separated Acra from Moriah, was filled up with earth by the Asmoneans, with the view of joining the city to the temple. Yet this valley-or what Dr. Robinson supposes to be this valleyremains most distinctly to this day, as he himself constantly testifies. "Now," argues Mr. Williams, "I cannot think that a valley filled with earth by the Asmoneans, and greatly filled up with the rubbish of so many centuries, would still exist as one of the principal features of the city; especially while another valley, more distinctly marked in olden time, and never designedly filled, has been obliterated for at least six centuries; which ... . . Dr. Robinson conceives has been the case with the Tyropœon. At least the traces of the valley between Sion and Acra might be expected to be more distinctly marked, than of the valley between Acra and Moriah; which is far from being the case if the topography of Dr. Robinson is correct." (Vol. ii. p. 28.) Besides all this, two arguments are adduced on the same side,-one drawn from the actual position of the lowest line of depression in that quarter of the city; the other from the late discovery of a very ancient sewer, whose course is, in part, precisely that of the Doctor's Tyropœon. Moreover, it is remarkable that all ancient writersJosephus, Tacitus, and William of Tyre,-all describe the city as occupying two eminences. Can any one doubt (as Mr. Williams some where asks) that they intend the two ridges divided by the valley which I have called the Tyropoon? and would it not, then, be preposterous to place the Upper and Lower City on one ridge, and on the same side of that valley?

"On these grounds then (writes Mr. W.), that the gate of Gennath must have been some distance east of Hippicus; that the Acra of Josephus is a complete contrast in altitude and character with the ridge north of Zion; that no distinct valley now exists, nor can be proved ever to have existed, between this ridge and Zion, I am obliged to reject the topographical identifications of Dr. Robinson, and to propose a theory more consistent with the representations of the Jewish historian "."vol. ii. p. 35.

Before we go further, we must be allowed to make an observation. It is that Mr. Williams has here again, as it appears to us, added very unnecessarily to the difficulty of following him in his complex argument, in favour of his own and in demolition of Dr. Robinson's theory. In the passage copied above, he speaks

The reader will find the valley of the Tyropoon, according to the course which Dr. R. would have us to believe it took, distinctly marked in Prof. Hughes's map, before referred to. Also the gate of Gennath, placed close to the Hippic tower, and the second wall carried round outside the site of the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

of the necessity of the gate of Gennath being some distance east of Hippicus. And it is evident, on consideration, that this is what he means, and has been labouring to prove. Yet, at p. 23, he cites Dr. Robinson's words with apparent assent, that "the gate must of course have been quite near to Hippicus:" and again, "there was a gate in the first wall adjacent to Hippicus:" again, lower down, "hard by the Hippic tower:" and more particularly in p. 22, "I come now to the last and most memorable proof of all, that the gate Gennath was near the Hippic tower." It has just occurred to us, that possibly this last passage may refer to the proof on Dr. Robinson's side, in favour of his theory, that the two were near. If this be so, we can only say we wish Mr. Williams had expressed himself somewhat differently. We can assure him, that however clearly his argument may be unrolled before his own mind, it has cost us no little labour to follow the sequence and perceive the bearing of all the separate portions. We hope that, in the analysis which we have been giving, we have not misrepresented any part of it.

But for Mr. Williams' own theory. If (as he observes) the course of the valley of the Tyropoon can be ascertained, the position of Acra will be easily determined: he therefore inverts the order of his argument, and addresses himself to the Tyropœon first.

There is, he asserts, "one and only one remarkable and welldefined valley passing entirely through the city," to which Dr. Robinson makes frequent allusion, as commencing at the Damascus gate (on the north side of the city), and running in a southern direction to the Pool of Siloam. He is of opinion that the character of this broad valley answers to the description of the Tyropoon of Josephus-dividing the modern city into two parts, as the Tyropoon did the ancient, having on the west the high hill of Zion, and the declivity of a still higher ridge; and on the east a lower hill, which he calls Acra, joined at the south to the Temple Mount. But then, was this the relative situation of Zion and Acra, of Acra and Moriah? Can it be proved that the hill Acra lay north-west of the Temple-mount, and not due west? This question he proceeds to discuss, taking as his groundwork the Scriptural account of some of the porters at the Temple gates (1 Chron. xxvi. 16, seq.), together with a passage in the Antiquities of Josephus descriptive of four gates "in the western quarter" of the Temple. This brings upon the tapis the famous causeway of Solomon, and gives him occasion to inform us that "such a causeway, connecting the north-east brow of Zion with the Temple-mount, is distinctly to be seen at this day;" indeed, singularly enough, "the very street which Dr. Robinson repre

sents as following the bed of the valley of the Tyropoon is carried along the ridge of an artificial mound,-for the mound is clearly artificial, and not accidental, as he imagines." (p. 43.)

It is here, at the junction of this causeway with the Templemount, that he would place the gate "Shallecheth,"-i. e. according to the Chaldee Paraphrast quoted by Lightfoot, "the gate of the casting up or embankment." Having arrived at this, he goes on, by a felicitous train of reasoning, to prove that the hill Acra' was not the ridge immediately west of Moriah (for here lay "the suburbs," as the Tyropoon was sometimes called→→ p. 41), but "lay north of the Temple." This, it appears to us, must be taken to mean northerly-i. e., rather north than west. The description of the hill so lying "exactly answers in other respects, to the account of the hill Acra given by Josephus.'

