CHAPTER XXV.

1 What the Israelites must offer for the making of the tabernacle. 10 The form of the ark. 17 The mercy seat, with the cherubims. 23 The table, with the furniture thereof. 31 The candlestick, with the instruments thereof.

AND the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they 'bring me an offering of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering.

3 And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass, 4 And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and 'fine linen, and goats' hair,

5 And rams skins dyed red, and badgers' skins, and shittim wood,

6 Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense,

7 Onyx stones, and stones to be set in the 'ephod, and in the "breastplate.

8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

9 According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

10 And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof.

Il And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about.

12 And thou shalt cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in the four corners thereof; and two rings shall be in the one side of it, and two rings in the other side of it.

13 And thou shalt make staves of shittim. wood, and overlay them with gold.

14 And thou shalt put the staves into the rings by the sides of the ark, that the ark may be borne with them.

15 The staves shall be in the rings of the ark they shall not be taken from it.

16 And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee.

17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof.

18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of

1 Heb. take for me. 2 Or, heave offering. 8 Or, of the matter of the mercy seat.

20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.

22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from 'between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

23 Thou shalt also make a table of shittim wood: two cubits shall be the length thereof, and a cubit the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof.

24 And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, and make thereto a crown of gold round about.

25 And thou shalt make unto it a border of an hand breadth round about, and thou shalt make a golden crown to the border thereof round about.

26 And thou shalt make for it four rings. of gold, and put the rings in the four corners that are on the four feet thereof.

27 Over against the border shall the rings be for places of the staves to bear the table.

28 And thou shalt make the staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold, that the table may be borne with them.

29 And thou shalt make the dishes thereof, and spoons thereof, and covers thereof, and bowls thereof, "to cover withal: of pure gold shalt thou make them.

30 And thou shalt set upon the table shewbread before me alway.

31 T2And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold of beaten work shall the candlestick be made: his shaft, and his branches, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, shall be of the same.

32 And six branches shall come out of the sides of it; three branches of the candlestick out of the one side, and three branches of the candlestick out of the other side:

3 Chap. 35. 5.

9 Num. 7. 99.

5 Chap. 28. 4. 6 Chap. 28. 15. 11 Or, to pour out withal.

7 Chap. 37. 1. 12 Chap. 37. 17.

33 Three bowls made like unto almonds, with a knop and a flower in one branch; and three bowls made like almonds in the other branch, with a knop and a flower: so in the six branches that come out of the candlestick.

34 And in the candlestick shall be four bowls made like unto almonds, with their knops and their flowers.

35 And there shall be a knop under two branches of the same, and a knop under two branches of the same, and a knop under two branches of the same, according to the six branches that proceed out of the candlestick.

36 Their knops and their branches shall be of the same: all of it shall be one beaten work of pure gold.

37 And thou shalt make the seven lamps thereof: and they shall light the lamps thereof, that they may give light over against 1it.

38 And the tongs thereof, and the snuffdishes thereof, shall be of pure gold.

39 Of a talent of pure gold shall he make it, with all these vessels.

40 And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the

mount.

16.

16 Heb. which thou wast caused to see.

Verse 2. Speak unto the children of Israel,' etc.-As we are now to enter upon the illustration of the ritual institutions which the Lord judged suitable for the Hebrew people, our attention is called to a preliminary question of considerable interest, and by which much discussion has been first and last provoked, that is, to what extent the ceremonial observances, and especially the forms and apparatus of divine worship, were similar to those of the Egyptians; and, if a similarity existed, whether the imitation was with the Hebrews or the Egyptians?

