
• a 1.15

  Tertull. Ad∣v•…•…rs. Judaeos, p. 194. B
• b 1.16

  Gal. 3. 19.
• c 1.17

  In Quarto, Lond. 1610.
• d 1.18

  1 Cro. 10. 9.
• a 1.19

  Act. 7. 38.
• b 1.20

  Curcell. Insti∣tut. p. 40, 41.
• c 1.21

  Tentam. Theol. p. 289.
• a 1.22

  Just. Mart. in Apol. 1. p. 48, 49.
• b 1.23

  Tertul. de Resurrect. Carn. Sect. 51. p. 357. J•…•…sus—Adam novissimus, etsi sermo primarius. And advers. Prax. p. 509.—Constat eum semper visum ab Initio, Qui vi∣sus fuerat in fine, &c.
• c 1.24

  Le Blanc in Thesi an Chri∣stus sit med. sec. nat. hum. & div. sect. 23. p. 812.
• a 1.25

  Hil. Pict. de Trin. l. 4. p. 856
• b 1.26

  S. Athan. op. Vol. 1. p. 86. and p. 537. B.
• c 1.27

  Praef. ante Leges Aler. di ad calcem Eccl. Hist. Haymonis.
• d 1.28

  Aug. Epist. 119.
• e 1.29

  Numb. 12, 8.
• a 1.30

  Exod. 33. 23.
• b 1.31

  Exod. 33. 14
• c 1.32

  Exod. 24. 16, 17.
• a 1.33

  Exod. 24. 1, 9, 10, 11. comp. with Ex∣od. 19. 21, 23.
• b 1.34

  Heb. 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.
• c 1.35

  Ezek. 9. 3.
• d 1.36

  See Ezek. c. 1. &. 10.
• e 1.37

  Lactant. de vera sap. l. 4. p. 376. Aureum caput bovis figuratum.
• f 1.38

  S. Hieron. Commen. in 4. Hos.
• g 1.39

  Ezek. 10. 14. See R. Sal. Franco's Truth springing out of the earth, p. 15.
• * 1.40

  Ez•…•…k. 1. 10.
• a 1.41

  Lud. de dieu. in Epist. ad D. Guil. Eos. well, inter Op. doctis. Medi, p. 704.
• c 1.42

  Pfal. 106. 19.

  Rom. 1. 23.
• d 1.43

  Jer. 2. 11.
• a 1.44

  S. Chrys. in Hom. de Nativ. vol. 5. op. p. 422. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.45

  Maim. in More Nev. par. 3. c 45. p. 475.
• a 1.46

  I Sam. 5. 4.
• b 1.47

  Moncaeus in Aar. purg. ap. Crit. maj. p. 4428.
• c 1.48

  Plutarc. de Iside, p. 362. C.
• * 1.49

  Philo de Pro∣fugis. p. 465. B. C—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• d 1.50

  Maimon. de Fund Leg Sect. 8. p. 18. & Sect. 9. p. 20.
• a 1.51

  Greg. Nyssen. de vitâ Moysis, •…•…om. 1. Op. p. 225.
• b 1.52

  In 2. Praec•…•…pt, p. 209. minimè—sequitar, &c.
• c 1.53

  Ezek. 1. 4, 5. &c. 9. 3. &c. 10. 3, 4.
• d 1.54

  See Cuperi Harpocr. p. 15, 16, 17. And Porphyry, who calls the Sun, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 1.55

  Psal. 78. 60, 61.
• f 1.56

  Psal. 63. 2.
• g 1.57

  Psal. 99. 5. & 132. 7. Isa. 60. 13.
• h 1.58

  Author ex∣cerpt. de Trad. Hebr. in. Para∣li•…•…. inter op. S. Hieron. Tom. 3. p. 261.
• a 1.59

