Page images
PDF
EPUB

of bronze, not a few of gold, a smaller number of silver, very few of lead, and those made of iron are seldom found."

The gold of the sanctuary was ordered to be pure gold. The monuments show the process of purifying gold; and many of the ornaments still existing, are of the purest gold.

The boards of the tabernacle were to be overlaid with gold. "We find" (says Wilkinson) "that in Egypt substances of various kinds were overlaid with gold leaf." There are existing specimens as old as the time of the first Osirtasen.

The brazen laver was made of the brazen mirrors offered by the women. Had they such mirrors? Wilkinson says, the mirror was one of the principal articles of the toilet. "It was of mixed metal, chiefly copper, most carefully wrought and highly polished." Some have been discovered at Thebes in our own times; and though they had been buried in the earth for centuries, yet such was the skill employed in their composition, that their lustre has been partially revived by the workmen of our own day.

The golden candlestick was ornamented with golden flowers. Could they make them 1 The monuments repeatedly show them. Indeed such was Egyptian skill in this particular, that Pliny tells us there were artificial flowers which were known by the name of Egyptise. The tabernacle had a covering of leather. Could they make leather? The whole trade is depicted for us on the monuments. Indeed, it was an important branch of Egyptian industry. But, strange as it may seem, we have actual specimens of their loathe' 1he straps of a mummy found at Thebes are of the finest leather, and have beautiful figures stamped on them. At Paris there is an Egyptian harp, the wood of which is covered with a green morocco, cut in the form of a lotus blossom.

Cloths of the Tabernacle and Priests' Garments.—The ephod of the high-priest was interwoven with threads of gold. Could they make gold thread 1 We find it as far back as Osirtasen the First.

Many passages in the Scripture speak of the twisted thread of the byssits, by which we may understand either flax or cotton; it matters not here which. Did they know how to spin it? The tombs of Beni Hassan show the whole process of its preparation from the beginning to its finishing as thread fit for weaving. Could they weave it? The cloths on the oldest mummies answer the question. In all antiquity their cloths were renowned. The ancients attribute to them the invention of the art. We have handled cloth, yet strong, that was woven in Egypt, as we believe, nearly 3500 years ago.

Weaving was performed by men generally, while spinning was performed by the women. Herodotus mentions it as one of the national peculiarities which struck him, that the women were engaged in the outdoor work, while the men were within, weaving. On the monuments we frequently see men thus employed: it is true we sometimes see also women, yet they rather form exceptions to the common practice. In conformity with this, the preparation of the cloth for the sanctuary, and of the robes for the priesthood, is represented in our history as being confided to men.

Again: the cloths used by the Israelites required skill, both in dyeing and embroidering. Had they such skill? Minutoli tells us, that "from many experiments upon the ancient Egyptian cloth, it appears that the byssus was colored in the wool before weaving." Wilkinson states the same thing. Such too was the plan pursued by the Hebrews, as we learn from our history. As to embroidering, the evidence of its skilful execution by the Egyptians is unquestionable. The paintings at Thebes, according to Wilkinson, furnish the proof. A very common embroidered device was the phoenix, another was the lotus flower. Some are of the date of Rameses III.

Again: the shape of some of the garments of the highpriest affords us incidental proof. They were copied from garments in use in Egypt. The dresses, as well as the ceremonies of the Egyptian priesthood, are profusely delineated in the sculptured and pictured monuments; and it is impossible attentively to study those of the Hebrews, and not find the origin of some of them on the banks of the Nile. True, their use was associated with a worship very far removed from the gross idolatry of Egypt, but their mere fashion was often the same, and was probably selected because it was familiar to the eyes of the Hebrews while dwellers in the land of bondage. In fact, the whole Hebrew ritual appears to have been framed on the principle of embodying Egyptian ceremonies, carefully guarded, modified and expurgated, and applying them to the worship of the true God. We are aware that, in the opinion of some excellent men, this seems to detract from the Jewish ritual, as being but a modification of idolatry. We are unable to see this. It was a modification of idolatrous ceremonies, but it involved no recognition of idolatrous worship- It acknowledged no false god; on the contrary, it was so changed as to make the ceremonies retained, appropriate only in the worship of the true God. As well might it be said that retaining, as we do at this day, the heathen names of the days of the week, proves that he who says "Thursday" is an idolatrous worshipper of the northern Thor. Beside, some of the very ceremonies of worship used now in the Christian Church are undoubted modifications of usages that were once known in heathen worship. Does that make idolaters of the Christians who in their use apply them to the expression of honor and reverence for the one only and true God? Again: are there no modifications now in the Christian Church of Jewish usages? Does that prove Christians to be Jews'.' The fact, is that as ceremonies in the expression of religious feeling are necessarily arbitrary, the ceremony means nothing but what in the view of the worshipper it was meant to symbolize; and it is really of no importance whence the ceremony was originally derived. The only point worth a thought is, what does it here mean?

The resemblances between the ritual of the Hebrews and the ceremonies of the Egyptians, are much too numerous to be deemed accidental. This meets us as a fact. We cannot evade or deny it. We wish not to do so; for in these very resemblances we find important testimony to the truth; nor can we possibly perceive how their existence in the slightest degree affects the question of the reverence due to the ritual of Israel, as being appointed of God for the outward expression of devotional feeling, properly directed to Jehovah. Our limits permit us to do no more than to point out generally some of these resemblances.

The Hebrew priests ministered at the altar and in the holy place, with covered heads and naked feet. So did the priests of Egypt.

They were required to be scrupulously clean, bathing daily before they commenced their ministrations. Such was the rule also in Egypt.

They, in ordinary life, dressed like the rest of their countrymen of good condition: when they ministered, they wore a peculiar and appropriate dress. This was also the case in Egypt. And here it should be remarked that the attentive student will find, that while the custom of Egypt was followed, it actually was made subservient to an exclusion and condemnation of the idolatry of Egypt; for in the priestly robes of the Jews, every thing was purposely excluded that was idolatrously symbolical; and in compelling him to wear that dress, and that only, he and all the congregation were alike reminded of the difference between it and the Egyptian corresponding garment, in the absence of every idolatrous symbol. Until God gave the Hebrews a ritual and established their worship, they knew no other forms than those of Egypt. These were imposing and splendid, calculated to operate powerfully on the imaginations of the Hebrews. Left to themselves, in the establishment of their ritual, they would undoubtedly have followed the Egyptian model to which they long showed a tendency, hard to be overcome. This tendency was met and limited and guided, by the adaptation of their ritual, as far as was useful or practicable, or consistent with God's purposes, to the notions which they had imbibed. It was the act of a kind parent, dealing with the weakness of his children. All of the world, with which they were acquainted, presented pompous ceremonials in religion. Had they been confined to an austere, simple system of worship, under such circumstances, it is plain that they would much more easily have been drawn into the very idolatry from which God would kindly guard them, by overruling the operation of perfectly natural causes. The ceremonies were a necessity, adapted to their weakness. And, to a limited

« PreviousContinue »