is found the usual concomitant of the will-worship of the Romish devotee. The question is not, what might have been the natural feelings of the disciples as men, but, what would be the operation of their religious attachment to the person of their ascended Lord, after their minds had become enlightened into the spirituality of his kingdom. If the reverence for the holy places,' be not of a devotional character, if it be resolved into merely natural principles, such as may alike actuate the pious and the profligate, it has clearly no religious tendency, nor any other than a purely accidental connexion with the religion of Christ. That this is the case, the history of the Crusades and the annals of modern Jerusalem fully evince. Nor can we imagine that the total destruction of the ancient city would have been permitted by Divine Providence, had it been designed that the scenes of our Saviour's passion should attract the religious homage of true Christians, as having a permanent and efficacious sanctity.

If any local attachment to the scenes of our Lord's sufferings, or any disposition to linger in Jerusalem, was cherished by the first Christians up to the time of their final abandonment of the city previously to its overthrow, after that event, they could have had no inducement to come back and build among its embers. The voice which warned them to depart from the devoted city, might almost seem to interdict their return. It was not for them to attempt to reverse the sentence of their Divine Master, which had consigned it to destruction, or to attempt to repair what the Almighty vengeance had overthrown, or to choose as their last abode the guiltiest spot under heaven, and that which lay the most visibly under the anathema of God,-from which He had in an emphatic sense departed.

It is not then enough to say, that the imbecile mummeries of Romish superstition receive no countenance from Scripture; that Scripture is, we might almost say, purposely indefinite or silent about the precise spots designated by Tradition as holy; and that neither Apostolic precept nor precedent can be adduced in favour of the fanaticism which has led to pilgrimages and crusades. These could have originated only at a time when Christianity had already become transmuted into a system of ritual observances and human traditions; when faith was devoid of spirituality, ignorance was the parent of devotion, and every crime had, in some penal or pecuniary exaction, its fixed price and compensation. And if there is a spot on earth where this corruption and debasement of the religion of Christ, visibly exhibited in the form of idolatrous fanaticism, can be, more than on any other, offensive to God, or ought more peculiarly to excite the shame and indignation of man, that spot is Jerusalem.

Objections to the site of the Holy Sepulchre and of Calvary, are of very early date, and Quaresmius undertook to answer them.

One of these very ancient and very reasonable objections, we are told, was this, that the original sepulchre was an excavation, whereas the present is a building. This is admitted to be true of the exterior of the sepulchre, that is, of all that the pilgrim is permitted to see, but the real rock is said to be within the casing of masonry!! Leaving these disgusting mummeries, we proceed to notice our Author's observations on the topography of the city, a subject of considerable difficulty and real interest.

Our readers are probably aware, that all the maps and plans

6

of the ancient Jerusalem which illustrate the various learned topographical treatises on its situation and boundaries, are founded on the description of the city given by Josephus, together with the few brief intimations contained in the Hebrew Scriptures. From the Jewish historian we learn, that the city was built upon two opposite hills, which divided it into the upper city or upper market place,' and the lower city. At the valley which divided them, called the Valley of the Cheesemongers, the corresponding rows of houses on both hills ended, so that it would seem, there was an intermediate space not built upon. Of these hills, that which contained the upper city, was much higher 'and in length more direct.' That which sustained the lower city, was called Acra, and is of the shape of the moon when 'she is horned.' Over against this, was a third hill, naturally lower than Acra, and formerly parted from it by a broad valley. On this stood the Temple. But under the Asmonean dynasty, in order to join the city to the Temple, and to preclude its overlooking the sacred edifice, the top of Acra was taken off so as to reduce its elevation, and the valley filled up. There is no ambiguity in the eastern boundaries of the city; these are defined by the valley of Kedron, which separates it from the Mount of Olives. The western boundary is not less determinate, being marked out by the natural elevation of the ground. On the North, according to D'Anville, the royal sepulchres, falsely 'called the tombs of the kings, and with great shew of probability identified with that of Helena, Queen of Adiabene, forms 'the utmost limit of the city that way.' The principal difficulty respects the southern boundary and the identity of Mount Zion, which name is now given to the southern part of the hill on which the present Jerusalem is built.

In the forty eighth Psalm, there is a reference to the local situation and aspect of Mount Zion, which has abundantly exercised the ingenuity of commentators : "Beautiful for situ

"ation is the joy of the whole earth, Mount Zion, on the sides "of the North, the city of the great king." Mr. Buckingham considers this as a positive authority for fixing Mount Zion on the South of Jerusalem; but he does not tell his readers

the process by which he arrives at this construction of the words. What in all the extant plans and maps is named Mount Zion, lies on the South side of the hill or hills on which the city is supposed to have stood, and it seems difficult to understand how such an aspect can be styled "the sides of "the North." Lightfoot considered the passage as a positive authority for placing Mount Zion on the North side of the city, declining towards the North-east. Pococke also alludes to an opinion entertained by some persons, that it was to the North of the city, although he places it on the South, its boundary being the supposed valley of Hinnom. That valley, we learn from Joshua xv. 8. xviii. 16., ran southward of Jebusi, the site of Jerusalem; but this does not determine the relativè position of Zion. The sacred historian affirms, that the border of Benjamin "came down to the end of the mountain that lieth "before the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is in the valley "of the giants on the North, and descended to the valley of "Hinnom to the side of Jebusi on the South, and descended (or went on) to Enrogel;"* while the border of Judah "went "up (or on) by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the South "side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem; and the border 66 went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley "of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of the "giants northward." It appears from this description, that, to the West of the valley of Hinnom, rose "before" it a mountain distinct from Jerusalem, and to the North of the valley of Rephaim or the Giants' valley. Now to the South of the modern town,' Mr. Buckingham states, at a distance of less than à quarter of a mile, and separated from it by the deep valley of Hinnom, is a conspicuous mountain commanding the whole of "Jerusalem. There can be little doubt that this is the mountain alluded to in the book of Joshua. Dr. Clarke has the merit of having first suggested the probability that this is the real Mount Zion, and for once, our Traveller coincides with him. The ruined walls said to have been visible in the time of Sandys, he could not, indeed, discover on its summit; we suspect that he took a very slight survey of the hill itself; but he is satisfied from its relative position, that it can be no other than the holy hill on which stood the citadel and the palace of David. That Zion was a mountain apart from Jerusalem and overlooking it on the South, is evident from the testimony of the Jewish historian. It appears also to have been a strong position, capable of a separate defence. (2 Sam. v. 6-9.) No other such mountain,' says Mr. Buckingham, exists, besides that now on the South of the valley of Hinnom, totally excluded from the present site of the mo

