were driven from the city, and dared not approach of materials was brought together, and the works the holy places under pain of death. As the perse- of the foundations at least carried vigorously on cution relaxed, a few crept back to their old quarter during this period of excitement, before the miracle of the city, and there most naturally built them- occurred, which put a final stop to the undertaking. selves a church in which to celebrate the sacred Even if we have not historical evidence of these mysteries of Easter. It is not necessary to assume facts, the appearance of the south wall of the Ha fraud in this proceeding any more than to impute ram would lead us to expect that something of the it to those who built sepulchral churches in Italy, sort had been attempted at this period. As before Spain, or England. Thousands have prayed and mentioned, the great tunnel-like vault under the wept in these simulated sepulchres all over the Mosque el-Aksa, with its four-domed vestibule, is world, and how much more appropriately at Jeru- almost certainly part of the temple of Herod [see salem! Being in the city, and so near the spot, TEMPLE], and coeval with his period, but exterit was almost impossible but that it should event-, nally to this, certain architectural decorations have ually come to be assumed that instead of a sinulated, it was the true sepulchre, and it would have required more than human virtue on the part of the priests if they had undeceived the unsuspecting pilgrims, whose faith and liberality were no doubt quickened by the assumption. Had the Christians never recovered the city, the difference would never have been discovered in the dark ages; but when unexpectedly those who had knelt and prayed as pilgrims, came back as armed men, and actually possessed the city, it was either necessary to confess the deception or to persevere in it; and, as was too often the case, the latter course was pursued, and hence all the subsequent confusion.

Nothing, however, can be more remarkable than the different ways in which the Crusaders treated the Dome of the Rock and the Mosque el-Aksa. The latter they always called the " Templum seu palatium Solomonis," and treated it with the contempt always applied by Christians to anything Jewish. The Mosque was turned into a stable, the buildings into dwellings for knights, who took the title of Knights Templars, from their residence in the Temple. But the Dome of the Rock they called " Templum Domini." (Jacob de Vitry, c. 62; Sawulf, Rel. de Voyage, iv. 833; Maundeville, Voiage, etc., 100, 105; Mar. Sanutus, iii. xiv. 9; Brocardus, vi. 1047.) Priests and a choir were appointed to perform service in it, and during the whole time of the Christian occupation it was held certainly as sacred, if not more so, than the church of the Holy Sepulchre in the town. (Will. of Tyre,

Haram.

viii. 3.) Had they believed or suspected that the No. 10. Frontispiece of Julian in south wall of rock was that on which the Jewish temple stood it would have been treated as the Aksa was, but they knew that the Dome of the Rock was a Christian building, and sacred to the Saviour; though in the uncritical spirit of the age they never seem exactly to have known either what it was, or by whom it was erected. [See § IV. Amer. ed.]

XI. Rebuilding of the Temple by Julian. Before leaving the subject, it is necessary to revert to the attempt of Julian the Apostate to rebuild the Temple of the Jews. It was undertaken avowedly as a slight to the Christians, and with the idea of establishing a counterpoise to the influence and position they had attained by the acts of Constantine. It was commenced about six months before his death, and during that period the work seems to have been pushed forward with extraordinary activity under the guidance of his friend Alypius. Not only were large sums of money collected for the purpose, and an enormous concourse of the Jews assembled on the spot, but an immense mass

been added (wood-cut No. 10), and that so slightly,
that daylight can be perceived between the old
walls and the subsequent decorations, except at the
points of attachment." It is not difficult to ascer-
tain, approximately at least, the age of these ad-
juncts. From their classical forms they cannot be
so late as the time of Justinian; while on the other
hand they are slightly more modern in style than
the architecture of the Golden Gateway, or than
any of the classical details of the Dome of the
Rock. They may therefore with very, tolerable
certainty be ascribed to the age of Julian, while,
from the historical accounts, they are just such as
Above them an
we would expect to find them.
inscription bearing the name of Hadrian has been
and
inserted in the wall, but turned upside down;
the whole of the masonry being of that interme-
diate character between that which we know to be
ancient and that which we easily recognize as the

especially for the writer on the spot, and to which he owes much of the information detailed above, though it has been impossible to refer to it on all

a This fact the writer owes, with many other valuable rectifications, to the observation of his friend Mr. G. Grove. The wood-cut, etc., is from a large photograph which, with many others, was taken occasions.

work of the Mohammedans, there can be little well known at this period -— A. D. 362 doubt but that it belongs to this period.

