6

Calmet. in his excellent Dissertation sur les Temples des Anciens,' prefaces the description of Solomon's Temple, with which it concludes, by inquiring into the form and situation of ancient temples in order to compare them with that of Jerusalem. After describing those of Egypt from ancient authors, he observes that those of the Syrians and Arabians were built on the same principles; and having proved this, he begins his account of Solomon's Temple with remarking. If we now compare the structure of the ancient Egyptian and Syrian temples, with that erected at Jerusalem by Solomon, we shall not fail to observe a great number of resembling circumstances." This is our argument. We shall not, however, follow Calmet in his accounts of temples, as more distinct ideas have been furnished by modern travellers from the inspection of existing remains than can be obtained from the statement of ancient writers. We cannot however omit Strabo's general account of Egyptian temples, which deserves the best attention of those who feel interested in the subject. We quote, with some abridgment, the translation given in the Egyptian Antiquities:-"The arrangement of the parts of an Egyptian temple is as follows: in a line with the entrance into the sacred enclosure, is a paved road or avenue about a hundred feet in breadth, or sometimes less, and in length from three to four hundred feet, or even more. This is called the dromos. Through the whole length of this dromos, and on each side of it, sphinxes are placed, at the distance of thirty feet from one another, or somewhat more, forming a double row, one on each side. After the sphinxes you come to a large propylon, and as you advance you come to another, and to a third after that; for no definite number either of propyla or sphinxes is required in the plan, but they vary in different temples as to their number, as well as to the length and breadth of the dromi. After the propyla we come to the temple itself, which has always a large and handsome pronaos or portico, and a sekos or cell of only moderate dimensions, with no image in it, at least not one of human shape, but some representation of a brute animal. On each side of the pronaos, and in front of it, are what they call wings. There are two walls of equal height (with the temple?), but their width at the base is somewhat more than the breadth of the temple measured along its basement line. The width of the wings, however, gradually diminishes from the bottom to the top, owing to the sides leaning inward towards one another, up to the height of seventy-five or ninety feet. These walls have sculptured forms on them of a large size." This account, though not in itself very satisfactory, forms a good text for illustration from modern research. The author of the work from which we have taken the translation, has, like ourselves, taken the temple at Edfou as a fair average specimen of the sacred structures of Egypt; and from his work the following description of it is, with considerable abridgment, derived.

"The entrance is composed of two pyramidal moles, sometimes called propylæa by modern writers, each front of which is about 104 feet long, and 37 feet wide at the base; the moles are about 114 feet high. These dimensions of the base diminish gradually from the base to the summit, where the horizontal section is 84 feet by 20." The walls of the moles are sculptured with immense figures, in the best style of Egyptian art; and between the moles is the grand entrance. This entrance conducts to a court (which may be partly seen in the view) surrounded with pillars. "On each of the larger sides there is a row of twelve pillars, which are placed at some distance from the side-wallsand as the space between the tops of the pillars and the wall is roofed over, a covered portico is formed, which leads on each side to the doors of the staircases which are in the pyramidal moles. These staircases furnish access to the cnambers of the propylæa. There is also a row of four pillars, including the corner one, on each side of the doorway as we enter the court, similarly covered over. From the base of these pillars to the top of the stone covering is about 37 fee 6 inches." From the entrance of the court to the porch of the temple itself there is a gradual ascent by a kind of steps so that the portico is about 56 feet above the lowest level of the court. This is common in many other temples, and appears to have been intended for the purpose of giving elevation to the façade. In the temple at Edfou, the portico as appears in the ground-plan, consists of eighteen pillars, six in a row; the intercolumniations of the central pillars forming the doorway, being, as usual, the largest. The intercolumniations of the front row of pillars are built up to half their height. After passing through this porch there is a doorway leading to the sekos or cell, which, in the Egyptian temples, is always divided into several apartments. The entrance passage has on each side a long chamber and conducts into a large hypostyle hall, supported by twelve pillars. It has a flat roof, composed of thick slabs o stone, resting on large stone beams which cross from each pillar to the next in the same row. "After leaving thi chamber we come to another long and narrow one, from which there are two small entrances to the side galleries wherein we see flights of steps leading upwards to the roof of the sekos. Still further we see another small chambe with an apartment on each side of it, probably for the use of the priests. From this last-mentioned chamber we ente the holy recess itself" (the sanctuary), "an oblong room, about 33 feet by 17, in which the figure of the deity wa placed....From the chamber which is immediately in front of the adytum, we see two galleries run down on eac side of it, and leading to a doorway, by which the priests might walk into a large but perfectly retired space all roun the sanctuary, or might ascend to the roof by a flight of steps, to enjoy the pure air and light on the terraced roof; f below they had no light at all, except it might be from small apertures, through which the Fellahs, who now live o the roof, discharge all their dirt into the temple. It will be observed, that from the covered gallery, on each side of th large open area, there is a path continued all round the temple, between the outer and inner wall. Probably the vulg were allowed to use this walk, as a thick wall was between them and the apartments devoted to the priests and t worship of the Deity; for none but the priests, and probably the kings, were admitted into the inner apartments, mud less into the adytum, which contained the representation of the deity."

