of this analogous Rite of the Egyptians, Diodorus Siculus, and Alian. Diodorus fays that the Chief Justice of Ægypt had an Image of precious Stones hanging from his Neck by a golden Chain, which they called Alethea, or Truth. And that the Caufes then began, when the Chief Justice bad fitted to himself this Image of Truth. And Alian relates the fame not much unlike. Of old among the Egyptians the Priests were Judges. And the Chief Judge was the ancientest among them, who gave Judgment to all. Now he of all Men ought to be the most just and impartial. He had an Image about his Neck of Sapphire-ftone, which was called the Image of Truth, And Diodorus adds farther, that after the Litigants had twice given their Libels to the Judges, then the thirty Judges confer among themselves, and the Chief Justice does προστίθεται το ζώδιον τῆς ἀληθείας, apply the Image of Truth to the other Side. Now in all this there is nothing fo like the Urim and Thummim, as does neceffarily evince that this Jewish Custom was derived from the Egyptians. For in Egypt this was the Ornament of the Chief Juftice, among the Jews the Enfigns of the High-Prieft. Among the Jews, it was a standing Oracle to confult in extraor dinary Affairs of State, among the Egyptians used in ordinary Juftice. Nor does it appear to me, that this gyptian Alethea was any more, than an honorary Enfign of the chief Judge, who could not regularly perform his Office without it, and had nothing more Oracular in it than a Serjeant's Coif, or an Alderman's Chain. And Petrus Vallenfis, in a Letter wrote from Grand Cairo, seems to have feen a Mummy of one of thefe old Judges, which does afcertain the Figure of the Egyptian Alethea. Where he fays he had feen a Mummy, about whofe Neck a golden Collar was painted, hanging from his Neck like the Knights of the golden Fleece. And in the Middle, upon his Breaft, was the Reprefentation of a Plate of Gold, with the Figure of a Bird upon it, Epift. 18. Now this is very different from the Urim and Thummim of the High-Prieft, which was made of Cloth befet with precious Stones. All the Difficulty is what Diodorus means by his plying the Alethea to the contrary Side.

old, by apNow fince no History

History mentions any Thing oracular in this; we cannot fancy it more than only fome Hieroglyphical Memento to the Judges, of the Regard they ought to bear to Juftice and Truth; or to the Witneffes or Litigants, which the Chief Justice did often exhibit to them, to put them in Mind of their Duty. But you will fay, how then came the Jews to have an Ufage fo very like the Egyptian, if they did not learn it from thence? Why, I anfwer, it was a common Enfign of Honour in all Nations, to wear a golden Chain, and many other People have used it as well as the Jews and the Egypti ans. Thus not only. Pharaoh, when he had a Mind to advance Jofeph to Honour, and a Place of great Truft, put a Chain of Gold about his Neck, Gen. xli. 42. but the King of Babylon did the fame to Daniel, Dan. v. 29. For as Crowns and Scepters in all Nations have been Enfigns of the Regal Authority; fo are Gold-Chains and Rings Tokens of the higher Honour, and used not only by the Eaftern Satrapa, but even by the noble Gauls in the Weft. As is evident by what Pliny relates of the Rife of the Family of the Torquati at Rome from the first Torquatus, who was called fo from killing a noble Gaul, and taking his Chain from him yet reeking with Blood, and putting it about his own Neck. Now what great Occafion for Wonder is there, that the Chief Juftice of Egypt had a Chain, with a remarkable Medal appendant to it different from other Nobles? Or why might not the Jewish High-Prieft hang his Breaft-plate by a golden Chain, without going to Egypt for the Invention? For any other Nation could have taught that wonderful Contrivance as well as the Egyptian. And as to the Appendants, there is fo little Agreement between them, viz. a Cloth a Span fquare befet with Jewels, and a golden Medal reprefenting the Figure of a Bird, that one of thefe can hardly be faid to have given Rife to the other.

Plin. Hift. Lib. 20.

ments not

gypt.

Priefts Li. 3. As for your borrowing the Ufe of Linen only for nen Gar- the Garments of the Priefts; I think the juft contrary from thereof is true, and that the Jews in this were rather perfectly oppofite to the Egyptians, than their Imitators. The Breaft-plate and Robe of the Jewish High-Priest were ordered to be made of Scarlet, Blue and purple woolen Cloth, only embroidered with Wreaths of fine" Linen. But the Ufe of woolen Cloth was, as Plutarch fays, execrable to the Ægyptian Priests. de If. & Ofyr. And Herodotus tells us, that they wore only Linen, and Shooes of the Papyrus, and that it is unlawful to them to use any other Garment or Shooes. But the Jewish High-Prieft's Robes were rather like the Babylonians, than the Egyptians. For of the Babylonians, Herodotus writes thus, This is the Fashion of their Clothing. They use a linen Garment down to their Ankles, over this they put on another of Wool, and over all a xxavidov, a † kind of a short white Coat, which does exactly refemble the Ephod. And befides he relates this of the Laity among the Egyptians, That they wear linen Coats fringed about the Legs, which they call Calafyris, over this they put white woollen Garments, but they do not come into the Temples with them, nor are buried in them, that being profane. Now to take all this together, it seems rather that Mofes's Laws concerning the facerdotal Robes, were given in pure Oppofition to the Ægyptians; by ordering that the Jewish High-Prieft, the moft facred Perfon of all, fhould wear fome of his Garments of Linen, and others of Woollen, like the ordinary Egyptians in their common Converfation; and that the fubordinate Priefts fhould be dreft in the Temple, but like the common Laity in Egypt.

