who assert, that in some places

"the solid grey lime

stone rock is distinctly to be seen1."

Against the testimonies that have now been adduced, we are to set the suspicions of William of Baldensel, of Korte, Dr Clarke, and others; the assertion of Hottinger (for he cites no proof) that Cyril Lucar and the then Patriarch Theophanes discovered and acknowledged the imposture2; and the equally astounding and unsupported declaration of Dr Robinson, concerning the incredulity of the modern monks.

I must now endeavour to do justice to Mr Fergusson's elaborate argument, in support of an hypothesis. entirely subversive of all received theories of the topography of Jerusalem3, which may certainly claim the merit of originality, and of boldness amounting to temerity. I will first state the points which he endeavours to establish, so far as they bear on the subject before us. Nothing doubting that the veritable Sepulchre was recovered by Constantine, he is disposed rather to aid the arguments advanced in support of this fact. He thinks that sufficient weight has not been attached to the "intellectual philosophy," which in the age of Constantine "still existed among the educated classes, when men reasoned on events with almost as close an induction as we now use." He distinguishes between the "historical criticism" of the first three centuries of the Christian era, and the legendary in

So Wilde, p. 203, "the sides of the door, as well as the part above it, are hewn out of the solid, &c." M. Noroff told me the same.

2 Analecta Historico-theologica, Append. ad Dissert. VIII, p. 555, cited

in Le Quien's Oriens Chris. Tom. 111. col. 518.

3 An Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem, &c., by James Fergusson, F.R.A.S. London, 1847.

vention of a subsequent period. He extends such a charitable judgment to Eusebius, as to rank him “last of the historians," though "not quite first of the fabulists;" and is anxious to "vindicate Constantine and his friends from the obloquy" which the invention of the cross and the miracles attending it "necessarily entail;" and is, consequently, inclined to give more credence to the fact that they knew where the Sepulchre really stood. He is even disposed to allow some weight to Mr Finlay's argument5 for this conclusion; indeed, he desires no better support for his assumption than that furnished by this pamphlet. And what is that assumption? his own words, it is "neither more nor less than that the building so well known among Christians as the Mosk of Omar, is the identical Church of the Holy Sepulchre erected by Constantine"."

In

Bold theories require bold arguments for their support; and a geometrician who undertakes to construct “an equilateral right-angled triangle"" (which is impossible) is not likely to be staggered by ordinary difficulties. Accordingly, whatever can be done to sustain

⚫ Essay, p. 82-84.

Which see above, p. 65. One thing is very amusing. Mr Finlay dedicates his brochure "to his brother, Jas. Mac Gregor, Esq. :" for this he is taken to task by Mr Fergusson, who says: "perhaps the best description of Mr Finlay's argument is contained in his dedication.......That Geo. Finlay should be the brother of Jas. Mac Gregor, is a conclusion I should not have arrived at, nor would any one eise, I believe; and though he ought to know best, I must confess my inabi

lity to comprehend it." p. 87, note 1. This may serve as an indication of Mr Fergusson's qualifications for estimating and clearing up such difficulties as surround the questions which he has undertaken to elucidate. I adduce it on this account; for as he has the modesty in his preface (p. xvi.) to promise some "sterling reasoning," it is a matter of interest to see how this engagement is fulfilled.

"Essay, p. 76.

7 See this phænomenon in Mr Fergusson's Essay, p. 122.

his views, by suggesting the corruption of MSS., in way of mutilation, interpolation, or omission,-by va tions in the original, or alterations in translating,resorted to without scruple, sometimes without not always without authority: of all which we shall abundant, and sufficiently palpable examples, as we low him through his catena of testimonies, the exam tion of which is no longer "a mere work of superer tion," since Mr Fergusson has answered the questio "Who has ever doubted the identity of the present with that selected under Constantine?!"

But first I must mention some other notions of Fergusson, as connected with this question; though t complete refutation must be deferred to a subseq chapter. The Jewish Temple, according to his occupied a square of 600 feet at the South-West a of the present Haram. About 150 yards from the N East angle of the Temple was the place of crucifix over which was built the Church of Golgotha. present Golden Gateway is the propylæum to the At of Constantine's Basilica. Mount Sion was a small 1 about the middle of the level area of the Haram, n corresponding in situation with the platform now cupied by the Mosk of Omar, which Mosk is the Ma of the Resurrection,-the hollowed Sakhrah, or Sa Rock of the Moslems, being the very Sepulchre its

Now the main argument adduced in support of new and startling theory, is the architecture of the I of the Rock, which, it is said, can only belong to date of Constantine. This argument belongs to

Dr Robinson, Bib. Res. Vol. 11. p. 71.

2 Essay, P.

Temple-area, and when we come to examine it, we shall find that it halts throughout, and fairly breaks down at the last. But I am here prepared to maintain that, if the architectural argument were without a flaw-if the Mosk were as perfect a specimen of Constantinian architecture as could be devised, still, if historical evidence is worth anything, Mr Fergusson's theory cannot hold. I am convinced that it would be quite as easy to prove that the present St Paul's was a pagan temple, or that Westminster Abbey is the identical St Paul's that was burnt down in the fire of London; in short, there is nothing so extravagant that might not be proved by such a process of historical criticism and architectural reasoning as that adopted by Mr Fergusson, who himself allows, that "it is rather a startling fact, to find in a building so often burned down, according to the chroniclers, the very original ceiling with which it was erected fifteen centuries ago3."

The scriptural narrative," and "the testimony of subsequent writers, both Christian and Mohammedan,” are appealed to with almost as much confidence as the architecture; and to these I must advert. With regard to the former, it is admitted that "the indications of the New Testament are so slight, that nothing positive can be concluded from them directly in favour of any system." The topographical argument, when considered in laying out the ancient Temple, will be found to be directly opposed to this new theory, and it is difficult to notice the scriptural objection to the received Sepulchre, because I know not what idea Mr Fergussonwho, it should be remembered, has never been at Jeru

salem-has formed of it; I know only that it must 1 an erroneous idea'. He says, the Evangelists all agr that those who came to look for the body, "looked do into the Sepulchre." The statement is not corre though the words are marked as a citation. The d ciples are said to have stooped down, in order to lo in2; and this description is entirely consistent with t present tomb, with its very low door-still low, thou probably somewhat heightened for the accommodati of the pilgrims; nor can I imagine any period when would have been possible to look in without stoopi nearly to the ground; much less when it would have be necessary "to stand on tip-toes to have looked in."

We will proceed to Eusebius, who witnessed t recovery of the Holy Sepulchre, and assisted at t dedication of the Church of Constantine. His deser tion of the site, of the Sepulchre, and of the buildin about it, are wholly irreconcilable with Mr Fergusso hypothesis, as they are consistent with the establish tradition. It has been already shewn, by an inciden agreement with the language of Josephus, how c rectly the New Jerusalem is placed by Eusebius opp site to the Old; the other notice that "the Sepulc is situated in the northern parts of Sion," has be also explained3; and a glance at the plan will shew t it is true as regards the received Sion and the act Sepulchre. But this relative position of the Sepulc and Sion does not suit Mr Fergusson's hypothes

παρακύψας βλέπει, Luke 12; John xx. 5. παρέκυψεν εἰ μνημεῖον, John xx. 11.

3 Above, pp. 62, 3.