The following cut represents the interior of the tabernacle with the veil between the holy and the most holy place removed. The following cut represents the tabernacle in the wilderness, in relation to the enclosure, the altar, &c. The The first. The first room on enter-struction in the various implements ing the sacred edifice, here called the of divine service in the sanctua: y, he 'first tabernacle.' 'The apostle pro- found none. Why should we be more ceeds now to enumerate the various wise than he was? Why attempt to articles of furniture which were in hunt for types and shadows where he the two rooms of the tabernacle and found none? And why should we temple. His object seems to be, not not be limited to the views which he for information, for it could not be actually expressed in regard to the supposed that they to whom he was design and import of the ancient diswriting were ignorant on this point, pensation? Following an inspired but partly to show that it could not example we are on solid ground, and be said that he spoke of that of which are not in danger. But the moment he had no information, or that he un- we leave that, and attempt to spiritu dervalued it; and partly to show the alize everything in the ancient econreal nature of the institution, and to omy, we are in an open sea without prove that it was of an imperfect and compass or chart, and no one knows typical character, and had a designed to what fairy lands he may be drifted, reference to something that was to As there are frequent allusions in the come. It is remarkable that though New Testament to the different parts he maintains that the whole institu- of the tabernacle furniture here spetion was a 'figure' of what was to cified, it may be a matter of interest come, and though he specifies by and profit to furnish an illustration name all the furniture of the taber- of the most material of them. nacle, he does not attempt to explain candlestick. For an account of the their particular typical character, nor candlestick, see Ex. xxv. 31-37. It does he affirm that they had such a was made of pure gold, and had seven character. He does not say that the branches, that is, three on each side candlestick, and the table of show- and one in the centre. These branches bread, and the ark, and the cherubim had on the extremities seven golden were designed to adumbrate some lamps, which were fed with pure olive particular truth or fact of the future oil, and which were lighted "to give dispensation, or had a designed spiri- light over against it;" that is, they tual meaning. It would have been shed light on the altar of incense, the happy if all expositors had followed table of show-bread, and generally on the example of Paul, and had been the furniture of the holy place. These content, as he was, to state the facts branches were made with three ‘bowls,' about the tabernacle, and the general 'knops,' and 'flowers' occurring altertruth that the dispensation was in- nately on each one of the six branches; tended to introduce a more perfect while on the centre or upright shaft economy, without endeavouring to there were four' bowls,' 'knops,' and explain the typical import of every flowers' of this kind. These ornapin and pillar of the ancient place of ments were probably taken from the worship. If those things had such Almond, and represented the flower a designed typical reference, it is re- of that tree in various stages. The markable that Paul did not go into bowls' on the branches of the canan explanation of that fact in the dlestick probably meant the calyx or epistle before us. Never could a cup of that plant from which the flowbetter opportunity for doing it occur er springs. The 'knops' probably than was furnished here. Yet it was referred to some ornament on the cannot done. Paul is silent where many dlestick mingled with the bowls' and expositors have found occasion for the 'flowers,' perhaps designed as an admiration. Where they have seen imitation of the nut or fruit of the the profoundest wisdom, he saw none; almond. The 'flowers' were evidently where they have found spiritual in-ornaments resembling the flowers of the almond-tree, wrought, as all the rest were, in pure gold. See Bush's Notes on Exodus xxv. The foregoing beautiful cut, drawn on this supposition, will probably give a tolerably correct view of the ancient can⚫delabrum or candlestick. I introduce this cut as being a fine illustration furnished by Prof. Bush of the candlestick itself; with the views which he has expressed of its spiritual reference, however, I have no sympathy. The candlestick was undoubtedly designed to furnish light in the dark room of the tabernacle and temple; and in accordance with the general plan of those edifices was ornamented after the most chaste and pure views of ornamental architecture of those times-but there is no evidence that its branches, and bowls, and knops, and flowers had each a peculiar typical significance. The sacred writers are wholly silent as to any such reference, and it is not well to attempt to be wise above that which is written.' An expositor of the Scripture cannot have a safer guide than the sacred writers themselves. How should any uninspired man know that these things had such a peculiar typical signification ?-The candlestick was placed on the south, or left-hand side of the holy place as one entered, the row of lamps being probably parallel with the wall. It was at first placed in the tabernacle, and afterwards removed into the temple built by Solomon. Its subsequent history is unknown. Probably it was destroyed when the temple was taken by the Chaldeans. The form of the candlestick in the second temple, whose figure is preserved on the 'Arch of Titus' in Rome, was of somewhat different construction. But it is to be remembered that the articles taken away from the temple by Vespasian were not the same as those made by Moses, and Josephus says expressly that the candlestick was altered from its original form. And the table. That is, the table on which the show-bread was placed. This table was made of shittim-wood, overlaid with gold. It was two cubits long, and one cubit broad, and a cubit and a half high; that is, about three feet and a half