Nor the

4. And fo for the Figure of the Cherubim, there is as Cherubim, little Ground for the pretended Imitation in this as the other. There is no conftat in any Records of the Ægyp tian Antiquities, that there was any Thing among them like a Mercy-Seat or Covering over the Ark, adorned with fuch like Figures. I think there is no Neceffity,

★ Herod. Lib. 2. c. 37.

+ Id. Lib. 1.

to

to affert, that this Covering of the Ark was to be abfohutely plain, without any Manner of Sculpture. And if the Figure of fomething must be engraved, why not the Figure of Cherubim, at well as any Thing else? Do you think that Imagery was proper only to the Egyptians? Or do you think, that all Nations in the World must be beholden to them to make a Figure of any Thing? Had not they Eyes to behold Poftures, and Fancies to delineate them, without going to Egypt for them? Nay, is there not in this Ordinance a particular Oppofition to the Egyptian Idolatry? For their Temples were generally filled with the Images of Monkeys and Calves and Serpents, the Representations of real Animals, which according to the natural Deifm of thofe Times, they fancied to be Parts or Exhibitions of the Deity, and had fupreme Worship given them. But Mofes here orders Figures to be made, which had little or no Refemblance of any Thing in the World; and therefore Jofephus fays*, they had a form δὲν τῶν ὑπ ̓ ἀνθρώπων έωρακίνων

Ano, like nothing that is feen by Men. Their Images had divine Worship paid to them, and Temples confecrated to their Honour; but these by the Mofaick Inftitution were made fubfervient to the fupreme Deity, and conftituted Attendants upon his Mercy-feat; as it were in Defpight to the Egyptian Polytheism, fhewing that these were the Reprefentations only of Angelick Natures, who were so far from being Gods, that they were only God's miniftring Spirits. What was the particular Figure of these Cherubim, at this Distance is hard to imagine. Indeed Grotius and others have very ingeniously conjectured from the Creatures feen by Ezekiel in his Vifions, Ezek. i. 5. and 10, 15. which he calls Cheru bim, that they had the Face of a Man, the Wings of an Eagle, the Mane of a Lion, and the Feet of an Ox. And by this Grotius will have the Difpenfations of the Divine Providence by the Miniftry of Angels fymbolically reprefented; the Lion reprefenting the Severity of his

Antiq. Lib. 3. Cap. 6.

Justice,

Nor the Ark.

Justice, the Eagle the Celerity of his Bounty; the Mari his Goodness and Mercy; and the Ox the Slowness of his Punishment, which comes, (as the Greek Proverb fays) Boei modi, with an Ox's Foot. Whether or no the Angelick Appearances in this Form were common to the Patriarchs, I fhall not now difpute; but the Ideas of the Cherubim feems to have been ordinary enough among the Jews, by Mofes's not defcribing them as he does other Things; and were as well known as the Painting among us of an Angel, in the Figure of a beautiful tall Youth with Wings. Among all the Egyptian Representations I do not find any Thing like this to reprefent the AngeLick Natures; and therefore 'tis in vain to bring in their other Simulacra woλuuogoa, which were Hieroglyphicks of their Ofyris, Ifis, &c. which they worshiped not as Angelick Natures, depending upon the fupreme Deity, but as fempiternal Deities themselves. Neither need we grant, that this Hieroglyphical or Symbolical Imagery was at all owing to the Egyptians, more than to other Nations, that fort of enigmatical Reprefentation, being in Ufe over all the eastern Countries, and even the Teraphim in Ufe in the Patriarch's Time, Gen. xxxi. 19. And as for the Image of Sphinx which was frequently pictured upon the Doors of the Egyptian Temples, as Clemens Alex. relates, Strom. L. 5. that cannot be conceived in any Wife to have contributed an Origin to the Cherubim, not only because they were fituated in a quite different Place; but because the Occafion of the Sphinx being painted there, was to be an Hieroglyphick, that a great many of the Ceremonies in their Temples were enigmatical, and had another hidden Meaning more than their outward one did declare.

5. Indeed Dr. Spencer has amaffed together an Abun dance of Learning to prove, that the Egyptians, and ancient Idolaters made Ufe of a Cifta, an Ark or Cheft, in their Superftitions. That the Stolifte *, or those of Offris's Wardrobe, made Ufe of a Cheft or Ark; which

Plut. de Ifid.

any.