  1 Pet. 1. 12.
• b 1.60

  Psal. 24. 6. & 42. 2.
• c 1.61

  Numb. 10. 35, 36. 1 Sam. 4. 7. & 6. 20. 2 Sam. 7. 6. Psal. 24. 7, 8. Psal. 68. 8, 25.
• d 1.62

  Clem. Alex: Strom. l. 5. p. 559.
• e 1.63

  Volkel. de verâ Relig. l. 5. c. 24. de Idol. p. 582.
• f 1.64

  Bell. d•…•… Imag. l. 2. c. 12.
• a 1.65

  See T. G. Cath. no Idol. p. 205, 206.
• b 1.66

  Psal. 99. 5.
• c 1.67

  Psal. 28. 2.
• d 1.68

  Kircher in Carm. ded. Ars magna lu∣cis & umbrae—cadit ad Genua orientis solis.
• * 1.69

  Dr. Vane in his lost sheep return'd home c. 21. p. 304.
• f 1.70

  Tertul. contr. Marc. l. 2. c. 22. p. 392. Sic & Cher. & Ser. aurea in Arcâ figuratum exem∣plum, certè sim∣plex ornamen∣tum, accommo∣data suggestui, longè diversas habendo causas ab Idoiolatriae conditione, ob quam similitudo prohibetur, &c.
• g 1.71

  T. G. Cath. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Idol. p. 20•…•….
• a 1.72

  In Tom. 1. Op. S. Hieron. p. 123, 124.
• b 1.73

  Socr. Eccl. Hift. p. 191. l. 3. c. 18.
• c 1.74

  See Epist. S. Hieron. ad Ri∣par. Presbyt. op. Tom. 2. p. 118.
• d 1.75

  See Bishop Whites Orthod. Faith. p. 111. Capit. Caroli Magni. c. 26. p. 271. Dr. Still. a∣gainst T. G. p. 710, 711, &c.
• e 1.76

  In Vot•…•… pro Pace, p. 41.
• a 1.77

  Act. 14. 8, t•…•… 13.
• b 1.78

  Exod. 28. 30.
• a 1.79

  Philo Jud. de Prosugis, p. 466 B.
• b 1.80

  Dr. Jack∣son in vol. 3. p. 803.
• c 1.81

  H. Grotius in Exod. 28. 4. And Munster in v. 5. p. 653. Crit. Maj.
• d 1.82

  Exod. 28. 5, 8. a Breast-plate, an Ephod, a Robe, a broi∣der'd Coat, a Miter—a Girdle, v. 36. a Plate of gold.
• e 1.83

  Hosea 3. 4.
• f 1.84

  LXX. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. sine urim.
• g 1.85

  Doctiss. D. Spenc. in Dis∣sert. de Urim & Thummim, c. 5. sect. 2. p. 251, 252, 253.
• h 1.86

  S. Hier. Tom. 3. ad Dam. p. 117. Seraphim. sic•…•…t in inter∣pret. nom. Hebr. invenimus, Ar∣dor aut Incen∣dium—in∣terpretantur. Tom. 5. p. 29. Seraphim in∣terpretantur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [not the LXX, who in Isa. 6. 2. use 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] quod nos •…•…e pos∣s•…•…, Incen∣dentes seu com∣burent•…•…s.
• i 1.87

  In Judic. c. 17. v. 4. p. 2123. ap. C. M.
• k 1.88

  S. Hi•…•…ron. ad Marcell. Tom. 3. op. p. 72, 73.
• l 1.89

  Exod. 26. 31. With Cheru∣bims shall it be made. Vers. Arab. With Pi∣ctures.
• a 1.90

  S. Hieron in Isa. 6. p. 29. Tom. 5. op. In Cherubim osten∣dit•…•…r Dominus; ex Seraphim ex parte ostenditur, ex parte cela∣tur. Idem. Tom. 3. op. ad Dama∣sum Papam. p. 121. Super Cheru∣bim sedere De∣um, scriptum est—super Se∣raphim verò sedere Deum, nul∣la script. com∣memorat, & ne ipsa quidem Se∣raphim circa Deum stantia, excepto present. loco (viz. Isa. 6.) in SS.—invenimus.
• b 1.91

