remark. Of the Pool before the Church of S. Ann I shall speak presently, but of those which have been thus far noticed, I may observe, that the Jews apparently ascribe to Hezekiah the Cotton Grotto without the Damascus Gate1; that they darkly insinuate a subterranean connexion between the Healing Bath and the Inner Sanctuary2; and finally, that both Jews and Christians are of opinion that the waters of Siloam are derived from the Temple, and that this Pool owes its origin to Hezekiah's precautions against the Assyrian invader3. The Moslems also connect his name with other great reservoirs of the city.

Of the two Pools erroneously ascribed to Hezekiah, the one before S. Ann's Church, on the East of the city, is supported by the Chroniclers of the Crusades; the other, near the Jaffa Gate on the West of the city, can

1 I know not what else can be meant by Parchi, as cited by Dr Zunz, (Asher's Benj. Tud. 11. p. 399) "Within the walls of Jerusalem, towards the North, is the entrance to the Cave of Hiskia, mentioned in the Thalmud."

2 So David B. Simra (as cited by Dr Zunz, ibid. p. 400, note d.) remarks, "that the small gate to the left of the porch Bab el-Katanin is nearest the place of the Holy Sanctuary; a subterraneous way led to a certain place under this Holy Sanctuary, the entrance to which was on the western side. David Reubeni pretends to have spent several days on the spot." (Comp. p. 272 of the same work). There can, I think, be no doubt that the subterranean passage indicated is that explored by Mr. Wolcott, and described by the man at the Bath as leading to a chamber beneath the Sakhrah. See above, p. 480,

note 1.

3 Lightfoot, as above, p. 479, n. 4. Ishak Khelo ap. Carmoly, p. 236. Felix Fabri, Vol. I. p. 419, ed. Hassler.

Mejr-ed-din, 1. c. Tom. 11. p. 131. He says, "there are at Jerusalem six pools constructed by Ezekiel, (1. Hezekiah), one of the ancient kings of Israel: three within the city, viz. those of the Israelites, of Solomon, of Ayad; three without, viz. those of Mamala, and two called El-merja." The first of these he identifies with BirketIsrail, the second he hesitatingly connects with the Hammam es-Shefa, (called by him the Bath of Alaed-din el-Bassir); the third with the Pool of the Bath. The other three outside the city, with Mamilla, and two of the Pools of Solomon, whose water was brought by aqueducts to Jerusalem.

only shew the much later tradition originated by Quaresmius, and adopted by Dr. Robinson.

As the former of these pools must have been without the walls of the old city, exactly at the weakest part of the temple-enclosure, where the hostile armies so frequently encamped, it is highly improbable, considering the design of Hezekiah, that he would have formed a pool in a situation so very convenient for the besieging army; nor am I aware that any early authority can be shewn for placing Hezekiah's Pool in this quarter. It was here that the earlier Christians found "the Pool of Bethesda;" and this tradition deserves a further notice. Josephus teaches us to look for two pools in this quarter: one forming the fosse of the Temple, described also by Strabo; the other serving as a trench between Antonia and Bezetha. Struthius was the name of one or both 5.

That these are the two pools, or rather the doublepool near the Temple, described in the Jerusalem Itinerary of 333°, there can be little doubt; for although the writer does not fix them to the North of the Temple-area, as neither does Eusebius nor S. Jerome', in the same century, yet all agree in their testimony to these pools being the Sheep-Pool, which we know was found by

* J. W. v. xi. See above, pp. 353, 404.

"Interius vero civitatis sunt piscinæ gemellares, quinque porticus habentes, quæ appellantur Betsaida. Ibi ægri multorum annorum sanabantur." Itin. Hierosol. p. 589. The Vulgate, with other ancient codices, has Betsaida for Bethesda in John v. 2; and so Tertullian cites it. See Wesseling,

notat. in loc.

7 S. Jerome translating the Onomasticon of Eusebius writes, "Bethesda, piscina in Hierusalem, quæ vocabatur poßarin, et a nobis interpretari potest pecualis, hæc quinque quondam porticus habuit, ostendunturque gemini lacus,” &c. (λίμναις διδύμοις. Euseb.)

later writers in this situation; nor do we read of any other pools which would answer the description of the Itinerary and Onomasticon.

It has been remarked by critics that S. John, by speaking of Bethesda in the present tense, intimates that the Pool had survived the destruction of Jerusalem, and was still well known when he wrote his Gospel, at the close of the first century: This would form a strong presumption for its continued perservation until the time of Constantine. The Pool is placed by this Evangelist "by the sheep-market'," (еπì Tỷ πроßаTIK?), but most commentators are of opinion that the word gate should be supplied in this passage instead of market, and it is certain that a "sheep-gate" is spoken of in Scripture, but a " sheep-market" never. Now Nehemiah will lead us to fix the "sheep-gate" on the North of the Temple2; the traditions of the Jews will further give us not only a "gate," but a large supply of water for the Priests' Bath on this quarter; and Josephus, whose mention of the pools was lately referred to, also speaks of a northern gate to the outer Temple'. This gate, which led to Bezetha, would be East of Antonia, between it and the Pool, where two gates are now found; and I am strongly of opinion that the vaulted passages at the West of the present pool, noticed

1 John v. 2, English Auth. Version: the margin however gives "Gate." 2 Nehem. iii. 1, 32.

3 For the gate Tedi, 70, see Lightfoot, Prospect of the Temple, cap. vi. Vol. IX. p. 233. For the baths, cap. xxix. 4, p. 368, and above, p. 465.

