humber of excavations in the rock, similar to those already described among the ruins of Telmessus, in the gulph of Glaucus; and answering to the account published by Shaw of the Cryptæ of Laodicea, Jebilee, and Tortosa. We rode towards them; their situation being very little elevated above the bottoni of the dingle, upon its southern side. When we arrived, we instantly recognised the sort of sepulchres which had so much interested us in Asia Minor, and, alighting from our horses, found that we should have ample employment in their examination. They were all of the same kind of workmanship, exhibiting a series of subterranean chambers, hewn with marvellous art, each containing one, or many, repositories for the dead, like cisterns carved in the rock upon the sides of those chambers. The doors were so low, that, to look into any one of them, it was necessary to stoop, and, in some instances, to creep upon our hands and knees: these doors were also grooved, for the reception of immense stones, once squared and fitted to the grooves, by way of closing the entrances. Of such a nature were, indisputably, the tombs of the sons of Heth, of the kings of Israel, of Lazarus, and of Christ. This has been also proved by Shaw; but the subject has been more satisfactorily elucidated by the learned Quaresmius, in his dissertation concerning ancient sepulchres. The cemeteries of the ancients were universally excluded from the precincts of their cities. In order, therefore, to account for the seeming contradiction implied by the situation of the place now shewn as the tomb of the Messiah, it is pretended that it was originally on the outside of the walls of Jerusalem; although a

1912.

doubt must necessarily arise as to the want of sufficient space for the population of the city, between a boundary so situated, and the hill which is now called Mount Sion. The sepulchres we are describing carry, in their very nature, satisfactory evidence of their being si tuated out of the ancient city, as they are now out of the modern. They are not to be confounded with those tombs, commonly called the sepulchres of the kings,' to the north of Jerusalem, believed to be the burial-place of Helena, queen of Adiebéné. What therefore are they? Some of them, from their magnificence, and the immense labour necessary to form the numerous repositories they contain, might lay claim to regal honours; and there is one which appears to have been constructed for the purpose of inhuming a single individual. The Karaan Jews, of all other the most tenacious in adhering to the customs of their ancestors, have, from time immemorial, been in the practice of bringing their dead to this place for interment; although this fact was not wanted to prove it an ancient Jewish cemetery, as will be seen in the sequel. The sepulchres themselves, according to the ancient practice, are stationed in the midst of gardens. From all these circumstances, are we not authorized to seek here for the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea, who, as a pious Jew, necessarily had his burying-place in the cemetery of his countrymen, among the graves of his forefathers? The Jews were remarkable for their rigid adherence to this custom: they adorned their burial-places with trees and gardens: and the tomb of this Jew is accordingly described as being in a garden; and it was in the place

where

where our Saviour was crucified. Of what nature was that place of crucifixion? It is very worthy of observation, that every one of the Evangelists, (and among these, he that saw it, and bare record,) affirm, that it was 'the place of a scull;' that is to say, a public cemetery, 'called in the Hebrew, Golgotha;' without the city, and very near to one of its gates. St. Luke calls it Calvary, which has the same signification. The church, supposed to mark the site of the holy sepulchre, exhibits no where the slightest evidence which might entitle it to either of these appellations. Can there be therefore aught of impiety or of temerity in venturing to surmise, that upon the opposite summit, now called Mount Sion, with out the walls, the crucifixion of the Messiah was actually accomplished? Perhaps the evidence afforded by existing documents may further il

lustrate this most interesting subject. -These will now be enumerated.

"Upon all the sepulchres at the base of this mount, which, as the place of a scull,' we have the authority of the gospel for calling either Calvary or Golgotha, whether the place of crucifixion or not, there are inscriptions, in Hebrew and in Greek. The Hebrew inscriptions are the most effaced: of these it is difficult to make any tolerable copy. Besides the injuries they have sustained by time, they have been covered by some carbonaceous substance, either bituminous or fumid, which rendered the task of transcribing them yet more arduous. The Greek inscriptions are brief and legible, consisting of immense letters deeply carved in the face of the rock, either over the door, or by the side, of the sepulchres. Upon the first we observed these characters:

haps the removal of this may, at some future period, lead to other discoveries. It was evident that we had not attained the rembtest part of these caverns. There were others with similar Greek inscriptions, and one which particularly attracted our notice, from its extraordinary coincidence with all the circumstances attaching to the history of our Saviour's tomb. The large stone that once closed its mouth had been, perhaps for ages, rolled away. Stooping down to look into it, we observed, within, a fair sepulchre, containing a repository, upon one side only, for a single body; whereas, in most of the others, there were two, and in many of them more than two. It is placed exactly opposite to that which is now called Mount Sion. As we viewed this sepulchre, and read upon the spot the description

given of Mary Magdalene and the disciples coming in the morning, it was impossible to divest our minds of the probability that here might have been the identical tomb of Jesus Christ; and that up the steep which led to it, after descending from the gate of the city, the disciples strove together, when John. did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.' They are individually, described as stooping down to look into it; they express their doubts as to the possibility of removing so huge a stone, that when once fixed. and sealed, it might have baffled every human effort. But upon this, as upon the others already mentioned, instead of a Hebrew or a Phoenician inscription, there were the same Greek characters, destitute only of the Greek cross prefixed in the former instances. The inscription stood thus,

the letters being very large, and deeply carved in the rugged surface of the rock.

"The Hebrew inscriptions, instead of being over the entrances, were by the side of the doors. Having but little knowledge of the characters with which they were writ ten, all that could be attempted was, to make as faithful a representation as possible of every incision upon the stone, without attempting to supply any thing by conjecture; and even admitting, in certain instances, doubtful traces, which were perhaps casualties caused by injuries the stone had sustained, having no reference to the legend.

