50 REV. J. LESLIE PORTER, D.D. 
do so without any seeming want of respect to the author of the paper and 
those who have already spoken, that I think too little prominence has been 
given to the fact that the Temple at Jerusalem was in its general plan, as 
well as in its details, a copy or an enlargement of the Tabernacle in the 
Wilderness, and that the pattern of that Tabernacle was determined long 
before the Phoenicians were engaged in carrymg out their work. I cannot 
help thinking that, if we put together the plan of an Egyptian temple and 
the plan of the Jewish Tabernacle in the Wilderness, or the Jewish Temple 
at Jerusalem, we shall discern a very close resemblance between them. In 
the first place, there was the large outer wall enclosing the sacred space, 
which corresponded in Jerusalem to what the Jews called “the Mountain of 
the House.” Then, there was the entrance ; and, leading up from that, a 
series of courts, more or less completely divided from each other, and 
increasing in sacredness as they proceeded, until at last the most sacred 
place of all was reached. There are many other matters in connexion with 
the paper on which it would be interesting to dilate ; but I feel that it is 
too late to further occupy your attention. 
Mr. Crace.—May I say that, had I dwelt on the subject at all, I should 
have taken the same view as the last speaker. The point he has brought 
forward is precisely one of those that I had noted down as important and 
one not to be overlooked. There is no doubi that the Egyptian plan may be 
closely compared with the Temple plan, and it is to be noticed, not only 
that Solomon’s Temple followed, to a. great extent, the design of the 
Tabernacle in its original arrangement, but that it was a very natural thing’ 
that Solomon should have further followed the general plan of the Egyptian 
temple, inasmuch as his queen was the daughter of the King of Egypt. 
There can be little doubt that his contact with the Egyptians was constant, 
and of a kind likely to influence his architecture. 
The Cuarrmay.—In asking you to pass a vote of thanks to Dr. Porter 
for his interesting paper, I may say that the discussion has thrown great 
light on the suggestion that the Pheenicians were great borrowers themselves. 
Tt is also interesting to remember that there is nothing new under the sun, 
and that some of the greatest novelties are at least as old as the days of the 
Pheenicians. 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