The view which, after much anxious consideration, the present writer was led to take of this interesting question, was put forth in 1839 in the chapter, the Law,' in the Pictorial History of Palestine. Since then several authors of great credit in this country and abroad have signified more or less distinctly their adhesion to similar interpretations. And as the evidence rests on facts, capable of being manifested to the eye, and therefore difficult for any unprejudiced mind to resist, it may be confidently expected that this which was a few years since the exceptional opinion, will ere long become, if it be not already, the current interpretation, and will be received as an important addition to the resources for scriptural illustration which have in our own time been opened up. As it is necessary that the reader should possess the clue to the Egyptian illustration, which it is our intention to introduce; we shall here produce it in some remarks taken, with slight alteration, from the work to which we have referred.

That a degree of similarity did exist, in some particulars, was early discovered by those scholars who had made themselves acquainted with as much as could formerly be known (through the reports of Greek and Latin writers) of the Egyptian rites and institutions. Maimonides, although a Jew, and an ardent advocate of the divine origin and anti-idolatrous object of the Mosaical system, notices this similarity, and attributes a designed imitation to that system on grounds which he explains and justifies. The same view has been ably elaborated and sustained by various writers, among which are Sir John Marsham, and, above all, the eminently learned Spencer, in his great work De Legibus Hebræorum; and after him by Moses Lowman and others. Another class of Biblical scholars seemed to start with pain at the idea of such an imitation, and consider it a point of religious duty to contend for the originality of every pin of the tabernacle, and of every thread in the dress of the high-priest. They have argued either that there was no such similarity in the opposite party alleged; or that, although some similarities might be found, they must be accounted for by the supposition that the Egyptians borrowed from the Hebrews; or that, all the analogies which can be discovered were ori

ginally derived from patriarchal usages or tradition. On this side occur such names as those of Witsius, Meyer, and, more lately, of Dr. Woodward and Dr. Wait: and it may be observed that until very recently the views of the great majority of writers who have occasion to notice the question take this direction.

Now this question has until recently continued to be argued entirely upon its original grounds. The advocates of the alleged imitation have gone on illustrating the arguments of Spencer, or adducing further proofs from eminent writers; and their opponents have proceeded copying Witsius, or following his line of argument and evidence,both parties appearing to be utterly unconscious of the new sources of evidence which have been opened within the present century, and by which the state of the question has been entirely altered, from one of argument to one of fact. These sources are found in the ancient paintings and sculptures of Egypt, which exhibit, with great minuteness of detail, not only the military and civil usages of that extraordinary nation, but portray all the rites and ceremonies of their religion, with all the acts which were performed, all the utensils which were employed, and all the dresses and ornaments which were worn by the Egyptian priesthood, in the services of their gods. Now, with reference to this last class of subjects, it is clear that they must afford ample materials for settling the question as to similarity at least. For one who has made himself acquainted with the minute descriptions of the tabernacle, the utensils of worship, and the priestly attire, which are given in the books of Moses, will easily be able to recognise the resemblances or differences which the Egyptian monuments offer. The result will set the question at rest by establishing, beyond all further dispute, that very important similarities do exist, and which can be denied by no one without betraying great ignorance of plain matters of fact.

A selection of the facts by which this similarity is established will presently be offered: and meanwhile the question arises, How this similarity was produced? We | sce not, ourselves, how to avoid the conclusion that some Egyptian practices were admitted into the Hebrew ritual.

In the first place, the points in which analogies have been found are too numerous and too peculiar to have been the result of accidental coincidence.

They could not have had a common origin in patriarchal practice, for that practice had no ritual from which such analogous usages could be transmitted.

Those who suppose that the Egyptians copied the similar practices from the Hebrews, fix upon the time of Joseph's power and popularity, as that when such imitation was most likely to have taken place. But it is forgotten that the Hebrews had then none of those ritual

observances for the Egyptians to imitate, nor, indeed, until after they had left Egypt. It would be difficult to assign any subsequent date to the imitation. The Hebrew ritual, as exhibited in the wilderness, was not likely to be well known to the Egyptians; or, if known, was it at all probable that this proud and highly civilized people would imitate the ritual of their escaped bondmen, against whom their minds were probably in a state of high exasperation? And, after the Israelites had entered the Promised Land, it was not until the time of Solomon that the Hebrew ritual exhibited a sufficiently imposing appearance to attract the attention of the Egyptians. The intercourse which then existed between the two countries, and the marriage of the Hebrew king to an Egyptian princess, would point to this reign as by far the most favourable date for such an imitation. But then-the sculptures and paintings from which we obtain the knowledge that analogies did actually exist, date much earlier than the time of Solomon-some of them, even earlier than the departure of the Israelites from Egypt. This, as we take it, is conclusive against any imitation of the Hebrew ritual by the Egyptians.

