It is en

given, though probably without good reason. tirely dry; and large trees grow at the bottom, the tops of which do not reach the level of the street.

North of this, a little to the right of the street, is the dilapidated church of St. Anne, over the grotto which is shown as the birthplace of the Virgin. The church has pointed arches; and was obviously the work of the crusaders. We now returned home along the Via Dolorosa, in which monkish tradition has brought together the scenes of all the events, historical or legendary, connected with the crucifixion. Along this way, they say, our Saviour bore his cross. Here one may see, if he pleases, the place where the Saviour, fainting under his burden, leaned against the wall of a house; and the impression of his shoulder remains unto this day. Near by are also pointed out the houses of the rich man and Lazarus in the parable. To judge from present appearances, the beggar was quite as well lodged as his opulent neighbour. But enough of these absurdities!"

It is not, indeed, from the monkish traditions, attaching spurious and childish associations to its localities, that the intelligent mind is likely to derive pleasure or interest from a visit to Jerusalem. These are rather felt to be like the hackneyed and foolish tales of some ignorant cicerone, which mar the pleasure with which we gaze on an ancient palace, or tread the dim aisles of a venerable cathedral. But when we know not only that the ground is the site of the ancient city, in which our Saviour's mighty mission was accomplished, but can discover that it still retains, from amid the wrecks of its former grandeur, relics of that very Jerusalem over which he wept, we feel that scarce another spot on earth can have the same power over the thoughtful mind. Resuming the subject in a subsequent portion of his interesting Researches, Dr. Robinson remarks:-" Allusion has already been made to the immense size of the stones, which com

pose in part the external walls of the enclosure of the mosque. The upper part of these walls is obviously of modern origin; but to the most casual observer it cannot be less obvious, that these huge blocks which appear only in portions of the lower part, are to be referred to an earlier date. The appearance of the walls in almost every part seems to indicate that they have been built upon ancient foundations; as if an ancient and far more massive wall had been thrown down, and in later times a new one erected upon its remains. Hence the line between these lower antique portions and the modern ones above them is very irregular, though it is also very distinct. The former, in some parts, are much higher than in others; and occasionally the breaches in them are filled out with later patchwork. Sometimes, too, the whole wall is modern. It is not, however, the great size of these stones alone which arrests the attention of the beholder, but the manner in which they are hewn gives them also a peculiar character. In common parlance they are said to be bevelled; which here means, that after the whole face has first been hewn and squared, a narrow strip along the edges is cut down a quarter or half an inch lower than the rest of the surface. When these bevelled stones are laid up in a wall, the face of it of course exhibits lines or grooves formed by these depressed edges at their junction, marking more distinctly the elevation of the different courses, as well as the length of the stones of which they are composed. The face of the wall has then the appearance of many panels. The smaller stones in other parts of the walls are frequently bevelled in like manner; except that in these, only the bevel or strip along the edge is cut smooth, while the remainder of the surface is merely broken off or rough-hewn. In the upper parts of the wall, which are obviously the most modern, the stones are small and are not bevelled. At the first view of these walls, I was led to the persuasion, that the lower portions

had belonged to the ancient temple; and every subsequent visit only served to strengthen this conviction. The size of the stones and the heterogeneous character of the walls, render it a matter beyond all doubt, that the former were never laid in their present places by the Mahometans; and the peculiar form in which they are hewn does not properly belong, so far as I know, either to Saracenic or to Roman architecture. Indeed, every thing seems to point to a Jewish orign; and a discovery which we made in the course of our examination reduces this hypothesis to an absolute certainty.