"The words of the inscription are supposed to be Arabic, expressed in Hebrew and Phoenician charac

ters. The arrow-headed character occurs here, as in the inscriptions at Telmessus.

"All the face of this mountain, along the dingle supposed to be the Vale of Gehinnon by Sandys, is marked by similar excavations. Some of these, as may be seen by reference to a former note, did not escape his searching eye; although he neglected to observe their inscriptions, probably from keeping the beaten track of pilgrims going from Mount Sion to the Mount of Olives, and neglecting to cross the valley in order to examine them more nearly. The top of the mountain is covered by ruined walls and the remains of sumptuous edifices: these he also noticed; but he does not even hint at their origin. Here 02

again

again we are at a loss for intelligence; and future travellers will be aware of the immense field of inquiry which so many undescribed remains belonging to Jerusalem of fer to their observation. If the foundations and ruins as of a citadel may be traced all over this eminence, the probability is, that this was the real Mount Sion; that the Gehinnon of Sandys, and of inany other writers, was in fact the Valley of Millo, called Tyropeon by Josephus, which separated Sion from Mount Moriah, and extended as far as the Fountain Siloa, where it joined the Valley of Jehosaphat. The sepulchres will then appear to have been situated beneath the walls of the citadel, as was the case in many antient cities. Such was the situation of the Grecian sepulchres in the Crimea, belonging to the ancient city of Chersonesus, in the Minor Peninsula of the Heracleotæ. The inscriptions already noticed seem to favour this position; and if hereafter it should ever be confirmed, the remarkable things belonging to Mount Sion,' of which

Pococke says there are no remains in the hill now bearing that appellation, will in fact be found here. The Garden of the Kings, near the Pool of Siloam, where Manasseh and Amon, kings of Judah, were buried;' the cemetery of the kings of Judah; the traces and remains of Herod's palaces, called after the names of Cæsar and Agrippa; together with the other places mentioned by Nehemiah. All along the side of this mountain, and in the rocks above the Valley of Jehosaphat, upon the eastern side of Jerusalem, as far as the sepulchres of Zechariah and Absalom, and a bove these, almost to the top of the Mount of Olives, the Jews resident in the city bury their dead, adhering still to the cemetery of their ances tors: but having long lost the art of constructing the immense sepulchres now described, they content themselves in placing Hebrew inscriptions upon small upright slabs of marble, or of common limestone, raised after the manner at present generally in use throughout the East."

we

"But, when the orator has to pronounce the eulogy of a person, distinguished only by worldly greatness, it must be difficult for him to avoid speaking the language of the world. If, says Massillon, in his celebrated address to Lewis the fourteenth, in the exordium of his ser mon on the feast of All-Saints—' if the world addressed your Majesty from this placa, the world would

not

not say, Blessed are they who mourn. The world would say, Blessed is the prince who has never fought, but to conquer; who has filled the universe with his name; who, through the whole course of a long and flourishing reign, enjoys in splendor all that men admire ; extent of conquest, the esteem of his enemies, the love of his people, the wisdom of his laws. But, Sir, the language of the gospel is not the language of the world.' Here Massillon contrasts the two languages: which of them is the general language of funeral oration? Does it not almost always sound like that, which Massillon puts in the mouth of the world?

"But this is not the only objection to Funeral Orations. The life of him, who is to be celebrated, though his achievements raise him to the height of human glory, is often wholly sterile of those actions which the counsels, or even the precepts of the gospel inspire. Perhaps even, his general remissness in religious duty is known to his hearers. On such a life, what is to be said by him, who should only speak the language of the gospel? Yet, when once funeral orations become frequent, lives, such as these, will regularly claim and receive the usual tribute of funeral eulogy.

"In another view, the frequency of funeral orations must be mischievous. It is obvious, that they are a tribute of distinction, which should be paid to none, but the most exalted characters. Exalted rank will soon be thought a title to them and the claim will descend. Even extraordinary wealth will sometimes put in and be allowed its claim. Thus praise will become too general to confer honour; and one of the strongest incitements to virtue will be lost. Even on elo

quence itself the effect of this promiscuous praise will be baneful. When the demand for it becomes frequent, the necessity of inventing a subject of praise, when it is wholly wanting, and of amplifying it, where it is merely of ordinary size, must frequently occur. The consequence will be, that the natural and easy will often be excluded from such compositions, and they will be filled with that inflation of sentiment and expression, which a continued state of forced exertion makes unavoidable. That this is not exaggeration, is evident from the general style of funeral ora tions:-it may be truly said, that, with some brilliant exceptions, they are the least pleasing compositions to be found in French literature.

"Among these exceptions, the funeral orations of Bossuet hold confessedly the first rank. The general style of them is worthy of him: they abound with beautiful, affecting, and sublime passages ; with short, but interesting narratives and descriptions; and with characters, sketched by a master's hand.

"One of the finest of them, is the funeral oration on the death of Henrietta-Ann, the daughter of our Charles the First, and wife of the Duke of Orleans. On the 29th of June, 1670, after drinking a glass of cold water, in her apartment of St. Cloud, she was seized with a shivering, succeeded by a burning beat, which threw her into the most excruciating torments. She cried out that she was poisoned: the physicians were sent for; when they saw her, they were struck with horror at her livid appearance, pronounced her beyond medical aid, and advised her to receive, without delay, the last sacraments of the church. The princess heard them

pronounce