the heathen polluted their sacred groves. Altars, although they had become instruments of idolatry and superstition, were required for sacrifice, and admitted of formal change. Hence, worship at altars was not abolished; but the altar was divested of the idolatrous characteristics which it had acquired; and its neutral character, as an instrument of ritual service, was guarded by strong and comprehensive regulations, by which all the circumstances of idolatry were carefully excluded. It was not until men had localized, and humanized, and broken up the original idea of God —so as to bring it within the compass of their own narrow apprehensions *- that they thought of building their God a house, for it was as a house in which the presence of the worshipped Deity might rest, that the ancient temples and tabernacles were regarded-not as places for the shelter of assembled worshippers (like our churches), for the worshippers assembled not in the temples, but in the courts before or around them; nor yet as places where the sacrifices might more conveniently be offered-for sacrifices were offered, not in the temples, but in the courts before them. Now, when men thought of building palaces for their gods, they necessarily gave them such palaces as agreed with their own condition and mode of life. A nomade people must have a moveable temple; and among a tent-dwelling people that temple must be a tent, or portable fabric of wood. An immoveable temple we can only expect to find among settled nations; and when a moving people becomes settled, and exchange their tents for houses, in like manner their moveable tabernacles become fixed temples. The reflection of King David, after the workmen of King Hiram had built him a palace, bears strongly on this statement,— "See now," he said, "I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains."+ And, therefore, he proposed that the house of God should no longer be a tent, but a fabric of stone, in accordance with the altered circumstances of the people. II. 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. This was the renowned Tabernacle. The considerations which we have stated will bear against the notion that a fabric of this description—a portable temple-was never before known. The opinion as to the absolute originality of this fabric, and that 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 previously been 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. 43, 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. Having shown how natural it was that there should be sacred tents among a nomade people, we may now mention that at this day, among a people to whom, least of all, any communication with the Jews can We touch but lightly ou these matters here, and merely for the sake of the connection, as the general subject has already engaged our attention in a preceding page. † 2 Sam. vii. 2. 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.* 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. This we can show in due time. It will be seen that we are disposed to regard the tabernacle (and afterwards the temple) as like the 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 Shechinah, or miraculous light, 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.t The Tabernacle may now be briefly described. First there was the area or court, which enclosed and contained what must properly be regarded as the tabernacle. It was a hundred cubits (about 150 feet) long by 50 cubits (about 75 feet) broad. It was surrounded on all sides, to the height of five cubits, with curtains made of fine white twined linen. They were suspended from rods of silver, which reached from one column to another, and rested on them. The columns on the east and west were ten, on the north and south twenty in number. They are said to have been of brass, which probably means that they were of wood overlaid with that metal, as the chapiters were with silver. The columns, that they might not be injured by the moisture of the earth, were supported on bases of brass Near the top of the columns were silver hooks, in which the rods that sustained the curtains were inserted. That part of the tabernacle which formed the entrance was twenty cubits in extent, and was on its eastern side. The entrance was closed by letting fall a sort of tapestry, which hung from rods or poles resting on four columns, and which was adorned with figures in blue, purple, and scarlet. When the entrance was opened the tapestry was drawn up by cords. The fabric properly called the Tabernacle was situated in the middle of the western end of this court. It was covered in every part, and presented the form of an oblong square, thirty cubits long from east to west, ten broad from north to south, and ten in height. A structure of these dimensions could not make a very imposing appearance. Whatever glory, as a fabric, it possessed was owing to the costly materials of which it was formed. It was suitable for its purpose, and was magnificent for the time and place; but those over-zealous writers know little about ancient temples who affirm, "No heathen temple could be compared * See Voyages chez les Peuples Kalmucks et les Tartares,' Berne, 1792; and Calmue Tartary,' by H. A. Zwick and J. G. Schill. London, 1831. † 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 unitorm. ‡ Exod. xxvii 10. with the Temple of Solomon, or even the tabernacle of Moses, erected in the wilderness, designed only for temporary use, and portable."