directly on the ridge of Akra" (Biblical Researches, i. 391). The site of the Temple and that of the church lie "over against" each other. These are the points which Eusebius is comparing. He does not refer directly to the ruined dwellings of either the upper or the lower city; he refers especially to the deserted ruins of the Temple. By "the new Jerusalem," says Mr. Fergusson, he means "the buildings of Constantine." Exactly-he means these and nothing else. And by "the old Jerusalem" he means the buildings of the Temple, neither more nor less. Or rather, while the primary meaning is on each side thus restricted, he intends to designate by the latter the ancient city, of which the Temple was the crown, and by the former, the modern city, of which the church was to be the future glory. The antithesis is complete. The other interpretation makes the comparison incongruous- the old city meaning a collection of dwellings, and the new city meaning simply a church. Dr. Stanley has justly observed: "Whatever differences of opinion have arisen about the other hills of Jerusalem, there is no question that the mount on which the Mosque of Omar stands, overhanging the valley of the Kidron, has from the time of Solomon, if not of David, been regarded as the most sacred ground in Jerusalem" (Palestine, p. 177). This is the fact which the Christian Fathers recognize, using each locality as, in a religious sense, the representative of the city, when they say that the emperor Constantine, "founded a new Jerusalem, opposite to the old and deserted city," a phrase, withal, more applicable to the eastern hill, which was burned over, swept "clear of houses," and was still forsaken, than to the western hill which had never been thus completely desolated, and was still inhabited. Opposite the deserted site of the Hebrew Temple Constantine reared the Christian sanctuary. This is our interpretation of Eusebius and Socrates; and we shall not accept as an answer to it the question with which Mr. Fergusson retaliated on his reviewer: "Did he never see a plan of Jerusalem?" This disposes of the first point.

"2. The position assigned to the Holy Places by the Bordeaux Pilgrim.', His testimony is quoted in full, in our former Article, commencing, "Inde ut eas foris murum de Sione euntibus ad Portem Neapolitanam," which is, says Mr. Fergusson, "that passing outwards from the Sion Gate to the Neapolitan Gate, outside the wall," etc. Shall we incur the risk of being set down as "slovenly" translators, in company with our countryman, Professor Robinson, if we suggest to this bland scholar, that one "outwards" or "outside" is an adequate rendering of" foris," and that there is not an allusion here to the Zion Gate?

Mr. Fergusson assumes that the phrase "foris murum" requires us to believe that the visitor's course, here described, from Zion to the Neapolis Gate (called Neapolis then, for the same reason that it is now called Damascus), lay outside of the wall. If so, the reference is to the inner wall along the brow of Zion, the first of the "three walls" which surrounded this part of the city. This may be the meaning of the barbarous Latin of the old Pilgrim, which Professor Robinson unfortunately slurred, but far more probably, we think, he means simply what we suggested in the previous Article. There never was a road from Zion southward, and no suggestion could be more improbable than that of plunging from Zion into the lower Tyropoeon, outside the city, ascending the opposite slope, and making the long detour by the northwest corner of the city to reach the gate named. The point of destination was northward from Zion, and the Pilgrim says that one who would go beyond the wall, or outside of the city, passing from Zion to the Neapolis Gate, would see the objects described, on the right and left. The peculiar construction of the sentence favors this rendering of "foris murum," and we have an authority for it, exactly in point. "Foris; in late Latin, with the accusative-beyond. Constitutus si sit fluvius, qui drew's Lexicon, in loc.). claim to be more natural and probable than Mr. Fergusson's, for the reasons already given. This disposes of the second point.

foris agrum non vagatur (AnEither of these interpretations we

"3. The connection pointed out by Antoninus between the Bîr Arroah and Siloam."

