in the narrative of the sieges by Pompey and Herod. The former had to subdue it after he had gained possession both of the upper city and palace and of the temple; and it was from this that Antigonus descended when he surrendered to the latter. This later citadel is not to be confounded with (and in our previous paper should have been expressly distinguished from) the ancient tower of David and its successor, the apparent site of which is that of one of the towers built by Herod in the northwest part of Zion. With this explanation we take leave of Josephus. Mr. Fergusson has not renewed in his Notes the discussion of his theory respecting Mount Zion, and we have no more scripture testimony to examine; but we inadvertently overlooked a verse cited in the Dictionary (Neh. iii. 16), which he pronounces "important." It is as follows: "After him repaired Nehemiah the son of Azbuk, the ruler of the half part of Beth-zur, unto the place over against the sepulchres of David, and to the pool that was made, and unto the house of the mighty." These localities, with many others named in the chapter, can only be fixed conjecturally. On the face of the passage they accord well with the received theory respecting Mount Zion, with which locality Dr. Barclay, after carefully examining the matter on the ground, associates them, and represents the wall here described as running" along the precipitous brow of Zion" (Jerusalem, pp. 126, 155). From this chapter, as from the scripture quotations cited and examined in our previous paper, Mr. Fergusson's theory derives no support. This disposes of the Biblical testimony. But we cannot take leave of the theory without adverting to the confusion which it has introduced into the Dictionary, -the weak point in this great work-through the necessary failure of the attempt to harmonize it with the facts of history and topography. It was the evident intention of the editor that the Article on Jerusalem should be coherent and consistent; and the writers of the historical portions (Messrs. Grove and Wright) have passed over to their fellow contribu tor (Mr. Fergusson) most of the topographical points. We now propose to exhibit the position in which they have left this question, and will begin with Mr. Grove's "rough sketch of the terrain of Jerusalem" (i. 985). The city occupies the southern termination of a table-land, a promontory, with deep, precipitous, trench-like ravines on the west, south, and east, and an open plateau on the north (ib). This promontory which forms the site of the city, is itself divided by a longitudinal ravine, running up from south to north, east of the centre, and gradually rising to the high level on the north, dividing the promontory into two unequal portions, making it, in fact, a double promontory (ib.) This general outline is sufficient for our purpose. The western ridge was divided by a subordinate ravine running east and west, making two summits, of which we hold that the southern was Zion, and the northern Akra. The eastern ridge was also divided by a tributary ravine, running east and west, making two summits, of which we hold that the southern was Moriah, and the northern Bezetha. Mr. Fergusson holds that Akra was the northern point of Moriah, and the summit which we call Akra he leaves without a name (p. 1025). We waive this question, and we waive all discussion of secondary valleys and minor points; our sole object is to ascertain the true site of the ancient Zion, as exhibited in the Dictionary. Let the reader, then, imagine or sketch the promontory on which Jerusalem stood, with deep valleys on three sides, and an internal ravine dividing it into two ridges, eastern and western, nameless as yet, and let him, as we proceed, fix the leading localities. We will quote fairly, without comment, in the order in which we find them in the Article on Jerusalem numbering them for convenient reference the sentences which ought to enable him to do this intelligently. It may require a little patience, and we invoke it, for the question is one of some importance and interest, and it is time that it were settled. (1.) "Of these two [portions of the city] that on the west - city' of the Jews, the Mount Zion of modern tradition—is the higher and more massive; that on the east- Mount Moriah, the Akra or 'lower city' of Josephus, now occupied by the great Mohammedan sanctuary — is at once considerably lower and smaller." p. 985. (2.) "The tombs of the kings were in the city of David; that is, Mount Zion, which was an eminence on the northern part of Mount Moriah." -p. 987. (3.) "As long as the upper city remained in the hands of the Jebusites, they practically had possession of the whole."- p. 989. (4) "As before, the lower city was immediately taken and, as before, the citadel held out. The undaunted Jebusites believed in the impregnability of their fortress. A crowd of warriors rushed forward, and the citadel, the fastness of Zion, was taken. It is the first time that that memorable name appears in the history. David at once proceeded to secure himself in his new acquisition. He enclosed the whole of the city with a wall, and connected it with the citadel. In the latter he took up his own quarters, and the Zion of the Jebusites became the city of David." - pp. 989, 990. (5.) "An embassy arrived from Hiram the king of Phenicia, offering artificers and materials to erect a palace for David in his new abode. The palace was built and occupied." — p. 990. (6.) "The arrival of the ark was an event of great importance. A new tent had been spread by David in the fortress for the reception of the ark, and here, ' in its place,' it was deposited with the most impressive ceremonies, and Zion became at once the great sanctuary of the nation. In this tent the ark remained until it was removed to its permanent resting-place in the temple. In the fortress of Zion, too, was the sepulchre of David, which became also that of most of his successors.". - p. 990. (7.) "Antigonus got into the city, and reached the upper market-place, the modern Zion, without resistance.". p. 1005. (8.) "Then the outer court of the temple and the lower city, lying in the hollow between the temple and the modern Zion was taken, and the Jews were driven into the inner parts of the temple, and to the upper market-place, which connected therewith by a bridge.” — p. 1005. (9.) "Herod occupied the old palace of the Asmoneans, which crowned the eastern face of the upper city, and stood adjoining the Xystus, at the end of the bridge between the temple and the upper city."