in the place at which they were wondering, 'one stone upon another which should not be rased.' For it was right that this place should undergo an entire destruction and desolation, on account of the audacity of the inhabitants; because it was the residence of impious men. And just as the prediction was, are the results in fact remaining: the whole Temple and its walls', as well as those ornamented and beautiful buildings which were within it, and which exceeded all description, having suffered desolation from that time to this! With time too this increases; and so has the power of the Word gone on destroying, that in many places no vestige of their foundations is now visible! which any one who desires it may see with his own eyes. And should any one say that a few of the places are still existing, we may nevertheless justly expect the destruction of these also, as their ruin is daily increasing; the prophetic Word daily operating by a power which is unknown. I know too (for I have heard it from persons who in 1 This remark of Eusebius seems decisive against Dr Robinson's theory of a restoration of the Temple Walls by Hadrian. Herr Krafft has the same idea; and wishes to identify the dwdeкάTUλov of Hadrian with the fortress Antonia, on the ground that the δωδεκάπυλον was formerly called dvaβαθμοί. But he fails to prove that Antonia was ever called by that name; and it is very arbitrary to extend the name of the steps (see above, p. 404, note 2) to the whole fortress. The buildings, &c. erected by Hadrian, are thus mentioned in the Paschal Chronicle: Καθελῶν τὸν ναὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων τὸν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἔκτισε τὰ δύο δημόσια και τὸ θέατρον καὶ τὸ τρικάμερον καὶ τὸ τετράνυμφον καὶ τὸ δωδεκάπυλον τὸ πρὶν ὀνομαζόμενον ἀναβαθμοὶ καὶ τὴν κόδραν, καὶ ἐμέρισεν τὴν πόλιν εἰς ἑπτὰ ἀμφορα· κ.λ. 1η ann. 3, Æl. Adriani. Ind. 1. p. 254. ed. Paris. Tom. I. p. 474. Ed. Niebuhr. Bonnæ, 1832; and see Du Cange's notes in loc. Tom. 11. p. 327, and the references. Orosius (cir. A.D. 416), having related the suppression of the Jewish revolt under Hadrian, says, "Christianis tantum civitate permissa, quam ipse in optimum statum murorum extructione reparavit, et Æliam vocari jussit." Hist. cap. xv. " terpret the passage differently) that this was not said. on all the buildings, but only on that place which the disciples, when expressing their wonder upon it, pointed out to Him: for it was upon this that He spoke the prophetic Word?" Thus far Eusebius. For myself, I look for the accomplishment of the prophecy in its widest and most literal sense; and expect that if there be still one stone left upon another, which at least is not certain, the mighty, though silent, operation of that wonder-working Word will in due time bring it down: and who can tell whether, before the time of the end, some second Julian may not renew the attempt to rebuild the Jewish temple, which antichrist alone shall rear3, and whether this attempt may not result in the destruction of such portions of it as remain? SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES. NOTE A. MR. FERGUSSON'S THEORY OF THE MOSK OF OMAR, AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE DOME OF THE ROCK. THE necessity of any further remarks on Mr. Fergusson's theory may be thought to be superseded by the examination to which it has been submitted in the second Chapter of this Volume: for if I have there proved that the Dome of the Rock cannot be the Church of Constantine, the question is so far settled. But Mr. Fergusson might feel aggrieved, were I to pass by without notice what he considers his strongest argument; and it is right that he should have the full benefit of it, if it may palliate the error which he has committed: for should his premises, founded on the architecture, prove to be correct, his conclusions, however false, will yet deserve indulgence. I proceed, therefore, to notice the conclusions which he attempts to establish on supposed architectural data. Having assumed the Dome of the Rock as the Church of the Anastasis, and the Golden Gate as the Propylæum of the Basilica of Constantine, of which Basilica no traces remain, he was compelled to shift the whole site of the Temple, (with its appurtenances, and all the traditions connected with it,) and of the Mosk which Abd-el-Melik erected over its ruins. The process was very simple, when historical and antiquarian testimony might be received or rejected ad libitum'. Supposing Dr. Robinson's theory of the ruined Arch to be correct, and the Jews' Wailing-place to be in the same line with it, these remains must be taken, he thinks, to mark the west wall of the Outer Temple: then from the S. W. angle of the Haram he measures on the south and west walls 600 feet (one stadium, = 400 cubits), and, from the extremities, draws the north and east walls equal and parallel to the south and west walls respectively, (the S. W. angle being a right angle), and thus he forms a square of the dimensions required—by Josephus, at least, if not by the 4 The Theory of the Temple is propounded in the first part of the Essay, with which compare Plate VI. of Restored Plans. 2 Essay, pp. 11—13. 