unknown and unknowable make itself familiar to mortals in these new and curious forms, as blind force playing fantastic tricks that rival the capricious antics of the Grecian Pan; but more than this, the unknown and the unknowable, grown familiar in the skilful hands of Mr. Spencer, outrivals Pan, who indeed became all things, but by hypothesis was himself all things. Mr. Spencer's blind force evolves into more than it was, and what it was not. This ultimate force, in itself unconscious, makes itself conscious by whirling; in itself unintelligent, makes itself intelligent by whirling and whirling; without wisdom or purpose in itself, it makes itself the centre of all wisdom and the perfection of all purpose by fortuitous whirling and whirling; in itself merely physical, at a single bound it leaps into the metaphysical. Material, blind, and unseeing, at a bound it evolves into the mental; at another bound, it evolves into the rational; by continued evolution the blind, unconscious, physical force evolves into mind, rational, moral, spiritual, until, in a maze of wonder, the multitude cry out: "It is a God"; and the high-priests of positivism, with reverential recognition, standing aloof from the wondering crowd, bow down," for the most part in worship of the silent sort." Such is the wonderworking of "modern thought." In phenomenal theorizing, verily, nothing serves so well as a skilful prestidigitator.

If force be declared ultimate,- force persistent, unconscious, unintelligent, then matter must be primary and superior, and evolution must be unoriginated and uncontrolled by a divine mind, subject to blind fate or capricious chance. Either horn of the dilemma would prove fatal. With chance supreme, science were impossible; with fate supreme, moral freedom and moral government were impossible.

If mind is declared ultimate, mind infinite, eternal,then mind is primary and superior; then evolution is originated and controlled by divine wisdom and power, and nature's laws are at the same time efficient and uniform; efficient, because sustained by divine authority; and, although variable according to the divine behest, yet uniform because of the divine faithfulness, which " is unto all generations."

ARTICLE II.

CHERUBIM.

BY REV. GEORGE T. LaDD, MILWAUKEE, WIS.

AMONG the Articles of minor importance which are found in our Dictionaries of the Bible, and which have the quality of unsatisfactory treatment, perhaps none are more conspicuous for this quality than those headed by the word "Cherubim." The quality of treatment results in large measure necessarily from the nature of the subject treated. The symbolism of the Hebrews, like that of all other nations, is obscure in itself, while the evidence necessary to clear up this inherent obscurity is at the best only scantily to be obtained. There are also not wanting readers who will readily believe that those writers, who by long study acquire most profundity in the interpretation of symbolism, are sometimes, for that very reason, less apt to seize the correct interpretation. The questions of the cherubim are more or less questions of symbolism. They are therefore, as a matter of course, somewhat difficult questions.

But the difficulty has, as it seems to us, often been unnecessarily increased by the failure to observe a very plain and important distinction between the earlier Mosaic cherubim and the "living creatures" of prophetic vision. Such a distinction is warranted by the evidence of the text and by the nature of the case. It should be clearly made and faithfully maintained. The nature of the case warrants the distinction. We should not expect that the work which followed a fixed pattern, and was wrought in enduring metal, or as tapestry, would correspond to the ideal productions, which can shift with every new phase of the vision, and which by their nature, both in regard to construction and function, invite constant change. Nor does the text of passages, which furnish

to the critical student his evidence as to the facts, fail to corroborate the impression derived from a consideration of the nature of the case. How clearly indicated in the text is this distinction between the earlier cherubim of the artisan's handiwork and the later cherubim of the prophet's vision, our following examination will, we hope, make apparent.