in length, one foot and nine inches wide, and two feet and a half in height. It was furnished with rings or staples, through which were passed staves, by which it was carried. These staves, we are informed by Josephus, were removed when the table was at rest,, so that they might not be in the way of the priests as they officiated in the tabernacle. It stood lengthwise east and west, on the north side of the holy place. And the show-bread. On the table just described. This bread consisted of twelve loaves, placed on the table, every Sabbath. The Hebrews affirm that they were square loaves, having the four sides covered with leaves of gold. They were arranged in two piles, of course with six in a pile. Lev. xxiv. 5-9. The number twelve was selected with reference to the twelve tribes of Israel. They were made without leaven; were renewed each Sabbath, when the old loaves were then taken away to be eaten by the priests only. The Hebrew phrase rendered showbread' means properly 'bread of faces,' or bread of presence.' The Lxx. render it aprovs vwriovs-foreplaced loaves. In the New Testament it is, pódeois Tv apTwv-the placing of bread; and in Symmachus, 'bread of proposition,' or placing. Why it was called 'bread of presence' has been a subject on which expositors have been auch dirided. Some have held that it was because it was before, or in the presence of the symbol of the divine presence in the tabernacle, though in another department; some that it was because it was set there to be seen by men, rather than to be seen by God. Others that it had an emblematic design, looking forward to the Messiah as the food or nourishment of the soul, and was substantially the same as the table spread with the symbols of the Saviour's body and blood. See Bush, in loc. But of this last mentioned opinion, it may be asked where is the proof? It is not found in the account of it in the Old Testament, and there is not the slightest intimation in the New Testament that it had any such design. The object for which it was placed there can be only a matter of conjecture, as it is not explained in the Bible, and it is more difficult to ascertain the use and design of the shew-bread than of almost any other emblem of the Jewish economy. Cal met. Perhaps the true idea, after all that has been written and conjectured is, that the table and the bread were for the sake of carrying out the idea that the tabernacle was the dwelling place of God, and that there was 3 And after the second veil," the tabernacle, which is called the Holiest of all; a Ex. 26. 31, 33. propriety that it should be fitted up with the usual appurtenances of a dwelling. Hence there was a candlestick and a table, because these were the common and ordinary furniture of a room; and the idea was to be kept up constantly that that was the dwelling-place of the Most High by lighting and trimming the lamps every day, and by renewing the bread on the table periodically. The most simple explanation of the phrase bread of faces,' or 'bread of presence' is, that it was so called because it was set before the face, or in the presence of God in the tabernacle. The various forms which it has been supposed would represent the table of show-bread may be seen in Calmet's Large Dictionary. The preceding cut is the usual illustration of it. If the loaves were piled above one another as they are represented in the cut, they were probably separated by thin plates of gold or some other substance to keep them from moulding. The Jews say that they were separated by plates of gold. Which is called the sanctuary. Marg. Or, holy.' That is, the holy place. The name sanctuary was commonly given to the whole edifice, but with strict propriety appertained only to this first room. 3. And after the second veil. There were two veils to the tabernacle. The one, which is described in Ex. xxvi. 36, 37, was called the hanging for the door of the tent,' and was made of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine-twined linen,' and was suspended on five pillars of shittim-wood, overlaid with gold. This answered for a door to the whole tabernacle. The second or inner veil, here referred to, divided the holy from the most holy place. This is described in Ex. xxvi. 31-33. It was made of the same materials as the other, though it would seem in a more costly manner, and 4 Which had the golden censer,' and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with b Le. 16. 12. c Ex. 25. 10, &c. with more embroidered work. On this veil the figures of the cherubim were curiously wrought. The design of this veil was to separate the holy from the most holy place; and in regard to its symbolical meaning we can be at no loss, for the apostle Paul has himself explained it in this chapter. See Notes on vs. 8-14. ¶ The tabernacle. That is, the inner tabernacle; or that which more properly was called the tabernacle. The name was given to either of the two rooms into which it was divided, or to the whole structure. Which is called the Holiest of all. It was called 'the Most Holy place;' 'the Holy of Holies;' or the Holiest of all." It was so called because the symbol of the divine presence—the Shekinah-dwelt there between the Cherubim. 4. Which had the golden censer. The censer was a fire-pan, made for the purpose of carrying fire, in order to burn incense on it in the place of worship. The forms of the censer were various, but the following cuts will represent those which are most common. Some difficulty has been felt respecting the statement of Paul here that the 'golden censer' was in the most holy place, from the fact that no such utensil is mentioned by Moses as pertaining to the tabernacle, nor in the description of Solomon's temple, which was modelled after the tabernacle, is there any account of it given. But the following considera. tions will probably remove the diffi culty. (1.) Paul was a Jew, and was familiar with what pertained to the temple, and gave such a description of it as would be in accordance with what actually existed in his time. The fact that Moses does not expressly mention it, does not prove that in fact no such censer was laid up in the most holy place. (2.) Aaron and his successors were expressly com |