th and grandeur of the new Covenant. It advances now towards the
Sanctuary and the Sacrifice wherein we see that covenant sanctified and
sealed, under the auspices of our great "Priest upon His throne."

The Teacher first dilates to the Hebrews upon the outstanding features
of the type. He enumerates the main features of that "sanctuary, adapted
to this (visible) world" ([Greek: to hagion, kosmikon]), which was
attached to the first covenant (ver. 1).[F] Particularly, he emphasizes
its double structure, which presented first a consecrated chamber, holy
but not holiest, the depository of lamp and table, but then beyond it,
parted from it by the inner curtain, the _adylum_ itself, the Holiest
Place, where lay ready for use "a golden censer," the vessel needful
for the making of the incense-cloud which should veil the glory, and,
above all, the Ark of that first covenant of which so much has now been
said. There it lay, with the manna and the budding rod, symbols of
Mosaic and Aaronic power and function; and the tablets of that law which
was written not on the heart but on the stone; and the mercy-seat above
them, and the cherubic bearers of the Shechinah above the mercy-seat;
symbols of a reconciliation and an access yet to be revealed (verses
2-5).

[F] Assuredly we must delete [Greek: skene] from the text in this verse,
and understand [Greek: diatheke] (see viii. 13) after [Greek: he prote].

Such was the sanctuary, as depicted to the mind of the believing Hebrew
in the books which he almost worshipped as the oracles of God. That
tabernacle he had never seen; that ark he knew had long vanished out of
sight. The temple of Herod, with its vacant Holiest, was the sanctuary
of his generation. But the Mosaic picture of the Tent and of the Ark was
for him the abiding standard, the Divine ideal, the pattern of the
realities in the heavens; and to it accordingly the Epistle directs his
thought, as it prepares to display those realities before him.[G]

[G] I do not attempt in these papers to do more than allude to the
controversy of our time over the historical character of the Mosaic
books. But I must allude in passing to a noteworthy German critique of
the Wellhausen theory, "by a former adherent," W. Moeller: _Bedenken
gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese, von einem frueheren Anhaenger_
(Guetersloh, 1899). The writer, a young and vigorous student and thinker,
explains with remarkable force the immense difficulties from t