might be supposed, when one sheet of water, with its shores, and peculiar scenery, is compared with any other sheet of water of nearly an equal size. Dr Clarke seems not to be decided, whether he shall follow Adrichomius and d'Anville, who suppose Tiberias to have been built on the site of the ancient Kinneroth, or whether he shall reject that opinion, with Reland. We are inclined to think with d'Anville, that the southern border of Naphtali reached even beyond Tiberias. There can be no doubt, that Chamath, otherwise called Ammaus, was within the province of Naphtali. Now, the hot baths of Ammaus are about a mile to the south of Tiberias. The objection, therefore, of Reland, is obviated. We must observe to Dr Clarke, that nn Chamath does not signify baths;-we shall not, however, object to him, if he should say, that by Chamath the Jews understood certain hot baths near to lake Gennesareth.

After having bathed in this lake,-after having guessed at its length and breadth, which may be twelve miles by six,-after having been cruelly flea-bitten at Tiberias, where it seems the king of the fleas holds his court,'—and after having supped on mullets, which, according to tradition were the favourite food ⚫ of Jesus Christ!'-our author returned once more to Nazareth, and proceeded by Napolose, the ancient Sichem, to Jerusalem.

That Dr Clarke should have been impressed with sentiments of admiration, bordering on enthusiasm, when he first beheld the venerable domes of Salem, can excite no surprise. We know, indeed, of no pace, of which the history is so extraordinary as that of this ancient city of the Jebusites. In the eighth year of his reign, the holy David took the strong hold of Zion, and brought up the ark of Jehovah from Kirjath-jearim, and placed it in Jerusalem. Innumerable and astonishing prodigies have since distinguished the city of David, and have rendered it eminent above all the cities of the world. The early and fabulous accounts of Ilium, of Athens, and of Rome, amused the ima gination of the poets, while they excited the contempt of the sceptics of antiquity. But the authentic, though extraordinary records, which attest the history and the fate of the Jewish capital, must convince the reason, in exercising the fancy, of the Christian reader. It was here that, during a long succession of ages, the oracles of God were wont to be uttered by inspired and holy men ;-it was here that the Lord of the Universe deigned to reside, under the dazzling, though material form of the glorious Schechinah ;-and it was here, that the same eternal Being submitted to a voluntary and ignominious death, for the salvation of ungrateful man. Every edi

fice in the sacred city is the monument of a miracle ;-every place within its walls has been dignified by the presence of prophets and apostles ;-and every hill and valley in its vicinity, have been the scenes of the most dreadful and astonishing events. Here were heard the mysterious sentences, which were uttered by the Daughter of the Voice ;-there, the Pontifs of Israel were instructed in the will of Heaven, by Urim and Thummim, To the south of the modern city stands Mount Zion, whence, the prophet Isaiah has said, shall go forth the law.' Tophet is situated beneath it, in the Valley of the Children of Hinnom, in which the voice of lamentation was heard, while idolatrous parents passed their devoted infants through the fire to Moloch. Siloa's brook, that flowed Fast by the Oracle of God, still bathes the feet of the holy Zion. To the east lies the Vale of Jehoshaphat, which is watered by the Kedron, and in which the good Josiah burnt the groves of Baal. Beyond arises the Mount of Olives, from which Jesus foretold the destruction of the Temple, while he sat on the Rock of Prediction, otherwise called the Mount of Corruption;' to the right of which Solomon built high places to Ashteroth, Chemosh, and Milcolm, the idols of the Heathen, and the abominations of the Gentiles. On Mount Moriah stood the Temple of Jehovah. A Mahometan mosque now covers the sacred ground on which it was placed; and the Christian pilgrim turns away with a sigh from the venerable spot ;-which, indeed, its present possessors will not permit him to approach.

