during this long period, make no mention of its immediate masters, nor of any military changes. In A. D. 1517, Jerusalem with the rest of Syria and Egypt passed under the sway of the Ottoman Sultan Selim I; who paid a hasty visit to the Holy City from Damascus after his return from Egypt.1 From that time until our own days, Palestine and Syria have continued to form part and parcel of the Ottoman empire. During this period Jerusalem has been subjected to few vicissitudes; and its history is barren of incident. Suleimân, the successor of Selim, erected its new walls in A. D. 1542; and so recently as A. D. 1808, the church of the Holy Sepulchre was partially consumed by conflagration. A fire which commenced in the Armenian chapel on the 12th of October, destroyed the great dome, the Greek chapel, and various other parts, as well as many of the marble columns. The edifice was rebuilt by the Greeks; and after twelve months of labour and an enormous expense, was completed in September A. D. 1810. The funds were collected from the contributions of Christians in various countries. The stranger who now visits this imposing temple, remarks no obvious traces of its recent desolation.2 In A. D. 1832, Syria became subject to the dominion of Muhammed Aly, the present Pasha of Egypt; and the Holy City opened its gates to the victor without a siege. During the insurrection in the districts of Jerusalem and Nâbulus in A. D. 1834, the Fellâhîn seized upon Jerusalem, and held possession of it for a time; but under the stern energy of the Egyptian government, order was soon restored, and the 1) v. Hammer Gesch. des Osmanische Reiches Bd. II. S. 526. 2) Turner's Journal of a Tour in the Levant, Vol. II. p. 165. See also the general account of the fire drawn up in Italian by the Latin monks, Turner ibid. Appendix, p. 597. Holy City reverted to its allegiance upon the approach of Ibrahim Pasha with his troops.1 II. CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE. The circumstances connected with the discovery of the Holy Sepulchre in the fourth century, and the erection of edifices over and around it under the auspices of Constantine and his mother Helena, have already been detailed. In tracing the further history of the city of Jerusalem, we have also noted some of the changes to which this spot has been exposed. Twice, at least, the church of the Holy Sepulchre appears to have been totally destroyed; once in the seventh and again in the eleventh century; besides the various partial desolations to which it has been subjected. After all the preceding details, topographical and historical, we are now prepared to enter upon the discussion of another question of some interest; I mean the genuineness or probable identity of the site thus ascribed to the Holy Sepulchre. The place of our Lord's crucifixion, as we are expressly informed, was without the gate of the ancient city, and yet nigh to the city. The Sepulchre, we are likewise told, was nigh at hand, in a garden, in the place where Jesus was crucified. It is not therefore without some feeling of wonder, that a stranger, unacquainted with the circumstances, on arriving in Jerusalem at the present day, is pointed to the place of crucifixion and the sepulchre in the midst of the modern city, and both beneath one roof. This latter 1) See the Report of the Rev. Mr. Thomson, etc. Missionary Herald, 1835, pp. 44-51. Marmont's Voyage, etc. Tom. II, III. Mengin's Hist. de l'Egypte, etc. de l'an 1823 à l'an 1838, Paris 1839, p. 73, seq. 2) See above, p. 12, seq. 3) See above, pp. 34, 43, 46. 4) Heb. xiii. 12. John. xix. 20. The same is also implied in John xix. 17. Matt. xxvii. 32. 5) John xix. 41, 42. fact, however unexpected, might occasion less surprise; for the sepulchre was nigh to Calvary. But beneath the same roof are further shown the stone on which the body of our Lord was anointed for burial, the fissure in the rock, the holes in which the crosses stood, the spot where the true cross was found by Helena, and various other places said to have been connected with the history of the crucifixion; most of which it must have been difficult to identify even after the lapse of only three centuries; and particularly so at the present day, after the desolations and numerous changes which the whole place has undergone. The difficulty arising from the present location in the heart of the city, has been felt by many pious minds, from the days of St. Willibald and Jacob de Vitry to our own time; but it has usually been evaded, by assuming that the city was greatly enlarged under Adrian towards the North or West; or, sometimes, that the ancient city occupied a different site.1 The first to take an open stand against the identity of these holy places, was Korte the German bookseller, who visited Jerusalem in A. D. 1738, at