among other arguments, the following: "It is not by any means
necessary to maintain that, in the holy of holies, in the tabernacle or
the temple of Solomon, there was constantly a cloud over the Ark; but
it may be sufficient to say, that the Ark was the symbol of the divine
habitation, and it was for this reason said that God was present in the
place between the Cherubim, because from thence proceeded the
revelation of His will, and He thus proved to the Jews that He was
present." But this view of _Vitringa_, that it was [Pg 386] merely in
an invisible manner that God was present over the Ark of the Covenant,
met with strong opposition; and a note to the second edition shows,
that he himself afterwards entertained doubts regarding it. By
_Thalemann_, a pupil of _Ernesti_, it was afterwards advanced far more
decidedly, and evidently with the intention of carrying it through,
whether it was true or not, in the _Dissertatio de nube super arcam
foederis_ (Leipzig, 1756). He, too, declared, however, that he did not
deny the matter, but only disputed the sign. He found a learned
opponent in _John Eberhard Rau_, Professor at Herborn (_Ravius_, _de
nube super arcam foederis_, Utrecht, 1760; it is a whole book, in which
_Thalemann's_ Treatise is reprinted). The matter is, indeed, very
simple; both parties are right and wrong, and the truth lies between
the two. From the principal passage, in Lev. xvi. 2, it is evident
that, at the annual entry of the High Priest into the holy of holies,
the invisible presence of God embodied itself in a cloud, as formerly
it also did, on extraordinary occasions, during the journey through the
wilderness, and at the dedication of the tabernacle and temple. In that
passage, Aaron is exhorted not to enter the holy of holies at all
times, for that would prove a want of reverence, but only once a year,
"for in the cloud I shall appear over the lid of expiation," (this is
the right explanation of [Hebrew: kprt] compare _Genuineness of the
Pentateuch_, p. 525 f.) The place where God manifests himself in so
visible a manner when the High Priest enters into it, cannot fail to be
a most holy place to him. It is true that _Vitringa_ (S. 171), and
still more _Thalemann_ (S. 39 in _Rau_), have endeavoured to remove
this objection by their interpretation; but with so plain a violation
of all the laws of interpretation, that it is scarcely worth while to
enter farther upon this exposition, (compare the refutatio