which they received from the Phoenicians during the reigns of David and Solomon.

The temple and its utensils are fully described in 1 Kings vi. and vii. and 2 Chron. iii. and iv.; and it is desirable that the reader who wishes to understand the matter thoroughly, should peruse these chapters with attention. These descriptions enable us to realise a tolerably clear idea of many important details of this glorious structure; but they do not suffice to afford us a distinct notion of the architectural elevation of the principal buildings. If any proof of this fact were wanting, it would be found in the circumstance that almost every scholar or architect who has attempted to make a design of the fabric, from the descriptions which exist in the Scripture and in Josephus, has furnished something very different from what has been produced by others making the same attempt.

It is necessary, in the first place, to realise the leading use and idea of the building, which made this and other ancient temples entirely different from European churches and cathedrals. These are intended for the reception of the worshippers, and are, therefore, necessarily spacious; but the temple at Jerusalem was never

intended to be entered by the worshippers. They stood in the open air, in the courts before the temple, which itself consisted of two chambers, the centre of which (called the Holy Place) was entered by the officiating ministers alone, only twice a day, to attend to the lamps and to offer incense, while the inner chamber (called the Holy of Holies, that is, the Most Holy,) was entered only once in the year by the high-priest, upon the great day of atonement, when he sprinkled the blood of sacrifice upon the ark of the covenant, a type of the offering of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ once for all. The temple, therefore, was simply the house, or palace, in which the Most High dwelt, as it were, among his people; his presence among them, in that house, being represented by that visible resplendence called "the glory of the Lord," or the Shekinah, which rested in the Holy of Holies, above the wings of the golden cherubim which hovered over the ark. This being its destination, and its sole destination, it was not necessary or desirable that its dimensions should be vast and imposing; but the feeling which found no proper vent in this manifestation, was shown in lavishing vast wealth, the most costly materials, and the

highest resources of the arts, upon a structure of comparatively small dimensions. Bearing these two facts in mind, the special use of the building, and its limited extent, how striking appears the exclamation of Solomon himself with reference to it, in the noble prayer which he uttered at its dedication !-"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded!" 1 Kings viii. 27.

Our idea of the temple must be, however, by no means limited to this small building, but must embrace the whole site, as the word "temple" usually does in Scripture, with the immense outer walls, the noble gates, the courts, and the shady colonnades, store-chambers, and vestries, by which these courts were surrounded. These, taken altogether, gave the reality as well as the appearance of vastness; and the house of God itself appeared beautifully in the midst, not seemingly diminutive, but as the cynosure, the crowning glory, of the whole; like a costly gem in a broad setting of gold.

This sanctuary was sixty cubits long, twenty wide, and thirty high, which are dimensions

comparable only to those of our smallest churches and chapels. It is, however, impossible to overlook the statement of Josephus, who gives the same breadth and length as the Scripture, but makes the height sixty cubits; and not only so, but adds, that " over this was another stage of equal dimensions," so that the height of the whole structure was 120 cubits. It is impossible to receive this in the literal sense which

the words seem to convey, and that because it does not agree in that sense with Scripture, and because a building of such proportions would be an architectural monstrosity. It may, therefore, be conceived that he means to say that there was a part as elevated above the top of the building as that was above the foundations; and this could only be true of the porch rising up into a kind of a tower or steeple—an interpretation which is corroborated by 2 Chron. iii. 4, which assigns this same height of 120 cubits to the porch. This has the sanction of a received interpretation; for it is well known to ecclesiastical antiquaries, that the general arrangements of churches have been framed, as far as difference of use allowed, with express reference to, and in imitation of, the distribution of parts in Solomon's temple; and the

towers and steeples, and other such like elevations, mostly over the porch, are understood to be involved in this imitation. It is a more important question, how Josephus gets at the general height of sixty cubits, when in 1 Kings vi. 2, it is expressly stated as thirty cubits. The statement respecting the porch, corroborated as it is in Chronicles, makes it more probable and proper that the height should be sixty than thirty cubits; and the statements may be reconciled by supposing that Josephus indicates the whole external height, including the basement and the roof, whereas the writer in Kings, speaks of the internal height from the floor to the ceiling. Some have thought that the difference may have arisen from the existence of an upper story, which may have consisted of rooms for the accommodation of the priests, such as vestries and treasuries. But those who give this explanation do not consider that it was needless to encumber the holy house with such adjuncts, for which there was abundant room in places more suitable and convenient, and that it would be revolting to all oriental and to all Jewish ideas, that any persons-even priests should tread over-head of a place devoted to most holy services.