This testimony will be found above. Quoting the same in the Dictionary, Mr. Fergusson says: "In so far as we know," the connection exists; meaning merely, We do not know that it does not exist. In the Notes before us, he says: "It is, therefore, a fact at this hour," that the connection exists. Without any new light upon the subject, in the interval between the publications, the absence of knowledge to the contrary has, by a law of its own, developed into an ascertained present "fact." The positive assertion is a random and rash assertion. The connection has not been established, and the subterranean watercourses of Jerusalem are still involved in much uncertainty. The witness cited in support of the alleged fact pronounces directly against its probability, and in favor of the opposite theory. Dr. Barclay, who has been a most thorough explorer, gives his reasons for believing that the subterranean conduit of Hezekiah was brought down on the west side of the valley running south from the Damascus Gate, and says that on this hypothesis "it would pass just by the rock Golgotha," the traditionary site of the sepulchre, as described by Antoninus (Jerusalem, 94, 300). Furthermore, in examining the fountain of Siloam, he found a subterranean channel which supplied it, and which he traversed for nearly a thousand feet; and on locating its course, he was "perfectly satisfied that this subterraneous canal derived its former supply of water, not from Moriah, but from Zion" (ib. 523). He also says: "If this channel was not constructed for the purpose of conveying to Siloam the surplus waters of Hezekiah's aqueduct, then I am unable to suggest any purpose to which it could have been applied" (ib. 309). So little countenance, so palpable a contradiction, rather, is given to the "fact" by the witness cited to corroborate it. This disposes of the third point.

"4. The assumed omission by Arculfus of all mention of the Dome of the Rock, and, I may add, the building of a Mary Church by Justinian within the precincts of the Haram area."

We do not see the bearing of the last-named particular. Churches in honor of the Virgin were erected in many localities, and it is not necessary to account for the selection of this site, though it were easy to conjecture a reason. It proves nothing.

The remaining specification, like the other, is an argument drawn from silence and conjecture, and rates no higher as proof. It runs thus: If this building were then in existence, this visitor must have described it; the building was in existence, and the opposite theory assumes that he did not allude to it; therefore, the current theory is false. We cannot but be struck with the difference between this position and the principle with which Mr. Fergusson professedly started, of "admitting nothing which cannot be proved, either by direct testimony or by local indications" (Dict. i. 1018). There is no pretense that this argument rests on either of these; it rests on nothing but an unaccountable "omission." And this silence is offered as not merely corroborative evidence, but as vital proof. Mr. Fergusson adduces this as one of four points, "any one" of which establishes his theory beyond question. As if the existence of St. Paul's in London, or of St. Peter's in Rome, at any period, would be absolutely disproved by the silence of a visitor respecting either, in a professed description of the objects of interest in the city. At the best, it could only be a natural inference; it could never be proof positive. And here we might rest; for if we proceed no further, Mr. Fergusson's last point is disposed of, and his claim is prostrate.

But we join issue with him, and affirm that what Arculfus describes as the Church of the Sepulchre, was the building standing on the site of the present church, and not the Mosque of Omar, or any part of it. Neither could "the square house of prayer erected on the site of the Temple," have been, as he alleges, the Mosque el-Aksa. The phrase "vili fabricati sunt opere," could never have been applied to this structure. The immense quadrangle, rudely built with beams and planks over the remains of ruins, as described by

the bishop, would seem to be a natural account of the building erected by the Khalif Omar over the rock es-Sakhrah, as Dr. Barclay suggests, "which in the course of half a century gave place to the present elegant octagonal edifice, erected by Abd el-Melek" (Jerusalem, p. 336). If the assigned date of the completion of the latter edifice is correct, this would serve to fix more definitely the date of Arculfus's visit which is only known to have been "in the latter part of the seventh century" (Wright's Introduction, p. xii, Bohn's ed.).

We pass now to the bishop's description of " the Church of the Holy Sepulchre," and whatever other changes may have taken place, we have a crucial test of the identity of the building described with the church or the mosque, in the account of the cave which was the reputed tomb of the Saviour. Arculfus says: "In the middle space of the inner circle is a round grotto, cut in the solid rock, the interior of which is large enough to allow nine men to pray, standing, and the roof of which is about a foot and a half higher than a man of ordinary stature. The entrance is from the east side, and the whole of the exterior is covered with choice marble, to the very top of the roof, which is adorned with gold, and supports a large golden cross. Within, on the north side, is the tomb of our Lord hewn out of the same rock, seven feet in length, and rising three palms above the floor." These measurements were taken by Arculfus with his own hand. "This tomb is broad enough to hold one man lying on his back, and has a raised division in the stones, to separate his legs. The entrance is on the south side, and there are twelve lamps burning day and night, according to the number of the twelve apostles. Internally, the stone of the rock remains in its original state, and still exhibits the marks of the workman's tools" (p. 2, Bohn's ed).

With this account of Arculfus, the reader will now compare that of Willibald, a few years later A.D. 721-727.

"And near at hand is the garden, in which was the sepulchre of our Saviour, which was cut in the rock. That rock is now above ground, square at the bottom, but tapering above, with a cross on the summit, and VOL. XXIV. No. 93.

18