Such an imitation would indeed be most improbable on almost every ground on which it could be considered. The Egyptians were an old nation, organized in all its institutions, including-we have not the least reason to doubt-its religious institutions and ceremonies, long be fore the Israelites received their ritual system; and since, their hatred and absolute prohibition of innovation and change in all that they had organised, has been in all time notorious, the supposed imitation would, à priori, be most unlikely, even were their relations with the Israelites equal and amicable, which they certainly were not.

As only visible things were capable of being so represented as to furnish that positive proof of similarity to which we have adverted, we shall not insist upon similarities which do not admit of this degree of proof; although, certainly, since the existence of these establishes the general principle of accommodation, the existence of other instances, not susceptible of the same kind of proof, becomes the more probable, when properly supported by other considerations.

We have now only to state the considerations which may be presumed to have determined that degree of accommodation to Egyptian usages which we shall presently endeavour to substantiate by ocular proof. And, in the first instance, it may be well to hear Maimonides :-'As at that time the universal practice and the mode of worship in which all were educated was, that various kinds of animals should be offered in the temples in which their idols were placed, and before whom their worshippers were to prostrate themselves and to burn incense; and as there were also certain persons set apart for the service of those temples (which, as has been already shown, were erected in honour of the sun and moon, and other planetary bodies), therefore that divine wisdom and providence of God, which so eminently shines forth in all his creatures, did not ordain the abandonment or abolition of all such worship. For it is the well-known disposition of the human heart to cleave to that to which it has been habituated, even in things to which it is not naturally inclined. To have decreed the entire abolition of all such worship would, therefore, have been the same as if a prophet should come and say, "It is the command of God, that in the day of trouble ye shall not pray, nor fast, nor publicly seek him; but your worship shall be purely mental, and shall consist in meditation, not in action." On these accounts the Creator retained those modes of worship, but transferred the veneration from created things and shadows to his own NAME, and commanded us to direct our religious services to HIMSELF. This learned Jew then goes on to illustrate by examples the view he takes; and this view seems just in itself, while it is amply confirmed by evidence which did not exist, or rather had not been brought to light, at the time he wrote.

That, during their sojourn in Egypt, the Israelites had departed very widely from the patriarchal faith, and that the pomps, processions, and imposing ordinances of that

country had usurped a powerful influence over their minds, is not only likely in itself, but is demonstrated by the sad affair of the golden calf, and by subsequent manifestations of a tendency towards the idolatries of Egypt. Then the worship of Egypt was full of rites, ceremonies, and apparatus, which, while they were considered as in themselves suitable, were also made symbolical of hidden mysteries, as was the case with the rites of all pagan systems. Now, the symbolical or typical nature of the Hebrew ritual is allowed on all hands, and is in the fullest sense admitted by the present writer. Yet we know not that any one has alleged that the heathen borrowed their symbolizations from the Jews, although the similarity is as great in this as in any other matter.

Thus the Hebrews, in their defection to the religion of the Egyptians, had necessarily become habituated to a highly ceremonial and symbolical worship, whereby their minds may well be supposed to have been incapacitated from wholly returning to the plain and simple system of their fathers. The apostle Paul manifestly assigns the origin of the law to some defection of this nature. Wherefore, then, serveth the law?' he asks; and answers,' It was added because of transgressions.' (Gal. iii. 19.)

