testimony would be rather troublesome; but Mr Fergusson disposes of him with as much ease as he had of earlier writers. Being better acquainted with Saracenic history than the other writers of his day, he was fully aware of the Saracenic origin of the Dome of the Rock. 'He asserts twice over that it was built by Omar Ibn-Khatab, and appeals to the inscription on the walls in testimony of this." These inscriptions-for there were many— represented in mosaic work within and without the Mosk, were supposed to be as old as the building, and descended to minute particulars,-the author and the expense of the undertaking, the time when it was commenced and finished, being therein recorded. awkward fact, one would think, for Mr Fergusson's theory, the force of which he evades by a new expedient. Though the worthy Archbishop, in the two passages in which he records the fact, is as grave and sedate as usual, Mr Fergusson discovers in his statements "an earnestness that looks very suspicious; and I cannot help thinking (he adds) that as Archbishop of Tyre, he was in the secret, and consequently anxious to conceal it; and this appeal to inscriptions, which Christians had not access to in his day, and could not read if they had,

He had composed a Saracenic history from the time of Mohammed, which he refers to in his extant work, Lib. 1. capp. i. and iii. It is now unhappily lost. It was entitled "Gesta Orientalium principum."

5 So Mr Fergusson, p. 182; but he does not cite the particulars of these inscriptions, (not "the inscription," as he writes). "Extant porro in eodem templi ædificio, intus et extra, ex opere musaico, Arabici idiomatis literarum VOL. II.

An

appears to me about as clumsy an argument as could well be used to prove a bad case."

I think I may stop here. The intelligent reader would perhaps have been abundantly satisfied, had I done so long ago. Most persons who are open to reason would imagine that the bare fact, that Constantine built no Church over the Holy Sepulchre, was pretty conclusive against a Church of his standing over it at this day, whatever may be the force of the architectural argument. The very first step of Mr Fergusson's proposition is inadmissible. He assumes, without any warrant, "that Constantine did erect two separate churches, one a basilica, the other a round church, and that this last did contain the rock in which was the Sepulchre1." This cannot be granted: it is directly contrary to historical fact: to admit it, is to run counter to the express testimony of Eusebius, who was an eyewitness of what he describes, an active agent in the works which he has immortalized.

Again, the fact that the Propylæum of Constantine's Basilica opened upon the market-place, in the midst of the city, while the Golden Gate crowns the brow of the deep valley of Jehoshaphat, would prove to most men that Constantine's buildings, whatever they were, did not occupy the place assigned them by Mr Fergusson. This would have sufficed for his argument; and one or two instances, of the many which I have adduced, of

pation by the Franks. He was successively Archdeacon of Tyre (A.D. 1167), Chancellor of the Kingdom, (Lib. XXI. cap. v.) and consecrated Archbishop of Tyre in A. D. 1174. (ibid. cap. ix.) He commenced his history in A. D. 1182, (Lib. I. cap. iii.) and brought it down

to the end of A. D. 1183. He was poisoned at Rome, at the instance of the Patriarch Almaric, probably in the following year, 1184, three years before the conquest of Jerusalem by Saladin. Le Quien, O. C. Tom. 111. col. 1314, &c. Essay, p. 103. See above, p. 96.

his manner of citing and translating his authors,-would have demonstrated how very untrustworthy a guide he is to the fountains of historic truth. But I have followed him carefully through all his authorities in the vain hope of finding a single fair quotation; and, failing in this, I have exposed his unfairness; I hope with temper and moderation, for I have no desire to repay his discourtesy in kind. But now he must allow me with all honesty to enter a strong remonstrance against the line which he has, unwittingly or wilfully, pursued. The wildest and most extravagant theories that were ever propounded, on this or any other subject, may be treated with toleration, however ridiculous, if honestly held and fairly maintained by their advocates; but when an over partiality for a preposterous fancy so warps our judgment, or darkens our perceptions, as to incapacitate us from appreciating evidence, or to indispose us to receive the truth, there is an end of forbearance-we need to be recalled to moral consciousness by a full exposure of our errors. The greatest wrong that can be done to any department of history, is to attempt to poison the fountains from which it must be drawn. Nothing can justify it-neither boldness, nor cleverness, nor zeal for truth for all which the author of the Essay must have full credit. Thus much by way of protest. I need only add, that I have not thought it needful to cite other writers than those referred to by Mr Fergusson, or I might have shewn from the Patriarch Eutychius, and from other authors, that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre,

2 See Eutychii Annales, Tom. II. pp. 421-429, cited in Vol. 1. pp. 337, 8, where we find the Dome of the Rock

and the Holy Sepulchre existing together between A.D. 813 and 829. Eutychius died in A. D. 940.

the Dome of the Rock, and the Mosk El-Aksa, had each a separate and independent existence previous to the date assigned to the transference: but if any doubt remain on the subject, the Architectural History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, from the pen of Professor Willis, will so fully establish the identity of the present site with that of the original Sepulchre, that it were superfluous to pursue the subject any further in this place.

I am not aware of any other traveller or writer of celebrity who has declared against the main Ecclesiastical tradition of Jerusalem, since the publication of the Biblical Researches, with the exception of Dr Wilson', who, however, has advanced few original objections, all of which have been anticipated in this or the preceding Chapter. He admits that the conclusions of Dr Robinson, "though they have obtained the acquiescence of multitudes of his readers, both in Europe and America, have been assented to but by few travellers who have visited Jerusalem," since their publication. For himself, he decides against the authenticity of the traditionary site, which he thinks must have fallen within the Second Wall; whereas "the intimations in the Scriptures make the impression on his mind, that the Crucifixion and Burial of Christ took place, not merely beyond any particular wall of Jerusalem, but beyond any distinct parts of the city which might lie beyond that wall." The situation of the Gate Gennath, near the Hippic Tower, which he adopts from Dr Robinson, (an impossible position, as I have endeavoured to prove) and the Pool, so doubtfully attributed to Hezekiah, are the two topogra

1 Lands of the Bible, Vol. 1. p. 434.

phical arguments which, in his opinion, countervail against the authority of the received site2.

With respect to the historical evidence, "after a careful examination of Dr Robinson's authorities, he is inclined to say that he has perhaps pressed them somewhat beyond their legitimate bounds;" and he moderates with sufficient impartiality between these ancient writers and their critic3. But as if to compensate for this service, he attacks Macarius with more than usual vehemence, suggesting motives of deception with an ingenuity of suspicion surpassing all preceding writers on the same side; the most novel of which is, that "the search may have been commenced at this site, simply to get rid of the idol-fane"-as though there was no other method but an impious fabrication to accomplish this object, under an Emperor who made it his business everywhere to demolish the monuments of pagan superstition 6. Will Dr Wilson allow me to suggest whether these evasions of historical evidence be not dictated rather by prejudice than by reason; and to add my conviction that he has done equal injustice to the early Church, and to his own candour and judgment in his strictures on the conduct of Macarius. And surely he must have imbibed little of the spirit of the primitive Christians, when he could suppose that they were likely to pay more marked honour to the resting-place of their human teachers "than to that grave in which the body of the blessed Saviour had been without seeing cor

2 pp. 436, 437.

3 pp. 438 440.

The citation in p. 442, n. 1, from "a vigorous writer in the North British Review," might well have been omitted

in a respectable book.

5 Lands of the Bible, Vol. 1. pp. 442, 3.

liv.

6 Vita Constantini, Lib. 111. cap.