Chapter XXII.—The Brazen Serpent and the Golden Cherubim Were Not Violations of the Second Commandment. Their Meaning.

Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all material exhibition642    Substantiam. of a latent643    Cæcæ. idolatry. For He adds: “Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them.” The form, however, of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards commanded Moses to make, afforded no pretext644    Titulum. [See Vol. II. p. 477, this series.] for idolatry, but was meant for the cure of those who were plagued with the fiery serpents.645    Num. xxi. 8, 9. I say nothing of what was figured by this cure.646    See John iii. 14. Thus, too, the golden Cherubim and Seraphim were purely an ornament in the figured fashion647    Exemplum. of the ark; adapted to ornamentation for reasons totally remote from all condition of idolatry, on account of which the making a likeness is prohibited; and they are evidently not at variance with648    Refragari. this law of prohibition, because they are not found in that form649    Statu. of similitude, in reference to which the prohibition is given. We have spoken650    In chap. xviii. towards the end. [p. 311, supra.] of the rational institution of the sacrifices, as calling off their homage from idols to God; and if He afterwards rejected this homage, saying, “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?”651    Isa. i. 11.—He meant nothing else than this to be understood, that He had never really required such homage for Himself. For He says, “I will not eat the flesh of bulls;”652    Ps. l. 13. and in another passage: “The everlasting God shall neither hunger nor thirst.”653    An inexact quotation of Isa. xl .28. Although He had respect to the offerings of Abel, and smelled a sweet savour from the holocaust of Noah, yet what pleasure could He receive from the flesh of sheep, or the odour of burning victims? And yet the simple and God-fearing mind of those who offered what they were receiving from God, both in the way of food and of a sweet smell, was favourably accepted before God, in the sense of respectful homage654    Honorem. to God, who did not so much want what was offered, as that which prompted the offering. Suppose now, that some dependant were to offer to a rich man or a king, who was in want of nothing, some very insignificant gift, will the amount and quality of the gift bring dishonour655    Infuscabit. to the rich man and the king; or will the consideration656    Titulus. of the homage give them pleasure? Were, however, the dependant, either of his own accord or even in compliance with a command, to present to him gifts suitably to his rank, and were he to observe the solemnities due to a king, only without faith and purity of heart, and without any readiness for other acts of obedience, will not that king or rich man consequently exclaim: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? I am full of your solemnities, your feast-days, and your Sabbaths.”657    See Isa. i. 11–14. By calling them yours, as having been performed658    Fecerat seems the better reading: q.d. “which he had performed,” etc. Oehler reads fecerant. after the giver’s own will, and not according to the religion of God (since he displayed them as his own, and not as God’s), the Almighty in this passage, demonstrated how suitable to the conditions of the case, and how reasonable, was His rejection of those very offerings which He had commanded to be made to Him.

CAPUT XXII.

Proinde et similitudinem vetans fieri omnium quae in coelo et in terra et in aquis, ostendit et caussas, idololatriae scilicet substantiam cohibentes . Subjicit enim: Non adorabitis, neque servietis illis. Serpentis autem aenei effigies,. postea praecepta Mosi a Domino, non ad idololatriae titulum pertinebat, sed ad remediandos eos qui a serpentibus infestabantur. 0310B Et taceo de figura remedii Sic et Cherubim et Seraphim aurea in arcae figuratum exemplum, certe simplex ornamentum, accommodata suggestui, longe diversas habendo caussas ab idololatriae conditione, ob quam similitudo prohibetur, non videntur similitudinum prohibitarum legi refragari, non in eo similitudinis statu deprehensa, ob quem similitudo prohibetur. Diximus de sacrificiorum rationali institutione, avocantis scilicet ab idolis ad Deum officia ea, quae si rursus ejecerat, dicens (Ps. I, 11): Quo mihi multitudinem sacrificiorum vestrum? hoc ipsum voluit intelligi, quod non sibi ea proprie exegisset: Non enim bibam, inquit (Ps. XLIX, 13), sanguinem taurorum; quia et alibi ait (Is., XL, 28): Deus aeternus non esuriet, nec sitiet. Nam etsi ad oblationes Abel advertit , 0310C et holocausta Noe odoratus est libenter , quae jucunditas sive viscerum vervecinorum, sive nidoris ardentium victimarum? Sed animus simplex et Deum metuens offerentium ea quae a Deo habebant, et pabuli et suavis olentiae gratia apud Deum deputabatur, non quae fiebant exigentis, sed illud propter quod fiebant, ob honorem scilicet Dei. Si cliens diviti aut regi nihil desideranti, tamen aliquid vilissimi munusculi obtulerit, quantitas et qualitas muneris infuscabit divitem et regem, an delectabit titulus officii? At si cliens ei munera ultro, vel etiam dicto ordine suo offerat, et solemnia regis observet, non ex fide tamen, nec corde puro, nec pleno circa caetera quoque obsequia, nonne consequens ut rex ille vel 0311A dives exclamet: Quo mihi multitudinem munerum tuorum? plenus sum; et: Solemnitates, et dies festos , et vestra sabbata odit anima mea . Vestra dicendo, quae secundum libidinem suam, non secundum religionem Dei celebrando , sua jam, non Dei, fecerant, conditionalem idcirco et rationalem demonstravit recusationem eorum quae administranda praescripserat.