"During our first visit to the south-west corner of the area of the mosque occupying the site of the temple, we observed several of the large stones jutting out from the western wall, which at first sight seemed to be the effect of a bursting of the wall from some mighty shock or earthquake. We paid little regard to this at the moment, our attention being engrossed by other objects; but on mentioning the fact not long after in a circle of our friends, we found that they also had noticed it; and the remark was incidentally dropped, that the stones had the appearance of having once belonged to a large arch. At this remark a train of thought flashed upon my mind, which I hardly dared to follow out, until I had again repaired to the spot, in order to satisfy myself with my own eyes, as to the truth or falsehood of the suggestion. I found it even so! The courses of these immense stones, which seemed at first to have sprung out from their places in the wall in consequence of some enormous violence, occupy nevertheless their original position; their external surface is hewn to a regular curve; and being fitted one upon another, they form the commencement or foot of an immense arch, which once sprung out from this western wall in a direction towards Mount Zion, across the Valley of the Tyropoon. This arch could only have belonged to THE BRIDGE, which, according to Josephus, led from this

part of the temple to the Xystus on Zion; and it proves incontestibly the antiquity of that portion of the wall from which it springs. The traces of this arch are too distinct and definite to be mistaken. Its southern side is thirtynine English feet distant from the south-west corner of the area, and the arch itself measures fifty-one feet along the wall. Three courses of its stones still remain; of which one is five feet four inches thick, and the others not much less. One of the stones is twenty feet six inches long; another twenty-four feet six inches; and the rest in like proportion. The part of the curve or arc which remains is of course but a fragment; but of this fragment the chord measures twelve feet six inches; the sine eleven feet ten inches; and the cosine three feet ten inches. The distance from this point across the valley to the precipitous natural rock of Zion, we measured as exactly as the intervening field of prickly pear would permit, and found it to be 350 feet, or about 116 yards. This gives the proximate length of the ancient bridge. We sought carefully along the brow of Zion for traces of its western termination, but without success. That quarter is now covered with mean houses and filth; and an examination can be carried on only in the midst of disgusting sights and smells. The existence of these remains of the ancient bridge seems to remove all doubt as to the identity of this part of the enclosure of the mosque with that of the ancient temple. How they can have remained for so many ages unseen or unnoticed by any writer or traveller, is a problem which I would not undertake fully to solve. Onc cause has probably been the general oblivion, or want of knowledge, that any such bridge ever existed. It is mentioned by no writer but Josephus; and even by him only incidentally, though in five different places. The bridge was doubtless broken down in the general destruction of the city; and was in later ages forgotten by the Christian population, among whom the writings of Josephus were

little known. For a like reason, we may suppose its remains to have escaped the notice of the crusaders and the pilgrims of the following centuries. Another cause which has operated in the case of later travellers, is probably the fact, that the spot is approached only through narrow and crooked lanes, in a part of the city whither their monastic guides did not care to accompany them; and which they themselves could not well, nor perhaps safely, explore alone."

Dr. Robinson conceives that some of these remains of Jewish antiquity not only belong to the period of our Saviour's earthly pilgrimage, but that they are not improbably the work of Solomon,-the massive walls, "immoveable for all time,” which the Jewish king built as the foundations, on which the stones of the temple were laid.

The modern Jew, who still clings, as his fathers did, to the stones and to the very dust of Jerusalem, have long regarded this portion of the walls as specially associated with its ancient glory. The Rev. Mr. Bonar, the Scottish missionary, who visited Palestine subsequently to the researches of Dr. Robinson, thus describes a scene which he witnessed, when proceeding to examine these ancient remains, on which the speculations of the intelligent American traveller have conferred such lively interest :"Towards evening, we visited that part of the old temple wall to which the Jews are allowed to go that they may pray and weep over the glory that is departed. It is a part of the western enclosure of the Haram, and the access to it is by narrow and lonely streets. The Jew who was our guide, on approaching the massy stones, took off his shoes and kissed the wall. Every Friday evening, when the Jewish Sabbath begins, some Jews may be found here deeply engaged in prayer; for they believe that prayer still goes up with most acceptance before God, when breathed through the crevices of that building of which Jehovah said, 'Mine eyes and my heart shall be there