below the present level. Let us proceed further towards the North.

On the 18th of December, 1842, I was walking over the ruins of the Hospital of the Knights of St John, when, on looking down from the top of one of the chambers, among some prickly pears on the South side of the building, I discovered a solid and compact mass of masonry of a totally different character from any I had before seen in Jerusalem. The workmanship was much better, and the stones much whiter and harder than those used in the hospital or in any modern building. On a closer examination I found it to be the pier of a gateway, with the spring-course of the arch still entire. The mass had never been disturbed on the inside, i. e. on the North; whereas on the South side there was every appearance of a wall having been removed the mass being now supported by stones of another character, very clumsily inserted. The pier may be eight or nine feet deep, and fourteen or sixteen high from its present base: but its present base is level with the roof of the bazaar, which is about the same height from the ground. Corresponding with this pier, about ten feet to the North, is a wall of much later date, and a spring-course of an arch answering to the other, but constructed of much smaller stones, of an entirely different character. I should judge from this that the ancient mass had been turned to account in a later building, now ruined, and had formed one side of a vaulted room. The stones are not large, varying from

* See Schultz's Jerusalem, pp. 61, 2, and Lord Nugent, Lands Classical and Sacred, Vol. 11. pp. 54, 5, where is a very faithful drawing of the stones.

They take it for the gate Gennath; but I agree with Dr R. in placing the gate Gennath in the first wall. See also Krafft, p. 29.

two to three feet long, but the construction is very solid. An attempt was afterwards made to effect an entrance from the bazaar to examine the lower part, but, as usual, without success. A frequent inspection of this singular and venerable pier left little doubt on my mind that it belonged to a gateway of the second wall, although I can scarcely hope that this meagre account will be suf ficient to bring the reader to the same conclusion. Following the line still towards the North, at the "Via Dolorosa" we come to another traditionary gateway, marked in the plans as the "Porta Judicii ;" and then at the Damascus Gate, where the wall would bend to cross the Tyropoon, we have the two chambers of Cyclopean architecture noticed by Dr Robinson.

Now without venturing to hope that this cumulative evidence will work the same conviction in the minds of others that it has in my own, I think I may safely affirm, without fear of contradiction, that no other course for this part of the second wall can be shewn, which has so much to be said in its favour, and so little against it; and it has above all this advantage, that it satisfies every demand of the wall of Josephus. It has a northern and a southern part', it has, as we shall afterwards see, for some distance a circular course2, and it starts from a point in the ancient wall of Sion some distance East of the Hippic Tower.

And now where does it leave the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? 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","

1 J. W. v. viii. 2.

2 Ibid. v. iv. 2: κυκλούμενον τὸ

προσάρκτιον κλίμα.

3 John xix. 20, 41; Heb. xiii. 2.

for the gate Gennath (i. e. "the gate of the gardens1") 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 fact5: 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 shewing, not merely the possibility, but even a probability, of its truth. If "undesigned coincidences" are worth anything in such arguments, the Holy Sepulchre is justly entitled to the full benefit of these, which it is impossible for scepticism itself to suspect.

And it is a great satisfaction to me to find that this evidence for the course of the Second Wall has proved satisfactory to travellers who have examined the ground since it was first adduced; and that although they may not admit the antiquity of some of the monuments which I have indicated, they still find sufficient warrant for the main fact, while Dr Schultz has perhaps

So Milman takes it to mean: I think with great probability. Hist. of the Jews, 111. 16. See Buxtorf's Rabbin. Lex. voce .

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 shews 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 enclosed in gardens. The few houses that stood in this part were probably private villas of such great individuals, with which their gardens were connected, and in which they had their private monuments." J. R. It is perhaps worth remarking, that there were many such gardens, outside the new wall, on the North, when Titus commenced his attack. J. W. v. iii. 2.

6 I may mention among those who have published since my first edition, Dr Schultz, Tischendorf, Krafft, Strauss, and Lord Nugent.