* The walls of this fabric were composed of forty-eight boards, or planks; namely, twenty on the north side, twenty on the south side, and six on the west. The two at the angles were doubled, making the forty-eight. The eastern side was not boarded. The boards, like all the other timber-work of the structure and its utensils were of "shittim wood," which denotes, not some rare and costly wood, as used to be taken for granted, but the wood of the black acacia, which still grows abundantly in the valleys of Sinai. These boards were ten cubits long, one and a half broad, and overlaid with plates of gold. They rested on bases of silver, and were united by bars, or poles, also of gold. The tabernacle thus constructed was protected by four coverings, curtains, or carpets, thrown one over the other, which hung down on the side nearly to the silver foundation. The first, or rather interior or lower covering, was made of "fine twined linen,” and was richly embroidered with figures of cherubim, in shades of blue, purple, and scarlet. It is probable that the right side of this covering was laid undermost so as to form a beautiful ceiling to the interior of the tabernacle. This reached down to within a cubit of the earth. The covering next above this was of woven goats' hair, and reached very nearly to the ground. The third covering was of "rams' skins dyed red," forming, it may be presumed, a kind of morocco leather; and the outermost covering, intended to fence the rest from the weather, was made of the skins of the tachash, a word of uncertain meaning, which some consider to denote a colour (sky-blue), others a sea-animal: that it was a badger, as our own and other versions render, seems most unlikely, that animal being unclean to the Jews. The eastern or entrance side of the tabernacle had no boards, but was closed by a fine embroidered curtain, hung upon five pillars of shittim-wood overlaid with gold. Josephus says that there was another curtain over this which came down to the ground, and was to protect it from the weather; and that this outer curtain was drawn aside on the sabbaths and other festivals.§ The interior of the tabernacle was divided into two rooms by a curtain or veil, which hung down from four pillars overlaid with gold. This veil was made of the richest stuff, both for matter and workmanship, and was adorned with figures of cherubim and other ornaments curiously embroidered upon it. This was called the inner veil. The first room, or antechamber, was twenty cubits long by ten broad; and, consequently, the other was but ten cubits square. The first was called the Holy,|| or the sanctuary; and the small inner chamber, the Holy of Holies,¶ or the Most Holy, and sometimes the Inner Tabernacle. Remembering that the temple of Solomon was on the same general plan as the tabernacle, it may be better to reserve the analogies to an Egyptian temple which they offer in common, confining our present notice to a few prominent resemblances. In both the tabernacle and 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 * See a Dissertation on the Originality of the Institutions of Moses,' prefixed to Dr. Townley's translation of the More Nevochim. The contents are stated to be taken from an American publication with the same title, and from Dr. Wait's Sermons. This treatise is so full, from beginning to end, of erroneous statements (of facts), that its admission into a very useful book is much to be lamented, and the oversight might have proved injurious to a reputation, for learning and information, less firmly and worthily established than that of Dr. Townley. § Antiq. iii. 6, 11. most splendid hangings of the tabernacle-being the veils and the inner curtain which, within, formed the ceiling, and covered the plated boards outside-was 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 compares 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 the things which belonged to them. This has also been the opinion of the Jews themselves, who are certainly not disposed to underrate or desecrate the 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 utensils which belonged to it as the palace furniture; and the priests as its servants and officers. This view is so clearly developed by R. Shem Tob, in his comment on 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 mentioned. There are some persons who guard the palace; others who execute offices belonging to the royal dignity, who furnish the banquets, and do other necessary services for the monarch; others who daily entertain him with music, both vocal and instrumental. In a royal palace there is a place appointed for the preparation of victuals, and another [nearer the Presence] where perfumes are burned. "In the palace of a king there is also a table, and an apartment exclusively appropriated to himself, which no one ever enters, except him who is next in authority, or those whom he regards with the greatest affection. In like manner it was the will of God to have all these in his house, that he might not in anything give place to the kings of the earth. For He is a great king, not indeed in want of these things: but hence it is easy to see the reason of the daily provisions given to the priests and Levites, being what every monarch is accustomed to allow his servants. And all these things were intended to instruct the people that the Lord of Hosts was present among us, 'For he is a great king, and to be feared by all the nations.'"