But if this was the position of Acra-the very position, be it remembered-which Dr. R. has assigned to Bezetha--where was "Bezetha, or rather the hill included in Bezetha? for the new city was very extensive, and encompassed the lower city on three sides." The reply is-north of the Temple, exactly where Josephus places it. It is a hill distinct from Acra, not mentioned by Dr. R., lying between it and the valley of the Kedron, covered to this day with ruins and cisterns, and bearing evident traces of having been thickly peopled; its highest point nearly north-east of the summit of Acra. "In approaching the city from the north by the Damascus road," writes Mr. Williams, "the two hills are so distinctly marked, that it is impossible to mistake them, and the correctness of the Jewish historian's language is most clearly proved."

Thus, then, having determined the course of the Tyropoon, and the position of Acra, and answered prospectively an objection touching that of Bezetha, the author returns to the great question on which (as we observed) hinges the whole inquiry into the genuineness of the traditional site of the Holy Sepulchre :-he endeavours to trace out the course of the second wall. To do this with him would lead us into details not easy of comprehension, in the absence of a map or a scale akin to that of the magnificent plan of the town and environs, which accompanies the work, and is copied from that drawn by certain officers of the Royal Engineers. It must suffice to say, that embracing in its course several remains of gateways, "it satisfies every demand of the wall of Josephus." These investigations will be found between the 39th and the 58th pages.

7 As distinguished from the town about the hill Acra, which was reckoned to the hill.

And, now, how stands the great inquiry of all?

Where does it leave the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? In the author's own words we answer :

"In the angle formed by the first and second wall, 'nigh unto the city,' and 'without the gate,' probably in a place where there were gardens' (John xix. 20. 41, Heb. xiii. 2), for the gate Gennath (i.e. the gate of the gardens') led into this quarter; and where we know there were tombs; for the monument of John the high priest was in the angle which was described by that fact; and it is surely a wonderful confirmation of the Christian tradition, that these circumstances, incidentally recorded by a Jewish writer with a totally different view, should all concur in showing, not surely the possibility, but even a probability, of its truth. If undesigned coincidences are worth any thing in such arguments, the Holy Sepulchre is justly entitled to the full benefit of these, which it is impossible for scepticism itself to suspect."-vol. ii. p. 59.

Still, though it may have thus been proved to demonstration that the present site of the Holy Sepulchre is such as must have been without the circuit of the ancient city, it may nevertheless be wrongly determined: or the site having been rightly determined in the first instance, may have been transferred at a later period to this place. It becomes therefore needful to adduce evidence for the truth and for the continuity of the tradition; and this is done in the following chapter. Our limits do not permit us to follow the learned and enthusiastic author all through. We must content ourselves with the following hints as to the course he adopts.

First of all it is obvious to remark, that if the foregoing "attempt to determine the position of Acra and the course of the second wall has been successful, the tradition relating to the Holy Sepulchre is much confirmed:" since it is probable “that a fictitious site would have been fixed far enough away from the ruins of the ancient city, to obviate those apparently strong objections" which arise from its proximity. Moreover, "the very name assigned to the place where our Lord suffered, would tend to preserve the memorial of the site among the natives:" for is it to be supposed, when we remember that this name was universally received in our Saviour's time, and recorded by the Evange

8 This most important fact is proved by the following passages in the fifth book of the Jewish War, vi. 2; vii. 3; ix. 2 ; xi. 4. The monument mentioned was no doubt a tomb (as Herod's monument, Helena's monument, the Fuller's monument, were all tombs). This shows that there were tombs in this part; that they were the tombs of some distinguished persons, such as that of the high priest, and of Joseph of Arimathea, which were handsome monuments, and probably inclosed in gardens.

lists-that the Christian Church had never been absent from Jerusalem above two years, probably-and that all other hills and valleys in the neighbourhood retained their distinctive appellations,-is it to be supposed that that hill, which could not fail to be regarded with the deepest interest, not to say reverence, should have lost its name? Nor would the subsequent attempt of Hadrian, or any other, to obliterate the memorial of our Lord's resurrection, by erecting a temple of Venus over the spot, have any other effect than to perpetuate the tradition of the site;-an observation, which is remarkably confirmed by the fact, that "neither Eusebius, nor any of the writers of that century, imply any difficulty in ascertaining the locality."

"With this strong presumption in favour of a right conclusion, we find the Holy Sepulchre placed exactly where the impugners of the tradition, in accordance with the sacred writers, fix its situation, in reference to the ancient city walls, as far as their course can now be ascertained."-vol. ii. p. 74.

The appearance which the Sepulchre, as it now is, presents, may be thus described :—

"A grotto above ground,' consisting of two chambers, whereof the outer one, constructed of solid masonry, is called the Chapel of the Angel; while the inner one, entered by a low door, is the very cave hewn out of a rock, where was the tomb of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The spot where the sacred body lay is on the right side' of the cave at entering, now covered with marble to protect it from injury; the removal of which would probably show a ledge or couch, such as are seen in other ancient tombs, cut in the native rock, and only large enough to admit the body. The tomb was designed by Joseph for his own burial, so that it may have had but one receptacle, as is the case with many other rock graves in the vicinity of the city.

"The Greeks believe that the Holy Sepulchre was formerly a rock grave, excavated in a mountain side, as is probably the case with those e. g. in the Valley of Hinnom, but that the whole space about it was, by order of the Empress Helena, reduced to the level of the base of the cave, so that the cave stood erect in the middle of an even ground; that she further cased the four sides externally with marble, so as to give it the appearance of a building; and that the roof of the monolith was then pierced in several places to allow a vent to the smoke of the many lamps which continually burnt within."-vol. ii. pp. 77, 78,

Of

Such is probably the correct account: for the testimony of Eusebius is clear and explicit-Eusebius, a bishop of Palestine, who lived at the time when the Sepulchre was recovered. a similar nature is that borne by the Bordeaux pilgrim coeval 9 Mark xvi. 5; compare John xx. 12.

VOL. XII.-NO. XXIII.-SEPT. 1849.