  Exod. 25. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.
• c 1.92

  Levit. 8. 8.
• a 1.93

  Numb. 2•…•… 6, 8.
• b 1.94

  Deut. 8. 15.
• c 1.95

  Herod. l. 2. p. 132. •…•…ic. de Nat. Deor. l. 1.
• d 1.96

  Isa. 14. 29.
• e 1.97

  Abarb. Com. in Leg. fol. 305. ap. G. Moebi∣um de AEneo Serpente. Exerc. 2. c. 2. sect. 11.
• f 1.98

  Gages Survey of the West-Indics, p. 117.
• g 1.99

  Herodot. in E•…•…ter. p. 132.
• h 1.100

  See Pignor. de M•…•…â Isia∣câ. p. 23.
• a 1.101

  Max. Tyr. dis∣sert. 38. p. 373.
• b 1.102

  Eras. Stel. ad Init. l. 1. de Antiq. Boruss. & samog.
• c 1.103

  See Tertull∣de paescrip. Her. c. 47. p. 220.
• d 1.104

  Kircher in Oe∣dip. synt. 18. p. 508, 509. c. 1.
• e 1.105

  Wisd. 16. 5▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• f 1.106

  See Porphyr. de Abstin. l. 4. p. 155. giving the like reason for the wor∣ship of the E∣g•…•…ptian Hawk.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• g 1.107

  Diod. Sic. l. 3. c. 10. p. 143. See Max. Tyr. diss. 38. p. 373.
• h 1.108

  Voss. de Idol. l. 9. c. 11. p. 234.
• i 1.109

  Pignor. de mensâ Isiaca. p. 24.
• k 1.110

  Herod. l. 2. p. 132. A.
• l 1.111

  Euseb. de praep: l. 1. c. 10. p. 41.
• a 1.112

  Kirch. Oed. Tom. 3 p. 160, 199.
• b 1.113

  Macrob. l. 1. Sat. c. 20. p. 295.
• c 1.114

  See Cartari's Imag. p. 156.
• d 1.115

  Kirch. Sphinx. mystagoga. p. 57.
• e 1.116

  Eus. de praep. Evang. l. 1. c. 10. de Phaen. Theol. p. 41, 42. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• f 1.117

  Elucid. Pseu∣do- Anselmi. l. 1. c. 15. p, 461. Disc. Quamdiu sue∣r•…•…nt in Para∣diso? Mag. Septem[al. Sex] horas.
• a 1.118

  Mr. Mede's Works, p. 292.
• b 1.119

  Oëdip. Egypt. Synt. 3. c. 4.
• c 1.120

  Maimon. More Nevochim. par. 2. c. 30. p. 280.
• d 1.121

  Id. ibid. par. 1. c. 49. p. 73.
• e 1.122

  Isa, 6. 2, 6.
• a 1.123

  Tertull. de Praescr. Haer. p. 220. C.—Iftum suisse ser∣pentem cui Eva, ut filio Dei, cre∣diderat.
• b 1.124

  Id. adv. Val. c. 2. p. 251. Illa [i. e. Columba] a primordio, Divinae Pacis Praeco. Ille [i. e. Serpens] a pri∣mordio, divine Imaginis Prae∣do.
• c 1.125

  Maim. More Nev. par. 3. c. 45. p. 476.
• d 1.126

  S. Hier. in Isa. c. 6. Tom. 4. p. 29.
• e 1.127

  See Doctiss. D. Spenceri Diss. de ur. & Thum. p. 16, 17, 18.
• f 1.128

  Levit. 8. 8.
• a 1.129

  I Sam. 23. 11, 12. The Lord said, [by the Ephod] he will descend,—they will deliver ye up.
• * 1.130