We had already perused M. Chateaubriand's account of Jerusalem, and had caught some portion of that devout person's enthusiasm, before we began to read the narrative of Dr Clarke, It was not, therefore, without regret, and, indeed, some alarm for the consequences, that we followed our author through the streets of Jerusalem, while, with a kind of philosophical independence, unexampled in the history of all former pilgrims, he trampled under foot traditions which had stood the test of more than a thousand years. Not satisfied with ridiculing the notion, that the house of Lazarus remains where it was eighteen centuries ago, he derides the tradition which indicates the position of the Holy Sepulchre! He treats the Empress Helena as nothing better than a credulous old woman; and tells us, that what was called the Holy Sepulchre, was a mere delusion, and monkish juggle. Had Dr Clarke no fears of a visit from the ghost of the pious Quaresmius, who wrote a book de externá, profaná, sed detestabili ac vitiosa peregrinatione?' At the same time we must confess, that the Doctor's reasoning appears to us to be rather plausible. It must, we think, be conceded to him, first, VOL. XXI, No. 41.

K

that the site of the supposed sepulchre must have been within the walls of the ancient Jerusalem; secondly, that this would be contrary to the usual customs of Oriental nations; and, thirdly, that this supposed tomb in no way resembles the cryptæ excavated in rocks, in which the Jews were accustomed to bury their dead.

A learned correspondent, whose authority Dr Clarke would be the first to acknowledge, combats this new hypothesis, and has authorised us to make public the following statement.

I was inclined, from the first time that I read what Dr Clarke has said on the subject of the site of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, to believe, that he had shown, there was not sufficient reason to imagine the supposed site to be the real ⚫ site. But I have lately met with an argument, which I shall now offer to you, tending to support, strongly I think, the claims of the commonly supposed spot, to be the site of the Holy Sepulchre

The tomb in which Christ was laid, was in the place where he was crucified. It was in the spot called "the place of skulls; " or Calvary. (John xix. 41.)

Near the Holy Sepulchre is, and has been, pointed out, from a very remote period, a place, in which the "head of "Adam" was laid. Dr Clarke mentions it (p. 563); and some of the very early Fathers say they heard the tradition. Dr. Clarke has not added Epiphanius:-But he also says the "cranium Adami" was supposed to have been there.

Now, it may be made evident, that the meaning of the phrase," the place of skulls," and of the " skull of Adam," is the same. But near the former, was the tomb of Christ, according to Scripture; therefore, it was near the latter; that is, where it has always been placed.

The proof, that the meaning of the two phrases is the same, I take from the learned author of "Aristarchus Sacer. " • Adam, in Hellenistic language, signifies, collectively, mankind, 6 as in Hebrew. The Latin translation of 1 Sam. vii. 9. has "Ista est lex Adam;" that is, Tv vlgáπav not To 'Adéu. Symmachus interprets the word 'Adaμ by avigaπiτnta. Josias is said to have burnt the bones DTN (Adam), that is, vę. And thus the Greek translators rendered it, xaтíxavosv dorã ávlgáπar.

3

Instead, therefore, of the place of the "skull of Adam, " as the tradition of ignorant people (who did not know that the word Adam had the signification sometimes which we have found it had) gave it, let us say, "the place of the skulls of men," and we arrive at this conclusion. K, in Dr Clarke's plan of the topography of Jerusalem, is the site of the Holy

Sepulchre; but there has been always a tradition, mentioned by the early Fathers, that near it was the place of "the skull • of men. If this be so, and we have found "the place of 'skulls" of the Gospel, we cannot be far from the tomb; for they were close together.

It cannot therefore be allowed to Dr Clarke, that the church supposed to mark the site of the Holy Sepulchre, exhibits nowhere the slightest evidence which might entitle it to ' either of these appellations (Golgotha, or the place of skulls), p. 551. It is in fact near the place called, from a remote tradition, the place" of the skulls of men.

'I think it adds much to the argument to observe, that the ⚫ ignorant manner of giving the tradition," as the place of the skull of Adam, " which was the way in which the Greek Fa⚫thers had it pointed out to them, shows no marks of design or imposture on the part of those who so pointed it out. The

main fact they were in possession of,-that it was the place 'where was the "cranium Adami. " They ignorantly interpreted the latter word of one person, instead of taking it in the sense, which it commonly bore, collective. And this in'terpretation still continues; as appears from their showing the · spot to travellers.'