the same time with Pococke. While the learned Englishman slightly passes over this topic, entering into no discussion and expressing no opinion, the honest simplicity of the unlearned German led him to lay before his countrymen a plain account of the impression made upon his own mind, and his reasons for distrusting the correctness of the common tradition. Unacquainted 1) St. Willibaldi Hodoepor. ed. Mabillon, p. 375. Jac. de Vitriac. Hist. Hieros. c. 60. Will. de Baldensel, ed. Canis. p. 348. Monconys was not satisfied with this solution; Tom. I. p. 307. Quaresmius disposes of the objections of "nonnullos nebulones occidentales haereticos" in a summary way, but VOL. II. 9 without making any new suggestion, II. p. 515.-The absurd hypothesis of Dr. Clarke, which transports Zion across the Valley of Hinnom, serves as the fit basis of Buckingham's solution; Travels in Pal. pp. 284, 287. 2) Pococke Descr. of the East, Vol. II. p. 15, seq. fol. with the historical facts, he confines himself solely to a common-sense view of the case; and urges the impossibility that the present site could have been without the ancient city, because of its nearness to the former area of the Jewish temple. The reasoning of Korte seems to have made a considerable impression among the Protestants of the continent; and is often referred to. But he had no follower among the travellers of the last century; though in the present, the voices of powerful assailants and defenders are heard among both Catholics and Protestants. Chateaubriand led the way in a most plausible defence; and Dr. Clarke, a later writer though an earlier traveller, followed with a violent attack. In later years the parties have been reversed. Scholz, Catholic professor at Bonn, declares that the place of the crucifixion cannot have been where it is now pointed out, because this spot must have been within the ancient city; though he strangely enough admits the identity of the Sepulchre. On the other hand, several Protestant travellers and writers take sides with the tradition, and support the genuineness both of the Sepulchre and Golgotha.1 A true estimate of this long agitated question must depend on two circumstances. As there can be no doubt, that both Golgotha and the Sepulchre lay outside of the ancient city, it must first be shown that the present site may also anciently have been with 1) Jonas Kortens Reise, etc. pp. 210, 212. 2) The work of Plessing, "Ueber Golgotha und Christi Grab," Halle 1789, discusses the subject on historical grounds in connection with the report of Korte. The author exhibits great diligence, and has collected many good materials; but they are wrought up in such a way as to become a kernel of wheat in a bushel of chaff.' 3) Scholz Reise, etc. p. 190. De Golgothae situ, Bonn 1825. 4. 4) So Berggren, Buckingham, Elliott II. p. 449, etc. Also Rau mer in his Palästina p. 355, seq. followed by Schubert, Reise, etc. II. p. 503, seq. out the walls. Or, should this in itself appear to be impossible, then it must be shown, that there were in the fourth century historical or traditional grounds for fixing upon this site, strong enough to counterbalance such an apparent impossibility. The following observations may help to throw some light on both these points. Our preceding investigations respecting the temple and the ancient walls of Jerusalem, seem to show conclusively, that the modern city occupies only a portion of the ancient site; a part of Zion and a tract upon the North, which were formerly included in the walls, being now left out. The nature of the ground and the traces of the ancient third wall which we found,' demonstrate also that the breadth of the city from E. to W. is the same now as anciently. There can therefore be no question, that the site of the present Holy Sepulchre falls within the ancient city as described by Josephus. But as the third or exterior wall of that writer was not erected until ten or twelve years after the death of Christ,2 it cannot here be taken into account; and the question still arises, whether the present site of the Sepulchre may not have fallen without the second or interior wall; in which case all the conditions of the general question would be satisfied. This second wall, as we have seen, began at the gate of Gennath, near the tower of Hippicus, and ran to the fortress Antonia on the N. of the temple.3 Of the date of its erection we are nowhere informed; but it must probably have been older than the time of Hezekiah, who built within the city a pool, apparently the same which now exists under his name. We have then 1) See above, Vol. I. pp. 464467, 471. 2) See Vol. I. p. 465. Note 1. This second wall was also apparently the northern wall attacked by Antiochus, adjacent to which there was a level tract or plain. Joseph. Antiq. XIII. 8. 2. |