which in the solution of scientific problems will be sure to vitiate the result.

Which of these tendencies of mind is best calculated to fit man for successful scientific investigation, which is most likely to bring his eye into that line of vision which leads directly to God and to truth, can scarcely be a matter of question.

ARTICLE IV. - SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE AND WORSHIP.

66

[BY REV. DAVID B. FORD, HANOVER, MASS.]

MOSES, in constructing the Tabernacle, was commanded to "make all things according to the pattern showed to him in the mount." In the ninth chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews we are taught that the tabernacle and its sacred utensils were figures of the true," and "copies of things in heaven," and that certain acts of the priesthood were designed of the Holy Spirit to be significant of important spiritual truths. Since, then, there is a Divine significance in the Mosaic Tabernacle, its vessels and its service, we may, perhaps, with profit devote a few pages to their consideration.

The tabernacle, though a small, movable, tent-like structure, was yet exceedingly costly and magnificent. Its value has been estimated at something over one million of dollars. (See Bush on Ex. xxxviii: 24–29.) It was, however, a free-will offering to God from a grateful people. For Moses merely said to the people: "Whosover is of a willing heart, let him bring an offering unto the Lord," and shortly after it was reported to him that "the people bring much more than enough,” and in consequence of this he made proclamation throughout the camp

that "neither man nor woman should make any more work for the offering of the sanctuary. So the people were restrained from bringing." In this matter of contributing voluntarily and cheerfully for the Lord's house and worship they exhibited a spirit as commendable as it is rare. For certainly the ministers of God are not now often called to restrain their people from bringing!

We know but little of the external history and fate of this divine structure. It would seem that after the Israelites had settled in Palestine the Tabernacle was set up in Gilgal and in Shiloh, and, after remaining there for some time, was conveyed to Nob and to Gibeon, and was finally removed by Solomon to Jerusalem, from which time it disappears from sacred history. The temple, however, was closely modelled after the pattern of the tabernacle, so that the tabernacle really survived in the temple, and the usages and service of the former were continued in the latter.

The tabernacle, as set up in the wilderness, was enclosed in an open court or square, about one hundred and fifty feet in length, and seventy-five in width. This court was surrounded on all sides with curtains, which were suspended from silver rods fastened into the columns. These columns stood on bases of brass, and were supported by cords which were fastened to stakes. Hence, perhaps, the language of the prophet: "Enlarge the place of thy tent and stretch forth the curtains of thy habitations; spare not, lengthen thy cord and strengthen thy stakes." (Is. liv: 2.) Within this enclosure and beneath the open sky was the meeting-place of the people, and the place of sacrifice. Let us, in imagination, enter within this enclosure, for here admission is granted even to the Gentiles. The entrance is on the east side, and the tapestry, or figured curtains which guard the entrance-way, are now drawn up. On entering within, the first object which meets our gaze is the brazen altar, or altar of burnt offerings; on this altar is burning the fire which at first came out from before the Lord, and which, therefore, is never suffered to go out. (Lev ix: 24, vi: 13.) By the side of this altar all the sacrifices are performed; from its top there arises, almost unceasingly, a thick smoky cloud,

from the burning flesh, and its walls and its horns are almost constantly moistened with blood. The number of animals annually required by the law, as stated sacrifices for the whole nation, was one thousand two hundred and eighty-nine, and this was exclusive of private offerings, which were by far the most numerous.* Why were the courts of the Lord made so closely to resemble a slaughter house, and why was this seemingly prodigal waste of innocent blood ordered and sanctioned by Jehovah? These questions can, we think, be answered only on the supposition that these sacrifices were designed of God to teach the guilt and desert of sin, and to point out the way of pardon and remission through the "shedding of blood," even of that blood which "cleanseth from all sin."

Immediately beyond the altar of burnt offering, in the open court, is the brazen laver, for the ablutions of the priests, "that they die not " in the performance of their holy service. The brazen altar and the brazen laver, both standing before the entrance of the sanctuary, plainly show our need of pardon through the blood of atonement, and of the washing of regeneration, before we can gain admittance within the heavenly temple.