In this state of the case, and after the people had unequivocally evinced their tendencies by the feast of the golden calf, it seems natural and probable that a ceremonial and symbolical form of worship should be conceded to them-as like as might be, in its mere external forms, to that which they were predisposed to follow-but directed to wholly different objects, and carefully purified from all that might, even in remote tendency, lead to idolatrous or unholy associations and practices. Such a course was in unison with those accommodations to the ideas and prejudices of the people, of which other examples might be produced. We may the less hesitate about this, when we reflect that the ritual law, as a whole, was only intended for a particular people, and for temporary purposes; and we have only a right to expect to find that it was good and suitable for its immediate objects. This made it the best under all the circumstances; and a system better absolutely-as having larger objects, and as being adapted to all times and all people-would have been unsuitable and bad for the limited purpose of the Mosaical Law.

And

Then, under these considerations, regarding the ritual law as an accommodation to the prejudices and dangers of the Hebrews who, as a people, were obviously not prepared to receive moral precepts and religious doctrines apart from the ceremonial observances and symbolical appendages in which the greater part of the world had then agreed to envelope them, we shall see occasion to admire the wisdom with which the system founded on this concession was adapted to their condition and capacities, and was moulded into a safeguard against idolatry, and made an instrument of assisting that separation of this people from all others, which was one of the essential conditions of their existence as the chosen race. The manner in which its circumstances were framed to shadow forth the more broad and spiritual dispensation which was to follow, invested it in some degree with a spiritual character, which we shall hereafter have occasion to notice. then, in order to keep the nature of the community constantly in view, all the ceremonial institutions had reference to God, not only as the sovereign of the universe, but as the King of the nation. The Israelites were taught to feel that the tabernacle was not only the temple of JEHOVAH, but the palace of their KING; that the table supplied with wine and shew-bread was the royal table; that the altar was the place where the provisions of the monarch were prepared; that the priests were the royal servants, and were bound to attend not only to sacred but also to secular affairs, and were to receive, as their reward, the first tithes, which the people, as subjects, were led to consider as part of the revenue which was due to God, their immediate sovereign. Other things, of a less prominent and important nature, had reference to the same great end. (Exod. xxv. 8, 9; Lev. xxi. 6, 8, 17; Num. 241

xxviii. 2; Deut. xxiii. 4; compare Ezek. xliv. 7; and see Jahn's Biblical Archaeology, sect. 214.)

3. This is the offering.'-The particulars of this offering are more fully detailed in ch. xxxv., and the amount of the whole is summed up in xxxviii. 21, etc. From these different passages it appears that half a shekel of silver was levied on every man above twenty years of age; besides which, every one who was so inclined made voluntary offerings. Moses assembled the congregation (xxxv. 4), and mentioned what classes of articles would be required for the work of the tabernacle; and those persons who possessed any of the articles needed, offered so liberally that more than enough was soon obtained, and Moses then forbade anything further to be brought (xxxvi. 5-7). The articles required were so various in character and value, that there was room for almost every person to testify his zeal by some offering or other. The wealthy could bring precious stones and gold, while the poorer sort might furnish the skins and spun hair of goats. The women, it appears (xxxv. 26), exerted themselves in spinning the goats' hair for the tent coverings, as women do to this day in the encampments of the Bedouin Arabs.

The statement in chap. xxxviii. 24-31, is very important, as enabling us to form some idea of the expense of this costly fabric. It is there said that the gold weighed 29 talents and 730 shekels; the silver, raised by a poll-tax of half a shekel, was 100 talents and 1775 shekels; and the brass (more probably copper), 70 talents and 2400 shekels. This enables us to form the following calculation, estimating the talent of 3000 shekels at 125 lbs. troy weight:

Gold, at 41. per ounce.
Silver, at 5s. per ounce
Brass (or copper), at 1s. 3d. per Ib.
avoirdupois