Now it would be difficult to establish a detailed analogy between this temple and that of Solomon, from the want distinct information concerning the latter; but we think that the general resemblance which we have suggested w De the more confirmed, the more carefully a comparison is made. Even taking Lamy's conjectural plan, and confini our attention to the proper Temple, exclusive of the court or courts, we see that the principal difference is in the prop tions; and that some parts which are open in the one are covered in the other, and vice versa. Thus the hypostyle h and the room beyond, left open, would answer exactly to the "court of the priests" in the plan of Lamy; and, in bot all between the open court and the sanctuary is the domain of the priests. Other analogies will occur to those w wish to pursue the comparison we have suggested, but into the minute details of which it is not our design to ent All that remains for us to do is to indicate the amount of the information which the Scriptures furnish concerning t Temple of Solomon itself. The sacred text has, however, been so differently understood, that we feel disinclined to a to the number of uncertain conjectures. We shall therefore take, as the basis of our account, that which Profess Jahn has given in his 'Archæologia Biblica;' incorporating therewith such remarks of our own, or from Calm 'Dissertation,' as we may judge necessary.

Mount Moriah, on which, agreeably to the last wishes of David, the Temple was erected by Solomon, 628 ye (Hales) after the departure of the Hebrews from Egypt, was an abrupt ascent, the summit of which was, according Josephus, so small that it had not sufficient base for the sacred edifice with its courts and appendages. To reme

envenience, by extending the base of the summit of this mount, Solomon raised a wall of squared stones along eys which encircled it, and filled up the intervening space between the wall and the acclivity of the hill with And here, although the statement be prospective, we may as well mention from the same source, that, after the y, the Hebrews, for many ages, continued gradually to increase the extent of this hill; they moved back the the north, the south, and the west; and they also erected walls of immense square stones from the lowest parts valley, so as at last to render the top of the hill a furlong square. It will be distinctly remembered, that this > ultimate extension, as it appeared in the time of our Saviour.

summit of Moriah, being thus increased by Solomon, in the manner mentioned, appears to have been enby a wall with an interior colonnade, and was divided into the great or exterior court, and the interior court, se called the court before the Temple, and also the court of the priests. (1 Kings vi. 36; vii. 12; 2 Kings 2; 2 Chron. iv. 9; xx. 5; Ezek. xl. 28.) Whether these two courts were separated from each other by a wall, ely by a sort of latticed fence or trellis, does not clearly appear from the descriptions of the Temple, which are n a very concise form. It is however evident that the court called the new court, in 2 Chron. xx. 5, was not a urt, but the second or interior one newly repaired. There were various buildings and apartments which served azines for the wine, oil, corn, wood; others in which were deposited the habits and utensils employed in the e service; and some which served as lodges for the priests and Levites, while engaged in their course of duty. loes not say where these were situated; but, judging from the still existing practice in Oriental temples, we ot any hesitation in subscribing to the opinion of Calmet and Lamy, who, although they differ in some details, as do the Rabbins and Josephus, in considering that both the courts (or the two interior courts, if there were as some conclude) were surrounded by a colonnade, formed as in the court of the Egyptian temple, and behind or which were the cells appropriated to these several purposes. We may suppose that those of the outer court as the magazines, while those of the inner court contained the priestly cells, and whatever was needed for the iate service of the Temple. The difference about the courts consists in this-whether there were at first two or nclosing walls, and, consequently, whether the courts were two or three. Jahn seems to think that there were o, regarding the outer wall, and the court enclosed between it and the second wall, as a subsequent addition. oth Calmet and Lamy hold that this third wall from the interior existed from the first, only the former thinks was originally a simple wall without a colonnade or cells, whereas Lamy gives it a double colonnade, but without The discrepancy of these statements is due to the want of agreement in the several passages of Josephus which o this Temple. Upon the whole, however, we understand him to say, that there were, from the first, three , each of which he calls a temple, and that the middle court was surrounded with cloisters, and the outer court double cloister, supported by high pillars of native stone, roofed with cedar. This agrees with Lamy's plan. n another place, Josephus seems to say, that the outer wall was at first without a colonnade, which was after added when that wall was thrown back and the enclosed area enlarged: and this is Calmet's view. Although id generally that the exterior wall-one of the most astonishing works of the Temple-was raised from the surrounding valley to the level of the summit of Mount Moriah, and, consequently, that all the courts were on me level; yet it appears that this must be a general statement only; for, from what Josephus says elsewhere, ears that the inner court, with the sanctuary, had the highest level, the middle court being a few cubits lower, he outermost lower still. This allowed all the beauty of the Temple and its several courts to be conspicuous from at; and, in a general view, must have given some unity to the several parts of this extensive series of buildings. eader will not fail to compare this with the ascent in the court of the Egyptian temple.

