say that the Trinity worshipped the Trinity, or any one Person of the Trinity,' i. e. with Divine worship, as a creature worships his Creator; yet it is by no means contrary to the rational and scriptural explanation of an emblematic vision to say, that the hieroglyphical emblems of the whole ever-blessed Trinity fell down and worshipped the hieroglyphical emblem of the God-man, or God who sat on the throne; since such falling down, prostration or worshipping, was the usual symbolical act, as it still is in the east, not only of Divine worship, but of acknowledging the regal power to be in the person so worshipped; and these acts of the CHERUBIC emblems in Rev. v. 8, and xix. 4, mean nothing more than a cession of the administration of all Divine power to Christ, God-man, or a declaration of the Divine persons, by their hieroglyphical representatives, that He must reign, till all his enemies were made his footstool. (Comp. Matt. xxviii. 18; 1 Cor. xv. 23.)

"Bishop Newcome, to whom the public is obliged for what he modestly entitles his ATTEMPTS towards an improved version, &c. of the twelve minor prophets and of Ezekiel, says, in his note on Ezek. i. 10, CHERUBIM cannot represent JEHOVAH because, Rev. iv. 8, and v. 8, 9, they pay worship in heaven.' But what heaven? Even that mentioned Rev. iv. 1, 2, namely, not the place we commonly call heaven, but the

visional heaven, which John, being in the Spirit, saw under the form of a Temple, in which a door was opened. And to borrow the expressions of that excellent commentator Vitringa, on Rev. iv. 1, 'What is here said, is to be understood mystically. For heaven here as in other places of the Revelation (xi. 19; xii. 1, &c.) denotes the whole church of the elect of God; which under the new dispensation, is governed by Christ, the heavenly King, after a heavenly manner; and together with Jerusalem which is above, forms one house of God, the upper part of which is in heaven, the lower on this earth.' In this mystical heaven the CHERUBIC representatives, Rev. iv. 8, 9, do not pay worship, but proclaim the glory of their principals; and, in this same heaven, they also surrender the administration of all Divine power to the Lamb who had been slain.

"As a sequel and continuation of the preceding objection, it may be urged, that in Rev. v. 8, 9, the four animals, as well as the four and twenty elders, confess to the Lamb, saying, Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood;' but this can relate only to some members of the church of God in this world. It can only refer to MEN. Now let us for a moment admit the validity of this objection, and see the consequences of it. For if this is so, then I say that the four CHERUBIC animals, mentioned in chap. iv. which are evidently the same as those in chap. v. must also

represent MEN; and as the emblematic exhibition of the throne and of the four animals, in chap. iv. is plainly similar to that in Ezekiel, i. and x. it follows, that the animals in Ezekiel's vision likewise represented men. But the Prophet (chap. i. 1-20.) knew these to be CHERUBIM, i. e. such four-faced Cherubs were in the holy of holies. From the interpretation of Rev. v. 8, 9, above laid down, then, the conclusion will be, that the CHERUBIM OF GLORY in the holy of holies represented MEN, which is absurd and impossible."

I must now relieve my friends' attention from this long discussion, by assuring him that I am his in the bonds of Christian regard,

LETTER XXI.

INCIDENTAL NOTICES OF THE CHERUBIM.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

In bringing the subject on which I have so long detained you to a conclusion, I am reminded of the direction given by our Lord to his disciples, after he had fed the multitudes by a miracle. He commanded them to "gather up the fragments which remained, that nothing might be lost." Now the fragments of Divine Truth, of "the bread that endureth to everlasting life," are much more valuable than those of "the bread that perisheth ;" and I am therefore solicitous to collect such incidental notices, scattered over the field of Revelation, as may afford additional evidence and illustration in the argument I have been discussing. Such notices are copious; and I shall be unable, consistently with the limits I propose, to produce the whole of them.

The first point, then, to which I solicit your attention, is the manufacture and object of Aaron's golden calf. It is proved, I think, by Vossius, De Idololatria, that the sin of Aaron and

the Israelites was not that of gross idolatry, since the calf was intended to be a symbol of the God of Israel who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. In Acts vii. 40-42, St. Stephen manifestly distinguishes between their first step in error, and their ulterior corruptions in the worship of false Gods.* It will be recollected that one of the CHERUBIC animals was of the beeve kind, and, as we have maintained, the symbol of Fire in the natural Trinity, and so of the First Person, as we speak, in the Deity. Was this incipient corruption of the true faith and worship in the conduct of the Israelites, a species of Deism, or at least, of Antitrinitarianism? I suspect that it was. Such also was that of Jeroboam," who made Israel to sin" by the calves which he set up in Dan and Bethel. (1 Kings xii. 28.) This corruption of Jeroboam is distinguished expressly from the grosser idolatry of after times. (1 Kings xvi. 30-32, and 2 Kings iii. 2, 3.) It was an unauthorised recognition of the true God, by means of symbols imperfect and not Divinely appointed.

The object of Jeroboam is clearly stated. It was wholly of a civil nature. He set up these calves in order to prevent his people from going up to worship at Jerusalem. (1 Kings xii. 28, &c.)

*See Vitringa's Dissertation on Amos v. 25, 26, in his Observationes Sacræ.

See note p. 432.