Among the incidents mentioned as occurring at this time is one bearing rather distinctly on the topography of the site. It is said (Gregory Nazianzen, ad Jud. et Gent. 7, 1, and confirmed by Sozomen) that when the workmen were driven from their works by the globes of fire that issued from the foundations, they sought refuge in a neighboring church (ἐπί τι τῶν πλησίον ἱερῶν, or, as Sozomen has it, els tò iepóv) τὸ an expression which would be unintelligible did not the buildings of Constantine exist at that time on the spot; for, except these, there could not be any church or sacred place in the neighborhood to which the expression could be applied. The principal bearing, however, of Julian's attempt on the topography of Jerusalem consists in the fact of its proving not only that the site of the Jewish Temple was perfectly

but that

the spot was then, as always, held accursed by the Christians, and as doomed by the denunciation of Christ himself never to be reëstablished; and this consequently makes it as absurd to suppose that the Aksa is a building of Justinian as that the Dome of the Rock or the Golden Gateway - if Christian buildings-ever stood within its precincts.a

XII. Church of Justinian. - Nearly two centuries after the attempt of Julian, Justinian erected a church at Jerusalem; of which, fortunately, we have so full and detailed an account in the works of Procopius (de Ædificis Const.) that we can have little difficulty in fixing its site, though no remains (at least above ground) exist to verify our conjectures. The description given by Procopius is so clear, and the details he gives with regard to the necessity of building up the substructure point so

NORTH

pozta Shtep bilan

é entrionalil.

SOUTH.

No. 11. Plan of Jerusalem in the 12th century.

tians; and more than this, we have the direct testimony of Eutychius, writing in the 9th century, from Alexandria (Annales, ii. 289), "That the Christians had built no church within the area of the Temple on account of the denunciations of the Lord, and had left it in ruins."

unmistakably to the spot near to which it must is this shown from Julian's attempt, but all the have stood, that almost all topographers have historians, Christian and Mohammedan, who refer jumped to the conclusion that the Mosque el-Aksa | to Omar's visit to Jerusalem, relate that the Sakhrah is the identical church referred to. Apart from the was covered with filth and abhorred by the Chrisconsideration already mentioned, the architecture of that building is alone sufficient to refute any such idea. No seven-aisled basilica was built in that age, and least of all by Justinian, whose favorite plan was a dome on pendentives, which in fact, in his age, had become the type of an Oriental Church. Besides, the Aksa has no apse, and, from its situation, never could have had either that or any of the essential features of a Christian basilica. Its whole architecture is that of the end of the 7th century, and its ordinance is essentially that of a mosque. It is hardly necessary to argue this point, however, as the Aksa stands on a spot which was perfectly known then, and ever afterwards, to be the very centre of the site of Solomon's Temple. Not only

Procopius describes; so that if it were situated at the northern extremity of the vaults, all the arguments that apply to the Aksa equally apply to this situation.

We have also direct testimony that a church did exist here immediately after Justinian's time in the following words of Ant. Martyr.: "Ante ruinas vero templi Solomonis aqua decurrit ad fontem Siloam, secus porticum Solomonis in ecclesia est sedes in qua sedit Pilatus quando audivit Dominum" (Itin. p. 16). As the portico of Solomon was the eastern portico of the Temple, this exactly describes the position of the church in question.

Having now gone through the main outlines of the topography of Jerusalem, in so far as the limits of this article would admit, or as seems necessary for the elucidation of the subject, the many details which remain will be given under their separate titles, as TEMPLE, TOMB, PALACE, etc. It only remains, before concluding, to recapitulate here that the great difficulties which seem hitherto to have rendered the subject confused, and in fact inexplicable, were (1) the improper application of the name of Zion to the western hill, and (2) the assumption that the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre was that built by Constantine.