6

*Supposed by Calmet to be Siloam.

'dern city. And this, with the united ones of Acre, Moriah, "and Bezetha on the opposite side of the valley, forming but ⚫ two conspicuous hills, agrees perfectly with all the Scriptural accounts, as well as those of profane historians." (See Tacitus. lib. v. c. 11.) Upon "the sides of the North," or the northern side of this mountain, Zion would in this case be properly described as lying, although southward of Jerusalem. All round its sides, but particularly on that facing the valley or ravine which separates the two hills, both Dr. Clarke and the present Traveller noticed numerous excavations made in the lateral surface of the rock. Over one of these is an inscription deeply carved in two places, which is still legible,+THC ATAIC CIWN" Of the holy Zion."

The affix of the cross,' remarks our Author, proves it to have been a Christian inscription, if it be coeval with the letters in point of age. The work of the excavation itself might, however, have been Jewish; and indeed, from its situation on Mount Zion, and its numerous subterranean chambers and apartments, it might have been one of the early sepulchres of the Israelites, used for Christian burial after Sion had become desolate. That of David, which the rest probably resembled in their general form, is described as having many rooms; for both Antiochus and Herod are said (by Josephus) to have opened several of these, and yet neither of them came at the coffins of the kings themselves, for their bodies were buried under the earth so artfully, that they did not appear even to those who entered into their monuments."

Now, in the hill commonly called Sion, over one part of which the present wall of the city actually goes, there are no sepulchres known. Those found on the north of the city, and called the tombs of the Kings, must have been without the town, and are seated almost in a plain. They are even now at a good distance from the northern boundary of the modern city, notwithstanding that the town has been thought to have encreased so much in that direction, as to include places formerly without it. It is quite certain that these were not the sepulchres of (the kings of) Israel and Judah within Mount Zion.'

Pococke expresses the disappointment which has been felt by every traveller, in searching, in the hill now called Mount Zion, for the sepulchres of the Jewish kings. Those described by Dr. Clarke, correspond both in their situation and their structure, and some of them in their magnitude, to the places of regal sepulture. If, however, they were, as he affirms, situate out of the ancient city, as they now are out of the modern,' it is not here that we must look for the sepulchres of the kings of Israel, who were buried in the city of David. But we apprehend that the excavations in question must have been within the wall which encompassed the whole city; and if so, they can be no other than royal sepulchres. For this reason, we are not " au⚫thorised to look there for the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea ;'

and therefore, Dr. Clarke's hypothesis with regard to the sitúation of Calvary, falls to the ground. What is now called Mount Sion, must always have been within the walls. But the rocks above the valley of Jehoshaphat on the eastern side of Jerusalem, which must have been without the city, are not liable to this objection, and it is in the valley of Jehoshaphat, rather than in the Tyropæon, that the place of sepulture must be sought for.

There is one remaining mode of proof which, had we the requisite data, would at once determine the question. The circumference of Jerusalem in the time of Josephus, was thirty-three urlongs, or nearly four miles and a half; and the wall of circumvallation constructed by Titus, is said to have been nearly five miles. The area which the present city covers, according to Pococke and Maundrell, does not exceed two miles and a half in circumference, or little more than half the space occupied by the ancient city. Yet, its eastern and western limits appear not to admit of any material variation; and on the North, it is said to have gained. What remains unenclosed of the southern part of the supposititious Zion, will by no means make up for the difference of extent between the ancient and the modern cities. But we have no plans of sufficient accuracy, to ascertain, whether, by including the mountain on the South of the interjacent valley, we shall have an area corresponding to the measurements of the ancient Jerusalem. The plan of the modern city and the surrounding mountains, contained in the present volume, would seem to favour such a supposition; but we hesitate to place implicit dependence on its minute accuracy.

**

The only objection to this topographical arrangement, is the supposed identity of the valley of Hinnom, and what Josephus terms the valley of the cheesemongers, or the Tyropæon. But we are satisfied that the former appellation is incorrectly applied to the valley between the two hills. The valley of Hinnom must have been, as Eusebius places it, eastward of Jerusalem, since Jeremiah is commanded to " go forth unto the valley of the son "of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the East gate.' From the account given of the boundaries of Judah and Benjamin, the mountain which we are now to consider as Mount Zion, appears also to have been westward of the valley of Hinnom; not, as Mr. Buckingham's plan makes it, southward. Further, the prediction, that the days should come when it should "no 66 more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, "but the valley of slaughter, for they shall bury in Tophet, till "there be no place,"t seems to correspond in a very remarkable manner with the valley of Jehoshaphat, as described by our Author, which lies eastward of the city.

* Jer. xix. 2. † Jer. vii. 31.