Total

£ s. d. 175,460 0 0 37,721 17 6

138 60

6

£213,320 3 Now we have to consider that this is the value of only the raw material of the metals employed in the structure of the tabernacle; and when we add the value of the wood, the curtains, the dress of the high-priest with its breastplate of precious stones, the dresses of the common priests, and the workmanship of the whole-it must be considered a moderate estimate if we regard the total expense of this fabric as not less than 250,000l., however much more it may have been. This mode of estimating value is, however, very fallacious, on account of the difference in the real value of the precious metals in different times and countries. There are no very accurate data on which we might be enabled to estimate the actual value of those metals to the Israelites themselves. In Western Asia, at present, the precious metals have a much higher actual value than in Europe; and, judging from existing and past analogies, we might infer that the tabernacle was much more costly at the time of its erection, than it would even appear under estimates framed with reference to the present value of the precious metals. But, on the other hand, it is not impossible that, in Arabia and Egypt, gold and silver were even of much less value than at the present time. Although it is true that mines of gold or silver are not now known or worked in Arabia, we are not bound to reject the concurrent testimony of the ancient writers, whose statements, after allowing for exaggeration, purport that the precious metals were there more abundant than in any other known country, and were indeed so common as to remind us of things as the Spaniards found them in Mexico and Peru. Diodorus mentions a river in Deba (Hedjaz) that abounded in small lumps of most beautiful gold. Arrian, Strabo, Agatharchides, and others, describe in glowing terms the wealth of the settled Arabians in precious metal. The pillars of their houses were resplendent with gold and silver (like the pillars of the tabernacle); they had vessels and domestic utensils of the same metals; and their persons were profusely adorned with various oriental ornaments, composed of the same substances, and also of precious stones. It is even said

that gold was in such plenty that it was but thrice the value of brass, and only twice that of iron; while silver was regarded as ten times more valuable than gold. If only a small part of this were true, we need not be astonished at the vast quantity of precious metal which the Hebrews seem to have possessed. But this may otherwise be accounted for, by recollecting that the property which the patriarchs left to their posterity was very considerable, and had doubtless been increased during their abode in Egypt; and that, besides this, there were the valuable articles which they demanded of the Egyptians at their departure, the spoil taken from the king and warriors drowned in the Red Sea, and the further spoil which we may suppose to have been obtained from the defeated Amalekites.

5. Badgers' skins.'-This is a most unfortunate translation, seeing that the badger is unknown in southwestern Asia, and has not yet been found out of Europe. The word translated badger is n tachash; and never occurs but to indicate this skin covering of the tabernacle, except in Ezek. xvi. 10, where the shoes of women are said to be made of it. The ancient interpreters understand by it a colour given to the leather, Sept. vaxivowa; Aquila and Symmachus, lávova; Chaldee and Syriac, rubra; and these are followed by Bochart. (Hierozoicon, i. 989.) But this is mere conjecture, having no support either in the etymology or in the kindred dialects. On the other hand, all the Jewish interpreters state the tachash to have been an animal, the skins of which were used for covering the tabernacle, and also for shoes or sandals: and to this conclusion we assent. But it is not easy to arrive at a determination respecting the sort of animal indicated. A large number of interpreters think it was some kind of fish, and Gesenius, with many others, is in favour of the seal, which, he says, we know not why, has much affinity with the badger. If the word has anything to do with badgers, we may as well even take it to indicate the badger itself; but if it does not denote a badger, the seal is not more probably the true animal from having any affinities with a badger, which affinities have, however, no existence but in the mind of the writer. Besides seals, as well as several other aquatic animals in which the tachash has been sought, do not exist in the Indian, the Arabian, or the Persian Seas; nor is it probable that in remote ages they frequented the south-eastern extremity of the Mediterranean, where the current sweeps all things northward; and still less that they nestled in the lakes of the Delta, where crocodiles then abounded. Still, a covering of fish skin might have been very suitable for protecting the rich envelopes of the holy edifice from wet; and Niebuhr mentions a species of dolphin (delphinus) or porpoise known in the Red Sea, and called by the Arabs tuhash and dukash, which may deserve consideration, seeing that the same people make small round bucklers, and sandal soles of the hout's skins, which is a cetaceous animal, perhaps identical with that of Niebuhr, if both do not resolve themselves into that which Ehrenberg first accurately distinguished and described under the name of Halicora Hemprichii. The Arabs of Sinai at this day make their sandals of its skin; which, however, is perhaps too thick and clumsy for the female shoes spoken of in Ezek. xvi. 10. If the animal was not an aquatic creature, but a quadruped, the range of indeterminate inquiry is too extensive to bring us to any satisfactory conclusion. It must probably have been a clean animal, of some kind or other, as we can scarcely suppose that the skin of an unclean animal would be used for the sacred coverings. This consideration alone would dispose of the badger, and of many other animals that have been suggested by different interpreters.