to the sanctuary itself, it was, as a whole, of an oblong figure, sixty cubits long, twenty broad, and thirty high, he exception of the "most holy place," the height of which was only twenty cubits, so that there remained above om ten cubits in height. In front of the sanctuary was the vestibule or porch, which was one hundred and twenty high, twenty broad from north to south, and ten in depth. But by including the thickness of the walls, with the hambers and the porch, the length is by some made one hundred cubits and the breadth fifty cubits; and other ons are considered to make the height of the building thirty-six cubits and of the porch one hundred and twentybits. (Lewis's Origines Hebrææ.') This porch, which seems to have been the only part of the structure consily elevated, was open in front, and had near the entrance the two massive pillars called Jachin and Boaz. pillars were twelve cubits in circumference and thirty-six cubits high; the shafts being eighteen cubits, the als five, and the bases thirteen. They were profusely ornamented with representations of leaves, pomegran&c. They were of brass, hollow within, the metal being a hand's breadth in thickness. (1 Kings vii. 15–19; roa. iii. 15—17.) From this porch a door of oleaster, or wild olive, ornamented with cherubim, palms, and flowers ved work, led to the sanctuary. This door was covered with gold, and turned on hinges of the same metal. A ir door led from the sanctuary to the most holy place, and both doors were covered with a veil of linen richly oidered. The relation to each other, and the respective appropriation of the holy and the most holy places, were ame as in the tabernacle, the general plan of which may be distinctly traced in all that relates to the Temple. holy place contained the incense-altar, with ten tables and ten golden candlesticks, instead of one of each, the tabernacle, and was only entered twice a day by a priest to offer incense and attend to the lamps, while the - "most holy place," containing the ark, was entered only once a year by the high-priest, on the great day of

tion.

ong the north, south, and west sides of the sanctuary extended a gallery three stories high, constructed of beams planks, and to which there was access by means of a winding stair. These stories or stages did not altogether rise ore than half the height of the Temple, and must have given more najesty of appearance to a structure which at have appeared naked without such accompaniments. These were in fact a sort of aisles; and we have seen › descriptions of the Temple which fancifully compare it to some ancient churches which have in front a lofty (answering to the porch), and a low aisle running along each side of the main building. But such aisles, as le colonnades, were also common in the sacred structures of ancient nations.

he structure of the sanctuary is distinctly described in the text as of hewn stones, covered with boards of cedar th were carved with a variety of ornamental figures, and overlaid with gold. The resulting conclusion from entire examination and comparison will probably be, that the Temple of Solomon was an astonishing and nificent work for the time in which it was built, particularly remarkable for its costly materials and elaborate manship; but that, as a whole, its architectural effect was not sufficiently concentrated in one pile of building to le at to bear comparison with the cathedrals and other structures of a much later age. This is sufficiently evinced he proportions which are given in the text. From the other temples of remote antiquity it seems to have been fly distinguished by this sumptuousness of detail. In other respects we recognise the general arrangement com

...Southern Pereh, or

mon to all-a holy place, inaccessible and inviolable, covered and shut up, and placed at the extremity of one or more courts, surrounded with peristyles and with cells or apartments for the lodging and accommodation of the officiating ministers.

A, Holy of Holies.

PLAN OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE.-AFTER BERNARD LAMY.

B, Holy Place. C, Court round the Temple. D, Place where the knives for the sacrifices were kept. E, Ascent to the altar. F, Vestry, or robing-room. G, Place where the sacrificial cakes were made. HH, Apartments for the singers. I, Place where the priests assembled. L, Salt store. M, Brasen-sea. N, Place for washing the burnt-offerings. O, The wells, or places in which were kept the machines used in drawing water for the Tempie services. P, Gates. Q, Priests' kitchens. R, King's throne. S, Hall of the Great Sanhedrim. T, Court of the kitchens. a, Ark of the Covenant. b, Altar of Incense. c, Golden candlestick. d, Table of shewbread. ee, The pillars, Jachin and Boaz. f, Porch. 9. Place for the shewbread. h, Place for the stones used about the altar. i, Place for the lambs for the daily sacrifice. 1, Bath for the priests. m, Kitchens. n, Halls or synagogues. o, Different apartments for lodgings, and the furniture of the Temple. PPP. Porters' lodges. 9. Wood piles. r, Magazine of perfumes. 8, Second Sanhedrim. t, Apartment for the Nazarites. u, Apartment of the lepers. a, Place for alms. y, Space before the porters' lodges. z, Engraved pillars, prohibiting the entrance of Gentiles and unclean persons.

Porch,

⚫ Or, according to them. 6 Or, according to them. 7 Heb. from floor to floor. 8 Chap. 3. 1. 10 Heb. fushioned. 11 2 Chron. 3. 17. 12 That is, he shall establish. 14 Heb. from his brim to his brim.