In the distance, at the west end of the enclosure, we behold the tabernacle, a structure about forty-five feet long, fifteen wide and fifteen high. It looks like a flat square tent, and

* The following summary we quote from Nevin's Biblical Antiquities :

Or, one hundred and fourteen Bullocks, forty Rams, eleven hundred and three Lambs, and thirty-two Goats. Making one thousand two hundred and eighty-nine in all.

yet is extremely rich and dazzling in appearance. That is Jehovah's dwelling place-the palace of the King and Lawgiver of the Jewish people; but so holy is his house and presence that none but priests, the anointed sons of Aaron, are permitted to enter. Thus debarred, as were the people, from the tabernacle, and from any near approach to Jehovah's presence, how forcibly must they have been taught that their iniquities had separated between themselves and God, and their sins had hid from their sight the face of Jehovah.

We are now standing by the altar of burnt offerings, and beneath the open sky. An Israelite comes to offer sacrifice, leading his victim, a domestic animal, by his side. In thus offering the support of the offerer's life, he appeared, as Witsius remarks, to offer that life itself. Death is ever the accompaniment, the desert, the wages of sin, and in this truth consists the very idea of sacrifice. In every offering there is presupposed, on the part of the offerer, both the fact and the consciousness of sin, guilt, estrangement from God, condemnation and desert of death. Thus the man himself, on account of his sins, deserves to die; but through the divine clemency he is permitted to offer as a substitute the blood of a spotless animal. This innocent victim symbolizes " the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of world," and whose blood "cleanseth from all sin." The offerer now places his hands upon the head of the victim, confessing his sins and putting them, as it were, on the head of the animal.* (Lev. xvi: 21.) So Christ, the spotless Lamb of God, "bore our sins in his own body on the tree," for "on Him was laid the iniquity of us all." After the imposition of hands the offerer proceeds himself to slay the victim, thus signifying that his own sins have caused that death which he inflicts upon another as his substitute. And, as he gazes upon that animal, writhing in

During the act, the offerer, according to the Rabbinic tradition, made the following confession: "I beseech Thee, O Lord. I have sinned, I have done perversely, I have rebelled, I have done this and that, but now I repent, and let this victim be my expiation." It is also a note-worthy fact in this connection, that the Hebrew terms for sin-offering and trespass-offering properly signify sin and trespass.

death's agonies as a sacrifice for sin, how naturally would he be reminded of his own desert in the words:" Thou shalt surely die."

The priest, standing by, now receives in a vessel the blood of the animal, and sprinkles it round about upon the altar. The blood has already, in death, paid the penalty of sin, and is thereafter esteemed pure and holy, and hence may be sprinkled even on the most holy vessels of the tabernacle. This sprinkling of blood denotes the completion of the expiative act on the part of man, and the acceptance of the same on the part of God. In the meantime the offerer, or some one in his .stead, cuts in pieces the body of the victim (just as our Sa

viour's body was broken on the tree by us and for us), and the priests then take these several parts, salt them, and, with the exception of the skin, burn them all on the altar with fire. This is a whole burnt offering, an offering made by fire-of a sweet savor unto the Lord. So should all our powers of body, mind and soul be consecrated to God's service, and be wholly laid on his altar as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to Him.

In the case of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, with which was connected a higher degree of expiation, the management was slightly different. (Lev. iv.-vi.) Only the fat and best parts of the animal were burned. The remainder was either to be eaten by the priests,* in peace-offerings, by the priests

*On the purport of this act, Kurtz, in his Mosaic Offering, makes the following remarks: "Although we cannot, with Deyling, regard the eating as a symbolical incorporatio peccati, yet we must consider it an incorporatio sacrificii. The relation of the eating to the priestly efficacy of the atonement, is, from the above passage (Lev. x:17) undeniable, and this can be explained only on the ground that, by this act was represented an intimate connection of the priest, on the one hand, with the offering, and therefore with the offerer for whom it was presented as a substitute; and on the other hand with Jehovah, to whom the whole offering belonged, and should have been given up in the fire, but who was satisfied with the fat portions as the best, and gave the remainder to the priest. The relation of the sacrificial animal to the offerer was expressed by the imposition of hands, as the same to Jehovah was signified by the burning of the best portions, and both these relations were expressed by the priest in his eating of the remaining flesh." Baehr, in his Symbology of the Mosaic Cultus, in substantial agreement with Kurtz, also