* These analogies will be the more apparent when it is remembered that the comparisons are to be referred to an Oriental rather than a European palace. 1. The Ark. The ark and that which belonged to it formed the sole contents of the Most Holy place, and therefore claims our first attention. The ark itself was a sort of chest, two cubits and a half long, one and a half broad. It was made of shittim wood, but plated over with gold within and without, and richly ornamented with curious workmanship. It was enriched at the upper edge with a border or rim of gold; and on each of the two sides, at equal distances from the top, there were rings or staples of gold, in which were placed the staves of shittim wood overlaid with gold, by which the ark was to be carried from place to place. These staves were never removed from the ark; but when it was at rest, they were drawn somewhat forward, so that while the ark stood at the wall of the Most Holy place, the ends of the staves touched the curtain which divided that from the outer room. n.t R. Shem Tob, cited by Outram, on Sacrifices, i. 3. + Exod. xxv. 10-15, xxxvii. 1-5. 2. The Mercy Seat was formed by the covering of the ark, with which its length and breadth coincided; but the height, or thickness, is not known. This was to be regarded as the throne of God, the seat whereon his presence rested, and from which the will was to be made known; and there is therefore strong and beautiful significance in the name—the Mercy Seat-which is given to it." 3. The Cherubim were figures over or upon the mercy seat. The form, size, and position of these figures have equally been disputed, and are equally inexplicable, unless we are allowed to resort to the analogies offered by the antiquities of Egypt. They were of pure beaten gold; but it has been questioned whether they were of chased work or in statuary. If the description be carefully considered, however, the latter, which is the most general opinion, will seem the most probable. Then, since they are described as having wings, and their wings are said, when stretched forth, to cover the mercy seat, of which we know the dimensions, their bodies were probably in proportion, and in that case the figures could not have been of considerable size. As their faces are said "to be towards one another, and towards the mercy seat," it may seem that they stood erect upon the cover of the ark, at the opposite ends, with their faces towards each other, and both of them with their heads somewhat inclined towards the ark. The form of these winged figures is a question of greater difficulty; and we cannot stay, in this place, to give it the consideration and illustration, from various sources, which it requires, and which we hope in a future page to give to it. It suffices now to mention that it was between these winged figures, over the mercy seat, that the Shechinah, or miraculous light, used to appear as a visible token of the special presence of God. Hence God is said " to dwell between the cherubim," and "to sit between the cherubim ;" whence the ark itself was in some sense regarded as his footstool, before which the people are called to worship.§ In the ark were deposited the two tables of stone, on which were inscribed the fundamental laws as contained in the ten commandments.|| And as these tables were called "the tables of testimony," the ark itself, from containing them, was sometimes called "the ark of the testimony." A quantity of MANNA was laid up beside the ark, in a vase of gold, to form a memorial to all generations of the miraculous manner in which the Hebrew host was fed in the wilder ness; also the rod of Aaron. We are now prepared to show that the kind of assimilation, which we have described, to the Egyptian forms of the utensils of ritual service, so far as these forms were innocent, or might be rendered useful, was not excluded even from the most sacred parts of the Hebrew ritualnot even from the Holy of Holies. And if this be so, how much less in things of smaller consequence. In the adylum, or small inner chamber of the Egyptian temples-answering to the most holy place of the Hebrew tabernacle-were placed the peculiar symbols, images, or signs of the god to whom the temple was dedicated. In the case of some of the principal of the gods, those which were the most ancient and the most generally worshipped, the contents of the sanctuary were closely similar, if not identical, with those of the most holy place of the tabernacle,-with the omission, in the latter, of the superfluities and idolatrous appendages which the former offered. While, therefore, the sculptures of Egypt, in which some of these ancient sanctuaries are represented, afford the only discoverable materials for making out the outline forms and some of the details of the ark, and that which belonged to it, we shall at the same time become aware of the simplifying and expurgatory process by which these things were fitted for the use of the Hebrew people. Our further observations must take the form of a commentary on the cuts which we now produce, and on which we rely for the proof of the statements we have made. Exod. xxv. 17-21, xxvi. 34, xxxvii. 6. Psal. xcix. 1. Exod. xxxi. 18. tt Exod. xvi. 32-34. |