MERITS ALEH. 
Moriah, where the temple stood of old, and where, like a 
phenix that hath arisen from the ashes of its parent, the fa« 
moms mosque of Omar is now situated. It is probable that 
the whole of Mount Sion has been excluded; and that the 
mountain covered by ruined edifices, whose base is perforated 
by ancient sepulchres, and separated from Mount Moriah by 
the deep trench, or tyropoeon, extending as far as the Foun¬ 
tain Siloa, toward the eastern valley, is, in fact, that emi¬ 
nence which was once surmounted by the “ bulwarks, towers, 
arid regal buildings” of the house of David. There seems to 
be no other method of reconciling the accounts which ancient 
authors give of the space occupied by the former city ; these in 
no wise correspond with its present appearance: and the 
strange temerity which endeavours to warp the text of an his¬ 
torian,* so as to suit existing prejudices, and the interests of a 
degrading superstition, cannot surely be too eagerly scouted 
by every friend of truth and science. Eusebius allows a dis¬ 
tance of twenty-seven stadia, or three miles and three furlongs* 
for the circumference of the ancient city.f The circuit of 
the modern town does not exceed two miles and a half.j; or 
twenty stadia, according to the measure of Eusebius. We 
cannot, therefore, without including this mountain, embrace an 
area sufficiently extensive even for the dimensions afforded by 
Eusebius. But supposing that the ancient cryptae , described 
at the conclusion of the preceding chapter, do mark the posi¬ 
tion of the regal sepulchres, in the midst of tile vast cemetery 
of the ancient Jews, where the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea 
was also possibly situated, then it will appear evident that 
the mountain standing to the south of that deep trench or vaF 
ley,, which Saadys has described as the valley of Gehinnom, 
S'“ We must not take in a literal sense,” (says Mons. De Chateaubriand, Trav, 
vol. II. p. 85. Lond. 1811.) the text of Josephus, when the historian asserts, that 
the walls of the city advanced to the north, as far as the sepulchres of the kings. ,3 ‘ 
In what sense, then, are we to take the text of an historian '! It however happens* 
that the text of Josephus (lib. vi, de Bell. c. 6.) contains no such assertion. The 
words cnrrikaiwv {3acnA!xu)v do not refer to the tombs of the kings of Judah, but t,o 
the royal caves of Helena’s sepulchre,, which were quite in a different situation r 
these lying to the north of Jerusalem; whereas the sepulchres of the kings were up¬ 
on the south side of the city. 
f Eusebii Prsep. Evang. lib. he. cap. 36. Paris, 1859. 
| See Maundrell’s Journ. from Alep, to Jerus. p. 110. Oxf. 1721. De Chateaubri* 
and walked round itinahoutan hour. We were rather more than an hour employed 
in riding round, afoot’s pace, but we kept at a short distance from the walls. 
§ That the valley of Gehinnom, Fn ’Ewofi, or Tu Etvfvvop,, vallis filii hinnom, 
(Reland. Palsest. lllust. 1.1, p. 353. Utr. 1714.) was a place of sepulture, may be 
proved by reference to various authorities, Heathen, Jewish, and Christian. In the 
Vatin version of the Hebrew Itinerary of Petachias (vid. Thesaur. Antiq. 
emit W t T g£!ini, tom. VI. 1207, 1203. Vengt. 174,6.) the following passage occurs 