We wish to submit the following considerations to our readers, and to our correspondent.

The Syro-Chaldaic word for a skull was naba golgoltha, which, by the elision of the second lamed, becomes yoyoda golgotha. St Mathew renders it ngavis róños, a place of a skull; and St Mark and St John give it nearly the same meaning. St Luke, without mentioning Golgotha, writes xai Te áññλlov éπì τὸν τόπον καλέμενον κρανίον. κ. τ. λ. and when they were come to a place called SKULL, &c. Now, it is evident that St Luke is the only one of the Evangelists who has strictly translated the word Golgotha, though he be the only one who has not introduced the name; for it does not signify ngavis róños, a place of a skull, but simply xavior, a skull. Our correspondent, then, has not written with his usual accuracy, when he cites the Evangelists as speaking of the place of skulls. The word is necessarily in the singular-golgoltha, or golgotha, cranium. Tradition tells us, that the place was so called, because the skull of Adam was there buried. This is absurd enough; and we so far agree with the ingenious writer, that we think the name of the place, which was probably a burying ground, was originally called

baba, which may be translated men's skulls; a fit enough name for the usual place of interment near to a great city. But where was this place, which must have been very extensive?

Surely not within the city, where the monks point out the spot
in which they pretend that the skull of Adam was buried. The
Fathers have frequently related this tale concerning Adam's
skull; and have said, that it was deposited near the tomb of
Christ. But can we doubt, when the priests had persuaded the
Empress Helena, that they knew the true position of the Holy
Sepulchre, that they failed to seek and to find the place of a
The Fathers, as far as we recollect, no where say,
that Adam's skull was buried upon Mount Moriah. We are
therefore inclined to think, that the place called Golgoltha, or
skull, was the burying-ground in the neighbourhood of Jerusa-
lem, originally, perhaps, called nibban, hegolgoloth Adam,
the skulls of men, absurdly interpreted, the skull of Adam. In
all events, if either we, or our correspondent, be right in our
explanation of the origin of the tale concerning Adam's skull, it
is more probable, that the place called the skulls of men, was
that described by Dr Clarke as containing so many sepulchres,
than that the spot, pointed out by the monks as the repository
of Adam's skull, should be the true Calvary. But the words of
St Mark are, we think, decisive in favour of Dr Clarke's opi-
nion—and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock.
This answers exactly to the description of the ancient tombs ex-
cavated in the rock, in the place where Dr Clarke has fixed the
position of Calvary. The supposed Holy Sepulchre, over which
Helena built a church, is a grotto above ground, according to
Shaw; who that the empress cut
says,
the rock round a-
bout it. How did Dr Shaw know that? In the mean time,
it must be admitted, that this supposed tomb, as it exists at pre-
sent, corresponds in no way with the words of the Evangelist.
We trust, that some future traveller, with the honesty of M.
Chevalier, and with the judgment of M. Chateaubriand, will soon
relieve us from our perplexity, and ascertain, beyond the reach
of further cavil, the true position of this most venerable spot.
We shall now transcribe the description which Dr Clarke
gives of Jerusalem, as he surveyed it from the Mount of Olives.

away

Leaving the mountain where all these sepulchres are hewn, and regaining the road which conducts towards the east, into the Valley of Jehosaphat, we passed the Fountain Siloa, and a white mulberrytree which is supposed to mark the spot where the Oak Rogel stood. Hence we ascended to the summit of the MOUNT OF OLIVES; passing, in our way, a number of Hebrew tombs. The Arabs upon the top of this mountain are to be approached with caution, and with a strong guard. Here indeed we stood upon holy ground; and it is a question, which might reasonably be proposed to Jew, Christian, or Mahometan, whether, in reference to the history of their respective