the nt, for euphony and easier pronunciation. The Arabs pronounce the Egyptian name as sont, and apply it to a species of acacia (Acacia seyal), which grows rather abundantly in the valleys of Arabia Petræa. There is little doubt that this was the Hebrew Shittim, unless indeed the word be a general term for acacias in general. We think it likely that it denoted both the A. seyal and A. gummifera, which are both abundant in this region. These are the species that yield the gum arabic.

The

A. seyal grows to the height of twenty or twenty-five feet, and affords a wood better suited than any other this region yields for the purposes of the Israelites. The Arabs of Sinai peninsula burn it into charcoal, which they take for sale to Egypt, where fuel of every kind is very scarce.

9. The tabernacle.' - Temples certainly existed in Egypt, and, very possibly, in Palestine, before the date of the Exode. It is, however, evident that the Israelites were not in a condition to erect a temple until they were settled in the Promised Land; and if, therefore, they were during their sojournings to have any analogous fabric, it must needs be such as they could transfer from one place to another. Such was the tabernacle. Many considerations might be adduced to show the probability that sacred tents or tabernacles were not previously unknown among nomade nations. The opinion as to the absolute originality of this fabric, and of the things which belonged to it, might in former times be safely entertained, but, in the present comparatively advanced state of our information, is no longer tenable. We believe, most truly, that the tabernacle was made according to the model or pattern' shown to Moses in the mount. The exhibition of such a model was necessary, that he might learn what parts of analogous fabrics ought to be avoided, and what might safely be adopted; but it does not, therefore, follow that this fabric was to be unlike anything that had been previously seen. We quite relinquish the illustrations of similarity which have been adduced by previous writers-and forego the support which might seem to be offered by Amos, v. 26 and Acts vii. 40, which describe the Israelites as bearing idol tabernacles in the wilderness; because we think that they were not such tabernacles as that to which our attention is now turned, but rather shrines borne about entire, such as we meet with in all idolatrous nations, and which generally contained an image or symbol of the god. It is, however, wrong to say there was nothing like it-and that the tabernacle was the only fabric which had to be taken to pieces, in order to be removed, and the only one which was not merely a tent (allowing these were sacred tents), but a wooden frame-work, covered with skins and cloths. It might easily be shown how natural it was that there should be sacred tents among a nomade people; and even at this day among a people to whom, least of all, any communication with the Jews can be traced, namely, the eastern Tartars, the sacred tabernacles are, like their own dwellings, made of a frame-work of wood, with a covering of felt, the whole being taken to pieces when removed. (Voyages chez les Peuples Kalmucks et les Tartares, Berne, 1792; and Calmuc Tartary, by H. A. Zwick and J. G. Schill, London, 1831.) Here, then, we have an intimation that such a fabric is proper to a nomade people who support any form of religious service. The tabernacle could not be of Egyptian origin, for the Egyptians already had temples of stone. But this tabernacle had little in common with those in use among the nomades, save in its adaptation for removal, and in its framework of wood, and its coverings. Its general form, and the distribution of its parts, is similar to that of an Egyptian temple.

