But to go on with the discoveries that cause shocks. With many Jerusalem is the great stumbling-block. If, however, we can imagine a traveller visiting the Holy City with sufficient historical knowledge to enable him to recall in a rough way the city of David and of Solomon, we may be quite certain that he will, as far as that part of the subject goes, receive no shock from the modern city. The same, too, I believe, may be said, to a very great extent, even of the city of Herod. One who can rightly imagine what that city was externally will not, I think, be disappointed at the sight of modern Jerusalem. I am not now speaking of the Greek traders, the Roman soldiers, the Pharisees, and Sadducees, who might have been seen in the streets, but of the city itself. It must be seen from the Mount of Olives, and I submit that the grand Mosk of Omar, as beheld from that point, is a far more imposing structure, architecturally, than the temple of Herod was likely to have been, which, when seen from a distance, being in the Greek style of architecture, was, probably, too much wanting in height to produce any very great effect. The Mosk combines great height with variety of form, for there are the curves of the dome as well as the perpendicular lines of the walls and great windows. The dwelling-houses, too, of the modern city must, with their domed stone roofs be more imposing than those of the old city. The cupolas and towers of the churches, and the minarets of the mosks are additional features. The walls also of the modern city are lofty, massive, and of an excellent colour; and I can hardly think that those of old Jerusalem could have added more to the scene. Herod’s Palace, and the greater extent of his city are probably the only particulars in which what has passed away was superior to what is seen now. As looked at from the mount of Olives this day, the city does not appear to contain a single mean building. History, then, will again save the traveller from receiving a shock at the sight of the outward appearance of Jerusalem; or if it must be felt, will much mitigate its force. The traveller, however, might be one who had never rambled so far as the field of history, and was only expecting to find in the Christians of Jerusalem, that is, in the specimens of the Greek and Latin communions there, living embodiments of the Sermon on the Mount; but instead of this, finds littlenesses, frauds, formalism, animosities, dirt. Of course, he receives a shock; and this is, perhaps, the commonest shock of all. But the fault was in himself: he ought to have known better than to have allowed himself to indulge in such unlikely anticipations. Every one, then, of these shocks was unnecessary and avoidable.