4 He finds this northern wall still existing; "running parallel to the Talmud. Place the Tower Antonia at the N. W. angle, and the restoration is complete. Then the double Gateway under El-Aksa will be the South Gate of the Temple'-called the Gate of Huldah, communicating with the brazen altar by the vaulted passage, which ran beneath the Royal Cloister; and the wall of modern masonry, built between the piers of the substructions on the west side of the triple Roman Gateway, will be the ancient city and temple-wall on the East ®. The Mosk el-Aksa will be the Dome of the Rock build by Abd-elMelik, not at all on the site of the Temple proper, but only within the area. Further, the triple gateway, with the adjacent substructions, are the work of Justinian 1o, and the irregularity of the vaults enables him to restore the Church which they supported, and is to him "almost proof positive that Justinian's Church was situated over them, or on a continuation of them." This Church is identical with S. Maria de Latina, one of the group of Churches connected with the Holy Sepulchre ". Now, I shall not be expected to refute all these propositions: the general theory of the Temple has only this to recommend it, that, having the whole Haram at its disposal, it is able to cut off exactly so much as will serve the requirements of Josephus, though not the specifications of the Rabbies; otherwise it is wholly arbitrary. It gives no account of the eastern wall of Cyclopean architecture: it finds no sacred rock for the threshing-floor of Araunah, for the altar of David, or for the Sakhrah of the Moslems. Losing sight of the distinction between Mesjid and Jamy, so strongly insisted on by the historian, it confounds the southern wall, at the distance of just 600 feet, and extending to the distance of just 600 feet from the western wall." The very thing-only the wall in question "now supports the southern side of the platform," and was probably built for that purpose; for, says Mr. F., "whether it is of ancient masonry or not I cannot say, and no one seems to have observed." Essay, p. 16. The Rabbies are treated with great contempt by Mr. Fergusson. As for this measure, if it does not agree with Josephus, "we have only to reject it as a mistake, if not a wilful misstatement." p. 21. Essay, pp. 30–34. 7 Ibid. pp. 13, 15, and 27. * Essay, p. 16. Comp. his Plan; and see above, p. 312. "Essay, pp. 130—144. 10 Ibid. pp. 117–125. "The identity of the Church of Justinian with the "Sancta Maria de Latina," built by the merchants of Amalfi in the 10th century, is one of many like gratuitous assumptions: and the fact that the Churches about the Holy Sepulchre were "mutuis inter se parietibus cohærentes," as Bernhard says, is wholly disregarded. See p. 106 sup. That a Church dedicated to S. Mary had existed on the site previously to the erection of the "de Latinâ," as Dr Robinson hints, (Bib. Res. Vol. 11. p. 45, note 1,) is not borne out by the passage which he cites from Arculfus and Bernhard, for the Church of S. Mary mentioned by them was merely a small Chapel attached to the Rotunda. See Professor Willis above, pp. 262, 263, n. 1. VOL. II. 27 whole area with one of the Mosks; which Mosk (el-Aksa) it further supposes to remain in the state in which it was left by Abd-el-Melik, (A. D. 692), and described by Arculfus, (A. D. 697), and therefore leaves no room for the complaint of El-Mahadi, (A.D. 775-785,) that the building was narrow and long; nor for the execution of his order, "Reduce the length and increase the width." And as it ignores all historical records, so does it also set at nought all architectural evidence ; supposing the existing building to be exactly conformed to the original ground-plan; though its constructive features, no less than the Mohammedan annals, assure us it is not. It presumes the present arrangement and adornment-the pointed arches, and wooden architraves, and basketcapitals, to be coeval with the building, though we have read of repeated destructions and restorations of various portions, amply sufficient to account for their later insertion, while the basket-capitals still declare themselves masked Corinthian; and, finally, it sets at nought the harmonious witness of all intelligent writers that have entered the Mosk, declaring with one voice that, even in its barbarised condition, it retains unmistakeable evidence of its original destination for a Christian Church'. The very foundation on which the theory is based is a foundation of sand. The vestibule of the subterranean gateway, supposed to be that of Huldah, cannot, it is argued, be so late as Justinian, when it is perfectly well ascertained that dome-vaults, with pendentives such as these, cannot be earlier. Enough, then, of this hypothesis: but there is one question incidentally connected with it that really deserves some consideration: it relates to the original structure of the Khalif Omar, the position and history of which is involved in great obscurity; for it happens, unfortunately, that no Christian description of the City has been preserved to us from the interval between Omar and Abd-el-Melik Ibn-Merwan; and the earliest notices after this period serve rather to add to the perplexity, while the conflicting Moslem traditions are admirably suited to the same purpose. In this however they agree, that the Khalif, having made himself master of the City, and found the true site of the Mosk of David, next set himself to recover the Sakhrah, or Sacred Rock. He inquired of one of his companions, Kaab Abu-Ishak, "Dost thou know the place of the Sakhrah?" who replied, "Towards the wall which looks towards the Valley of Gehenna, at such and such a distance." Then he dug, and the 1 I may mention Ali Bey, Dr Richardson, Messrs. Catherwood, Bonomi, and Arundale; also General Noroff, who compares its general effect to that of S. Peter extra Muros, at Rome. 2 Jelal-addin, in Reynolds, pp. 177, 8. Compare p. 184. Kemal-ad-din in Lemming, p. 55. Mejr-ed-din, Tom. 3 I take the reply as given by Mejred-din, 1. c. The other authorities state it differently, and are one or both quite unintelligible. Thus in Jelaladdin it is, "Measure out one cubit on |