It will be seen that we are disposed to regard the tabernacle (and afterwards the temple) as like other parts of the ritual-an accommodation, or rather an appropriation to right objects-of ideas which then prevailed in the world, and with which the minds of the Israelites were thoroughly saturated. The heathen boasted of the presence of their gods among them in their temples and tabernacles; and as, perhaps, the Hebrews could not, more than they, take in the idea of God's universal presence, or derive from it the satisfaction which the notion of his peculiar local presence

was calculated to afford, He condescended to give them in the Shekinah, or miraculous light, as a manifest and unquestionable symbol of His presence with them; and since the service rendered to him was to be of a ritual nature, he directed that a suitable abode should be prepared for this Presence. There he would keep the state of a court, as supreme civil magistrate and King of Israel; from thence he would issue his laws and commandments, as from an oracle; and to that place, where their King abode, and where their God manifested his presence, they were, as to their kebla, to turn their faces in all their service and their worship. The east, the point of sun-rising, was the kebla of those who worshipped the host of heaven; and it is probably for this reason that the front of the tabernacle and temple fronted the east, so that those who worshipped God, in his courts, must needs turn their faces to the west. We have been astonished to see this stated as a difference from Egyptian practice. It is, in fact, an agreement. Most of the temples front the east, like the tabernacle and Solomon's temple. But it may be doubted that the Egyptians had any general kebla, as the direction of their temples is not uniform.

For descriptive particulars of the tabernacle, see the note on xxvi. 30. But we may here generally remark that both in the tabernacle and in the Egyptian temple, the area was an oblong square, the front portion of which was occupied by a court or courts, where the worshippers attended, and where sacrifice was offered. The sacred apartments in both were at the remoter extremity, the Most Holy being the smallest and the innermost. Into these sacred chambers, among both the Hebrews and Egyptians, none but priests were admitted, being, as we have shown, not intended for the worship of the people, but for the residence of the god, and for the performance of such services as only his high and chosen servants were entitled to render. The walls of the Egyptian temples were covered within and without with relievo or intaglio sculpture, the former generally painted in brilliant colours. And it seems a singular coincidence that the most splendid hangings of the tabernacle-being the veils and the inner curtain which, within, formed the ceiling, and covered the plated boards outside-were wrought with figures of cherubim. It is possible that, in this and in other instances, the pre-occupation by the figures of cherubim was designed to prevent the introduction of such idolatrous scenes and symbols as the Egyptians were wont to exhibit on the walls of their temples.

We have already exhibited the idea of the tabernacle as partly that of a palace for the King. This will seem perfectly clear to any one who carefully considers the terms in which the tabernacle and even the temple are compared and referred to throughout the Scriptures. We are convinced that this view is essential to the right understanding of these structures and of the things which belonged to them. This has also been the opinion of the Jews themselves, who are certainly not disposed to under-rate or desecrate those fabrics, the mere memory of which is, to this day, their glory and their pride. It was therefore with surprise and regret that, a few years back, in the heat of a biblical controversy, we saw this idea scouted as a profane thing by some good and useful men, our respect for whom could not prevent us from seeing that they knew not of what they spoke. It is partly for this reason that we have desired to bring more strongly and distinctly before our readers a view which it might otherwise have only seemed necessary to assume or indicate.

Now, then, if the tabernacle were the king's palace, it is reasonable to carry out the analogy, and regard the uten sils which belonged to it as the palace furniture, and the priests as its servants and officers. This view is so clearly developed by Rabbi Shem Tob (cited by Outram, On Sacrifices, i. 3) in his comment où Maimonides, that we shall take his statement as an introduction to the account we have now to give of the sacred utensils.

God, to whom be praise, commanded a house to be built for him resembling a royal palace. In a royal palace are to be found all the things that we have men