if it were not designed to be an enduring fact, it must be a figure of the very largest magnitude; that since, according to the Saviour's prediction, it has been razed to its foundation, we must look for its fulfilment in some broad and extensive feature of the new economy. In this as in

other matters, 66 one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." And the material framework of the temple having passed, there must be something of a moral or spiritual character of corresponding magnitude, which remains. What then is this?

Romish and Grecian rituals might give some faint response to the question by an appeal to their own practice. They might point us to magnificent cathedrals, with fluted columns, and gothic arches, and oriel windows, with glass of every tint and hue. They might speak of "deep sepulchral tones," of "dim religious light," of waving robes, of fragrant incense, of solemn attitudes; and, giving us back temple for temple, maintain that there were still consecrated spots on earth, where God more especially would meet with man. Some even among Protestants might be supposed to catch up the echo, and, styling their places of worship the courts of God's house, persuade themselves that the days of consecrated places were not quite gone by. But what has Quakerism to point to as the counterpart of this idea? Surely not its plain and sombre meeting-houses, its deal boards, its preachers' galleries, its silent worship, or even its uttered prayer and praise, in which there is neither the fragrance of incense, nor the voice of singing men and women, the sound of the organ, the harp, or any instrument of music. No. If the temple and the temple service has any representation among Friends, it must be in something partaking even less of the material than these. But where, we again ask, is it to be found? What has become of the tabernacle of Moses ? What attempt has yet been made to pass on to the days of Solomon or of Nehemiah, and to erect a structure worthy of the Lord?

We may be pointed in reply to the words of apostles, in the following passages:— "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy: for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are," 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17. "What! know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God?" 1 Cor. vi. 19. "What agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people," 2 Cor. vi. 16. "Christ, whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end," Heb. iii. 6. "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house,” 1 Pet. ii. 5. "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit," Eph. ii. 20-22. "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God; and he shall go no more out," Rev. iii. 12. We may be told that these contain, as certainly they do, the idea which is the fulfilment of the old figure. We may be reminded that Fox laid hold of this idea in his ministry, testifying "that the end of my coming into that place was, not to hold it up, no more than the apostles' going into the Jewish synagogues and temple was, to uphold those; but to bring them off from all such things, as the apostles brought the saints of old from off the Jewish temple and Aaron's priesthood, that they might come to witness their bodies to be the temples of God, and Christ in them to be their teacher."—(Journal, vol. i., chap. v., p. 124.)

But, admitting all this, shall we say that anything real has been effected beyond the laying of the foundation? Is it not still true that the house of the Lord lies waste, while men dwell in ceiled houses? Do we not still see men adepts in every scheme of worldly policy, but slow of heart to understand the things which belong to their peace-wise in their generation as far as the amassing of wealth, the acquisition of fame, the pursuit of pleasure, is

concerned; but foolish and without understanding as regards the true riches, the honour which comes from God only, the joy at His right hand, which endureth for ever? Can it be fairly said that more goodly stones have been added to the temple by the hands of Friends than of others; that the pillars which they have erected are of nobler proportions, purer mould, more heavenly form and grace than others; that the lustre with which those reflect the rays of the Sun of Righteousness is never dimmed by the mixture of earthly alloy; that the light shines from them with such splendour that others, attracted by its brightness, come to glorify their Father in heaven? Must it not be confessed that in their niche, as well as in other quarters, the work has proceeded slowly -so slowly and so feebly, that men have ceased to speak of its progress, and when they refer to it at all, only ask why it stands still or goes back? To the question, Does Quakerism present us with the proper counterpart of the temple? a negative answer only can be returned. Even in outline it would be difficult to trace the semblance of analogy. And any attempts that have been made to give significancy to the separate parts of the building-to affix a meaning to the outer and inner courts, to the specific pieces of furniture, and the several particulars of the temple service, have come not from Friends, but from those who profess a very different theology.

THE PRIESTHOOD.

Closely connected with the foregoing subjects is that of the priesthood. Without adverting to the manner in which priestly functions were executed in the earliest ages of the world's history-going back only to the time of the Exodus-we find that from this period the priesthood became a regular institution among the children of Israel. With the instructions for rearing the tabernacle, we have instructions for separating Aaron and his sons to the priest's office, Exod. xxviii. 1. A little later we read that the whole tribe to which Aaron belonged was to

"minister unto" Aaron, to "keep the charge of the children of Israel, to do the service of the tabernacle," Num. iii. 6-8. The office of the priesthood was specially guarded-"Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death," Num. iii. 10. The charge of each of the families of Levi was expressly laid down, and none was to interfere with the work of another, Num. iii. 17-38. The duties of each were defined with a precision, the offices guarded with a strictness, which convinces us that great importance was attached to this feature of Judaism. That these were no mere temporary arrangements, which might be lightly set aside, appears further from the severe penalty with which the unauthorised offering of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram was visited, Num. xvi.; the breach upon Uzza, 1 Chron. xiii. 9-11; and the leprosy of Uzziah, 2 Chron. xxvi. 16-23. The care which King David manifested in distributing the priests and the Levites, and setting them in their courses, is evidence of the weight which he attached to the subject; while the prominent place it assumed in the reforms under Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxix.), and Josiah (2 Chron. xxxv.), and again at the return from the captivity, and the erection of the second temple, under Ezra (ii. 36), and Nehemiah (x., xi., xii.), shews how essentially it was bound up with a state of religious zeal and fervour. When Jesus Christ appeared, the priests still waited upon their offices, and His forerunner was the son of "a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia," of whom and his wife we are told that "they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless," Luke i. 6. Putting these things together, it follows, that were we to blot out from Scripture all that concerns the priests and the Levites, it would become an unintelligible record. There were services which none but the Levites might accomplish; duties which none but the priests could perform; one spot, the holiest in the temple, into which none but the high priest might enter;

so that the Jewish nation, and the temple itself, could not have been what they were without the Levites to do the service of the house of the Lord, the priests to minister at the altar of incense. If the "holy nation" was 66 a kingdom of priests," Exod. xix. 6, it is plain that that tribe which represented the priestly element, that family which discharged the priestly functions, formed an essential feature in their constitution; and that in the spiritual kingdom, where we look for the antitypes, this can never be omitted.

What then is the Christian priesthood? What does Quakerism offer as an equivalent for the priest and the Levite? The interpretation which many put upon this part of the old dispensation we need be at no loss to discover. The application of the word priest indicates the belief that an official class of men then is represented by an official class of men now, that those who ministered in holy things are supposed to have been succeeded by those who in our day are styled ministers or clergymen. The doctrine is not always boldly affirmed. Even those who

use the word priest are heard sometimes to affirm that as now employed it has no sacerdotal meaning, that it is only an abbreviated form of presbyter. But many other circumstances conspire to assure us that the ordinary belief is as we have described it. The man who administers sacraments in the building called a church or a chapel, is regarded as corresponding in a general way with the man who offered sacrifice in the temple. And although we might suppose that Quakers had not one official act which it required an official class to perform, though we might have fancied that where there was neither sacrifice nor sacrament to administer, and no pecuniary remuneration, there could be no merely official priesthood, yet there is reason to believe that the same thought obtains among them. All the authorised works upon their doctrines and tenets contain each one or more chapters on the ministry. Barclay must have had a strong opinion of the parallelism between the priest of the Old Testament and the minister of the New, when he wrote:-"If this inward call, or