— p. 1006. (10.) "Herod built a new and extensive palace immediately adjoining the old wall, at the northwest corner of the upper city."— p. 1007. (11.) "Archelaus despatched the horse-soldiers by a detour round the level ground north of the city, to surprise the pilgrims on the eastern slopes of Moriah.”. p. 1007. (12.) "Agrippa added an apartment to the old Asmonean palace on the eastern brow of the upper city, which commanded a full view into the interior of the courts of the temple. This view the Jews intercepted by building a wall on the west side of the inner quadrangle.”—p. 1010. (13.) "The temple was at last gained; but it seemed as if half the work remained to be done. The upper city, higher than Moriah, enclosed by the original wall of David and Solomon, and on all sides precipitous, except at the north, where it was defended by the wall and towers of Herod, was still to be taken. Titus first tried a parley, he standing on the east end of the bridge, between the temple and the upper city, and John and Simon on the west end.". p. 1013. (14.) "Upper market-place"-the western hill, or modern Zion.Plate I. Topography of Josephus. (15.) "The upper market-place' was called the citadel' by David" (p. 1024.) "The citadel was still the 'virgin daughter of Zion.""-p. 994. (16.) "Ahra was situated on the northern side of the temple, on the same hill, and probably on the same spot occupied by David as the stronghold of Zion." — p. 1025. (17.) “The citadel, or upper market-place of Josephus was the modern Zion, or the city enclosed within the old wall; Akra was the ancient Zion, or the hill on which the temple and the city of David stood."— p. 1025. (18.) "It is quite clear that Zion and the city of David were identical, for it is said, David took the castle of Zion, which is the city of David; and David dwelt in the castle, therefore they called it the city of David.” - p. 1026. (19.) "There is no passage in the Bible which directly asserts the identity of the hills Zion and Moriah, though [there are] many which cannot well be understood without this assumption. The cumulative proof, however, is such as almost perfectly to supply this want."— p. 1026. (20.) "City of the Jebusites," the western or modern Zion hill. "City of David," the eastern or temple hill. Plate II. Topography of the Bible. (21.) "Old Jerusalem," the western hill; "New Jerusalem," the eastern hill. Diagram, Fergusson's Notes, p. 47. These extracts are all from one Article; and who can reconcile them with any theory, or find in them an intelligible topography? We have just tried the experiment on an intelligent gentleman, who at our request took a sheet of paper and drew with his pencil a rough outline of the city, and then, as we read sentence by sentence, sought to fill out the sketch; and after a persistent effort, before we had finished, he laid the pencil upon the paper with a bewildered look, equivalent to saying: "The mountains skipped like rams, and the little hills like lambs." On a topic which to some minds is of more interest than any other in the Dictionary, the Biblical student turns to a work containing the latest and richest fruits of learned investigation only to be baffled and perplexed. Instead of a description of the city which he hopes to find so clear that a blind person might walk through it, he meets with a theory which entangles him at every step, and causes him to "stumble at noonday." Before quitting the theme, let us gather into one sentence from these conflicting statements such points as are consistent with each other and with known facts and probabilities. The city or stronghold of the Jebusites was the southern portion of the western ridge, the highest, most inaccessible, and easily fortified ground in the city; conquered by David, it became his fortified abode; his castle or citadel was here, and remained here; his palace was built here, and through successive reigns and dynasties, down to the Christian era, it continued to be the royal residence; it was the ancient as it is the modern Zion, enclosed by the old wall, the original wall; it was the upper city, the upper market-place; it was here that the ark abode until its removal to the temple; the royal sepulchres were here; and Moriah was the southern portion of the eastern ridge, and on this the temple was built. This statement, embodying, we believe, the truth of history, agrees with, and is supported by, the above extracts numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 21, and portions of 1, 2, 17, and 20; and with these extracts, and with the statement which rests on them, the extracts numbered 16 and 19, and portions of 2, 17, and 20, are in irreconcilable conflict. With this we close the discussion of the site of Mount Zion. We will now proceed to the discussion of the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. "Who has ever doubted," exclaimed Dr. Robinson, in 1838, "the identity of the pres |