J. W. 11. xix. 5, where Cestius assails the northern wall of the Tem

ple, and the soldiers prepare to fire the gate. Here it is evident that the approach to the wall of the outer court was easy; no mention is made of filling in the trench. See again, vI. ii. 7, where banks are raised against the northern wall; and iv. 1, the foundations of the northern gate are undermined. See above, p. 352, n. 2.

in the last chapter, both communicated with the fosse of Antonia, and formed a passage to the gate, by a bridge over the arches. That it was in this part that Pompey, Cestius, and Titus, made their attacks upon the outer Temple on the North, may be inferred from the impossibility of filling such a trench as that which now exists, and must have existed at that period; for the tradition is continuous from the time to which it has been already brought down. Unhappily, one of the "twin-pools," viz. that by the Church of S. Ann, has now completely disappeared, but its position may be very accurately determined, by the language of Christian writers, to the precise place which the fosse of Antonia must have occupied.

red

The water in one of these pools was of a peculiar appearance, which might perhaps be accounted for by the cement with which it was lined, but was taken by earlier writers to exhibit the signs of the use to which it was formerly put for washing the entrails of the victims which had been offered in sacri

It is sometimes said to be "ante Ecclesiam Stæ Annæ;" elsewhere, "ad latus Ecclesiæ." Brocardus is more exact: "Intrantibus portam vallis ad sinistram occurrit juxta viam Probatica Piscina, ad dextram vero contra eam, viá intermediá, est piscina grandis valde, quæ dicebatur piscina interior, hanc fecit Hezekias," &c. Descrip. Ter. Sanc. apud Canisii Thes. Vol. IV. p. 18. Anselm (circ. 1509) is still more accurate; and these two authors enable us to determine its position with a great degree of certainty. After speaking of the church of St Anna, he says: "Non remotè ab hac Ec

clesia, versus domum Pilati, habetur alia piscina grandis," &c. It had water then, which he supposed to be brought from the pools of Solomon. The other pool was then dry. See more references above, p. 38, note 2. It is curious that Dr Robinson, having noticed this pool as "now apparently destroyed," (Bib. Res. 1. p. 490, n. 1,) should deny that any pool ever existed on the north of the Via Dolorosa. Theol. Rev. p. 618, n. 2. Yet it was a very great pool, even when mentioned with Birket Israil. Felix Fabri (Vol. 1. p. 366) also notices it, as indeed do all travellers of the Middle Ages.

fice'. The existing pool, though of an enormous size, was cased up to the top, as is evident from its present appearance; and the vaulted channels were similarly provided for a full supply. Eusebius and S. Jerome say that one of the pools was usually filled with rainwater, which would perhaps imply that the other was supplied from a spring; and a later authority informs us that such was actually the case. Indeed, even so late as the 17th century a countryman of our own3 saw a small stream flowing into the Pool of Bethesda, on the northern side, which must have been supplied by a fountain; and to this present day there are frequent wells among the ruins about the Church of S. Ann, containing water which there are no buildings to receive or collect; and the natives have a tradition of large subterranean cisterns in this quarter. All this would countenance the idea that a branch of the aqueduct was carried in this direction for the supply of these reservoirs, and the excavation in the Church of the Flagellation was not improbably a part of it. This hypothesis receives striking confirmation from a fact

"Aquam autem habent eæ piscinæ in modum coccini turbatam." Itin. Hieros. p. 152. St Jerome translating Eusebius, Onom., says of the "gemini lacus, quorum unus hybernis pluviis adimpleri solet; alter mirum in modum rubens, quasi cruentis aquis antiqui in se operis signa testatur. Nam hostias in eo lavari a sacerdotibus solitas ferunt, unde et nomen (poßATIKŃ) accepit." William of Tyre does not mention the peculiarity of the colour, but says, "Usque hodie probatica piscina reputatur, in quâ olim immola

titiæ lavabantur hostiæ," &c. VIII. iv. p. 749.

See the quotation from William of Tyre, above, p. 389, n. 5.

3 ......into which a barren spring doth drill, from between the stones of the northward wall, and stealeth away almost undiscerned." Sandys' Travels, p. 149. The most probable account of this small spring is that, on the filling up of the other pool, which took place before Sandys' visit, the water forced a passage for itself through the ground to the Birket Israil.