J. F.

But whether we assume the Aksa, or a church The moment we transfer the name, Zion, from outside the Temple, on these vaults, to have been the western to the eastern hill, and the scenes of the the Mary church of Justinian, how comes it that Passion from the present site of the Holy Sepulchre Justinian chose this remote corner of the city, and to the area of the Haram, all the difficulties disso difficult a site, for the erection of his church? | appear; and it only requires a little patience, and - | Why did he not go to the quarter where if the perhaps in some instances a little further investigamodern theory be correct all the sacred localities tion on the spot, for the topography of Jerusalem of the Christians were grouped together in the to become as well, or better established, than that middle of the city? The answer seems inevitable: of any city of the ancient world. that it was because in those times the Sepulchre and Golgotha were here, and not on the spot to which the Sepulchre with his Mary-church have subsequently been transferred. It may also be added that the fact of Justinian having built a church in the neighborhood is in itself almost sufficient to prove that in his age the site and dimensions of the Jewish Temple were known, and also that the localities immediately outside the Temple were then considered as sacred by the Christians. [See § IV., Amer. ed.]

now

* IV. TOPOGRAPHY OF THE CITY. It will be seen from the preceding that the two points in the topography of Jerusalem which Mr. Fergusson regarded as demanding special elucidation are the site of Mount Zion, and the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. With reference to both, he has advanced theories which are original

theories which not only have not been broached before, and are unsupported by a single tradition, but which, so far as is known, contradict the previous impressions of the Christian world. Speculations so novel respecting localities so prominent in the history of the sacred city, naturally awaken the reader's surprise and suspicion, and demand a candid scrutiny.

We will examine these points separately

I. Mount Zion.—Mr. Fergusson's theory is, that the Mount Zion of the sacred writers is not "the western hill on which the city of Jerusalem now "the eastern stands, and in fact always stood," but " hill, or that on which the Temple stood." On this point we will consider

XIII. Conclusion. Having now gone through all the principal sites of the Christian edifices, as they stood anterior to the destruction of the churches by el-Hakeem, the plan (No. 4) of the area of the Haram will be easily understood. Both Constantine's and Justinian's churches having disappeared, of course the restoration of these is partly conjectural. Nothing now remains in the Haram area but the Mohammedan buildings situated within the area of Solomon's Temple. Of the Christian buildings which once existed there, there remain only the great Anastasis of Constantine known as "the Mosque of Omar" and "the Dome (1.) The testimony of the Sacred Scriptures.· of the Rock" - certainly the most interesting, as The sacred historian says, "As for the Jebusites, well as one of the most beautiful Christian build- the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Israel ings in the East, and a small but equally interesting could not drive them out, but the Jebusites dwell little domical building called the Little Sakhrah at with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this the north end of the inclosure, and said to contain day" (Josh. xv. 63). Four hundred years later, | a fragment of the rock which the angel sat upon," David and all Israel went to Jerusalem, which is and which closed the door of the sepulchre (Ali Bey, Jebus, where the Jebusites were, the inhabitants And the inhabitants of Jebus said to ii. 225). These two buildings are entire. Of Con- of the land. stantine's church we have only the festal entrance, David, Thou shalt not come hither. Nevertheless, known as the Golden Gateway, and of Justinian's David took the castle of Zion, which is the City of only the substructions. David. And David dwelt in the castle; therefore they called it, The City of David" (1 Chr. xi. 4, 5, 7). Here was his citadel, and here his residence; and hence the frequent allusions in the Bible to the towers, bulwarks, and palaces of Zion. A few years later, " David made him houses in the City of David, and prepared a place for the ark of God, and pitched for it a tent." "So they brought the ark of God, and set it in the midst of the tent that David had pitched for it" (1 Chr. xv. 1). Thirty years after, "Solomon began to build the house of (2 Chr. the Lord at Jerusalem, in Mount Moriah "

It is interesting to compare this with a plan of the city (wood-cut No. 11) made during the Crusades, and copied from a manuscript of the twelfth century, in the Library at Brussels. It gives the traditional localities pretty much as they are now; with the exception of St. Stephen's Gate, which was the name then applied to that now known as the Damascus Gate. The gate which now bears his name was then known as that of the Valley of Jehoshaphat. The "Temple of Solomon," i. e. the "i. Mosque of el Aksa, is divided by a wide street from that of our Lord; and the Sepulchre is represented | iii. 1). Seven years later, "Solomon assembled as only a smaller copy of its prototype within the the elders of Israel unto Jerusalem, to bring up the Haram area, but very remarkably similar in design, ark of the covenant of the Lord, out of the City of to say the least of it. David, which is Zion" (2 Chr. v. 2), and then fol