It would be the usual way of procedure in such inquiries as the present, and at the same time a pleasant and safe way, could we begin by ascertaining the derivation of that word (), the subsequent contents of which it is our purpose to examine. But unfortunately this word has thus far resisted all the power of that great solvent, modern philology. The older writers, among whom may be mentioned Origen and Jerome, were all satisfied with a derivation of the word which have it the meaning "abundance of knowledge," so that even Aquinas could write, "the name seraphim is given from their fervor, as belonging to love; but the name cherubim is given from their knowledge." The modern writers are satisfied each one with his own derivation, but with that of no one else. It is likely that most of those who make domestic and amatory use of the word " cherub" little suspect what trouble its dignified but obscure original has given to scores of philologists and commentators. Investigation, however, reveals this consoling fact, that no theory of its symbolism can well be adopted which will not find support in some one at least of the many meanings which have been discovered for the word. One learned German whose theory of the thing itself would seem to demand a meaning hitherto unventured for the word, has called it a crux interpretum, and summarily dismissed the investigation. We may well follow the example which Bähr set us in his Symbolik.

But if we may not know what the word "cherub" originally meant, is it possible for us to discover what the thing cherub was? On this point our knowledge can be at the most only partial, and in some specialities only such knowledge as consists in an acquaintance with conflicting opinions, amongst the claims of which it is difficult or impossible to

make a satisfactory choice. We shall surely, however, escape much confusion and error if we keep constantly in mind the two following considerations.

And first of the two stands the consideration to which we have already directed attention. We are sharply to distinguish between the "living creatures" of Ezekiel's vision and the cherubim which overshadowed the ark, adorned the curtains, and clung upon the walls of the tabernacle and temple. The latter were fashioned in enduring metal or wrought as tapestry by those who were acquainted with Egypt's temples and palaces. The former passed, repeatedly shifting and fleeting, before one who was surrounded with Assyrian symbolism. The latter, in so far as they are ideal forms realized in wood, gold, and tapestry work, are historical, objective. The former, though they have some points of union with the latter, and thus in some of their elements of composition share in the real, still, as a whole are unhistorical, subjective, and never actualized in any known image or painting. As the former pass before the prophet in his inspired vision, they change and unfold new elements. They serve his purpose, and then vanish, except so far as they obtain for themselves a fixed form in the record of the vision. But they cannot be used, even to prove the conventional form of the cherubim in Ezekiel's time, on the supposition that any such conventional form was in existence a supposition which may seem warranted from the fact that the prophet attributes to his "living creatures" the "face of a cherub." Much less can they be used to settle questions arising in the discussion of the Mosaic cherubim. To treat these strange, changeable creatures of the prophet's vision as though they were historical realities, and, having determined their supposed form and meaning, force them back through many centuries to obscure an account which though meagre is otherwise tolerably plain, is the usual method of investigation.

The reasons for giving such prominence to the distinction between the "living creatures" of Ezekiel and the cherubim of the tabernacle and temple will show themselves more

fully in the progress of the discussion. It is enough, at present, to say that the intent of the description of the cherubim in the two cases is entirely different, and that the things described, in their nearest approaches to similarity, are quite unlike, — certainly in form, and probably also in original and significance.

The second consideration which will assist in avoiding error and confusion is common to all questions of criticism. As we pass from what is plainer to what is more obscure, we are not to let our dubious attempts at a solution of that which is by its nature obscure throw a shadow back over the conclusions which taken by themselves seem trustworthy. Why the cherubim of the artisan's handiwork and the cherubim of the prophet's fantasy should not differ in original, in form, and in significance, we are not prepared to say. That the two did differ in all three particulars, the evidence. clearly shows. To treat the two under one heading is somewhat like writing two Articles under one title.

Bearing these considerations in mind, we have to answer three questions of main importance: What was the form of the cherubim? What was their significance? And whence was their origin?

I. To the question, What was the form of the cherubim ? Meyer replies, we may make our "answer by asking the counter question, How does a thing look that has no fixed form?" To this reply Bähr2 agrees. According to the latter author, the cherubic figure might have one, two, or four faces, two or four feet, one or two pair of wings, and might have the bovine or leonine type as its base. Beginning with the cherubim of Ezekiel's vision, he proves their changefulness of form, and, arguing from these short-lived, ideal existences to the forms which stood in real image-work for centuries, asserts the same characteristic of the Mosaic cherubim. These are, in brief, Bähr's reasons: The cherubim in tapestry-work could not have been conceived like those on the ark, because the latter were statues, the former rather 2 Symbolik. 1. 312.

1 Bibeldent, 179.