VIII. 
JERUSALEM. 389 
iierertheless careful, in weighing the evidence ^^]^^^- 
as to the fact, to consider the testimony of 
Chrysostom as of a superior nature, being that 
of a living witness; whereas Rvjinus, who lived 
in the subsequent age, could only relate things 
as they had been transmitted to him : therefore 
the appeal made by Chrysostom to the existence 
oHhe fbuvdations, may be supposed to supersede 
any inference likely to be derived from the 
words of RufiniLs^ as to their not having been 
laid before the prodigy took place ; and the 
present appearance of the opus retkulatum in 
the masonry, proves the workmanship to be 
strictly Roman *. Prideaux, in his " Letters to 
the Deists," makes indeed a bold assertion, and 
without veracity, in saying, that there ** is not 
now left the least remainder of the ruins of the 
temple, to shew where it once stood ; and that 
those who travel to Jerusalem have no other mark 
whereby to find it out, but the Mohammedan mosque 
erected on the same plat by Omar" There is, in 
fact, a much better mark ; namely, the mark of 
Julians discomfiture, in the remains of Roman 
masonry upon the spot : And if this be dis- 
puted, it can only be so, by admitting that the 
(6) Vid. Vitruv. lib. ii. c. 8. Amst. 1649. Plin. Hist. Nat. lib. xxxvi. 
c. 523. L. Bat. 1635. JVinkelmunn Hint, de I'/J.-t, &c. &c. 