  See, notwith∣standing Dr. Spencer. Dissert. de ur. & Thum. p. 34, &c.
• b 1.131

  Exod. 28. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
• c 1.132

  Numb 21. 8. Ar. Mont. vers. Fac Tibi Sa∣raph.
• a 1.133

  Numb. 21. 8. Lxx. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ar. Mont. super vexillum.
• b 1.134

  Joh. 3. 14.
• c 1.135

  D. Jackson, vol. 2 p. 916, 917, &c.
• * 1.136

  Marius ap. Moëb. de AEn. Serp. Ex. 2, e. 2. Sect. 15.—At{que} ità lig∣num •…•…oc Crucis gessisset figuram, sicuti Christi 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Typum gessit hic S•…•…r∣pens.
• d 1.137

  Wisd. 16. 7. See Chald. Par. in Num. 21. 8. He shall recover if he direct his heart to the Word of the Lord. Targ. Hieros.—If he lift his face to his Fa∣ther in the Hea∣vens.
• a 1.138

  Diod. Sic. l. 1. Bibl. c. 75. p. 66.
• b 1.139

  AEl. var. Hist. l. 14. c. 34.
• c 1.140

  See LXX, & Scalig. de E∣mend. Temp. l. 7. p. 654.
• * 1.141

  Consider Exod. 24. 7.
• a 1.142

  Grot. in Heb. 9. 4. p. 4268. in M. C.
• b 1.143

  Joseph. 8. 2.
• c 1.144

  King. 8. 9.
• d 1.145

  2 Chron. 5. 10.
• e 1.146

  Exod. 16. 33.
• f 1.147

  Numb. 17. 10.
• g 1.148

  Heb. 9. 3, 4.
• h 1.149

  Judg. 18. 12.
• i 1.150

  1 Sam. 28. 6.
• a 1.151

  Diod. Sic. l. 1. c. 87. p. 76.
• * 1.152

  Psal. 119. 142, 151.
• * 1.153

  Psal. 19. 7.
• * 1.154

  Psal. 119. 96.
• b 1.155

  Ecclus. 33. 3. Sec. Vers. LXX. c. 36. 3.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 1.156

  Scal. de E∣mend. Temp. p. 654.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. h. e. tanquam urim & Thum∣mim.
• c 1.157

  Joh. 1. 17.
• d 1.158

  Deut. 33. 8.
• e 1.159

  Munster in Exod. 28. de urim & Thum∣mim Quales fu∣erint Res, nemi∣ni mortalium constat.
• a 1.160

  Josh. 5. 13, 14, 15.
• b 1.161

  See Hen. Va∣lesii not. in Eu∣seb. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 2. p. 7.
• d 1.162

  Usher in An∣nal. vet. Testam. p. 21. Ed. Pa∣ris.
• a 1.163

  See Bisterfeld. contr. Crell. l. 1. Sect. 2. c. 30. p. 298.
• b 1.164

  Psal. 17. 15.
• c 1.165

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d 1.166

  1 Kings 8. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
• e 1.167

  1 King. 8. 12, 13.
• f 1.168

  2 Chron. 6. 1.
• g 1.169

  2 Chron. 5. 13.
• h 1.170

  Matt. 17. 5.
• i 1.171

  1 King. 9. 2.
• k 1.172

  1 King. 3. 5.
• l 1.173

  1 King. 19. 8, 10, 14, 15.
• m 1.174

  S. Hieron. Tom. 5. oper. fol. 211. D.
• n 1.175

  Isai. 6. 1, 2, 3, 4.
• o 1.176

  John 12. 41.
• p 1.177

  See Ezek. 10. 18. c. 11. 23.
• q 1.178

  Cippi Hibrai∣ci. p. 24.
• r 1.179

  Pseudo. Ansel∣mi Elucidar. c. 24. p. 476.