Moriah, where the Temple stood of old, and where like a phoenix that hath arisen from the ashes of its parent, the famous mosque of Omar is now situate." We in charity pass over the impious allusion to the anti-christian mosque of the false prophet of Mekka being, as it were, the offspring of the temple of the Most High God, though it is but a small specimen of that spirit of scepticism that endeavoured to throw ridicule on the Holy Sepulchre; but we know beyond a doubt that Mount Moriah was a small eminence which was completely covered by the temple and its courts, nay, so small was it, that it required that its area should be artificially enlarged. This is a fact placed beyond doubt, and still so visible as to be admitted even by Dr. Clarke himself. If then this mount was occupied by the temple, how could the modern town, which is two and a half miles in circumference, stand upon it? much more so, when in the same sentence he tells us that it is at present occupied by Omar's Mosque. In short, though the learned Cambridge Doctor has expended much labour in endeavouring to disprove the locality given to the hill of Sion as marked in the map, he was forced to acknowledge that its present appearance showed the fulfilment of prophecy, for it was ploughed as a field; and at the time of our visit, corn was waving on its sides and summit.

If the Royal Caves on the north, and the Hill of Evil Council on the south, were included within the limits of the ancient city, it would form an area of

286

AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTLES.

nearly a mile more than the most extended limit assigned to it by authors, who wrote at the time of its existence. If then Mount Sion was included within the ancient city, it completely refutes the opinion, that on its summit took place the crucifixion, and completely contradicts the whole of Buckingham's remarks on the subject, for we are thus explicitly informed by the apostle Paul; "wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate."* And John who "saw it bare record, and his record is true," that "the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city;"† so near indeed does it appear to have been, that many of the Jews who probably stood upon the opposite wall, read the title placed over the cross.

It is absurd to suppose that the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea was placed among those of the kings of Judah, for they are more than a quarter of a mile from the spot where Clarke places the crucifixion, whereas we are told by the same evangelist, that it was in a garden nigh at hand to the place of crucifixion. Nay more, St. Cyril, the first patriarch of Jerusalem, informs us, that the crypt was "in the hollow of the outer wall," which perfectly agrees with the situation I have given it with relation to the ancient city.‡

Hebrews, xiii. 12.

† John, xix. 20.

The strictures throughout this chapter on the opinions of Dr. E. D. Clarke may by some persons be considered severe, or at least presumptuous, but they are absolutely necessary; for if

peii,

Should apology be deemed necessary for this lengthened dissertation upon the topography of Jerusalem, I can only say that while volumes have been written upon Rome,, Athens, Thebes, PomHerculaneum, and other cities-wherein the temple of every heathen deity, and the residence of every heathen philosopher have been examined with labour and care the most minute, and described with surpassing accuracy-this, the first, the most holy, the greatest, and I might add, that which shall be the last of cities, has been almost neglected and forgotten; a city consecrated to the service

his statements were to remain uncontradicted, they stand in direct opposition to the opinions I have endeavoured to establish in the preceding pages. Dr. Clarke's travels are, without doubt, the very best published in their day, and though knowledge is progressing, and new and additional facts are being brought to light by the labours and researches of modern travellers, yet his work must still remain a lasting monument of the talent, the learning, and critical research of the author, as well as one of the standard works in our language, upon the countries of which he treats. But when Dr. Clarke entered Palestine (where he spent something more than a week, three days of which he resided in Jerusalem! and the account of which he published several years after,) he appears to have been so much disgusted with the monkish tales that had been previously related by travellers concerning the holy places at Jerusalem-such as, showing where the cock crew to remind Peter of his crime, &c.—and ridiculing the enthusiastic credulity of his predecessor, Chateaubriand, he was determined to refute, if possible, every tale or saintly legend, whether authentic, probable, or merely traditionary, that had been published concerning them. To the work from which I have quoted so largely, all who travel must feel indebted, and no one is more willing to acknowledge that debt than myself.

of Jehovah, and where he manifested himself to his people; the scene of the labours, sufferings, and death of Messiah; a city, to whose establishment and future glory nations shall yet rise and fall, monarchs flourish, and dynasties decay; a city planned by the great Architect of the world, and before the splendour of which, the greatest metropolis, the mightiest people, and the most transcendant achievements of man shall pass away or be made subservient.

Having endeavoured to answer the objections as to the site of the sepulchre, I find it still further necessary to remove some popular or "vulgar errors" upon this subject. It is generally supposed that Calvary or Golgotha (which are synonymous) was a mount or a considerable hill. This mistake is common to most authors, and is one into which Gibbon himself has fallen; but there is no scriptural warrant for such a supposition. It may, however, have been a small elevation or mound of some fifteen feet high, placed in the natural valley that surrounded the outer wall. Again, others suppose it to have been a place of public execution and a common grave-yard, and this opinion they rest on the word yoλyota Golgotha, and translate it "the place of skulls," or "of a skull." Now if this supposition be correct, is it not as likely that the evangelists would have mentioned it as a place of execution (or as some writers have been pleased to call it, a "gallows") as a gallows") as a place of “ skulls ?”

אדם

A learned correspondent of the Edinburgh Review* has thrown considerable light upon the meaning of the word Golgotha; but he, too, falls into the mistake of making it a place of public burial, "the place of the skulls of men," giving to the word DN Adam, the general appellation of men or mankind, and not the proper name of our first parent. The monks and guardians of the Holy Sepulchre point out a place in the cleft of the rock, beside the cross, where they say the skull of Adam was discovered at the time of the crucifixion; and they gravely assert that the father of mankind had himself interred there, in order that his bones might be sprinkled with the blood of our Saviour! Such is the absurd tale related by Epiphanius, and retailed by the friars to all devout pilgrims.

But this place appears to have had an earlier date than the tradition of monks and fathers, and its existence is believed by both Jews and Mooslims, and is mentioned in the works of the latter. Now it is probable that this spot in the trench outside the walls (and if the tradition concerning it existed from an early date, it would be a reason for its not being included in the city,) was called the place of the skull, or as St. Luke writes; "kaì ôte åteλlov eñì τον τοπον τον καλουμενον κρανίον—and when they were come to a place called SKULL;" a proper name

* See Critique on Dr. Clarke's Travels in the Edinburgh Review for February, 1813.

† See the work of Jalal-Addin, referred to in page 276.

VOL. II.

U