The origin of this imposing gate is unknown. It may be as old as the time of Herod the Great; it may not be older than the reign of Constantine. Impressed with its beauty, some have regarded it as occupying the site of the “Beautiful Gate” at which Peter and John healed the cripple. That, however, was a gate of the Temple; this is a gate of the city; and the two can be identical only by supposing that “gate to the Temple” is synonymous with “entrance to the Temple,” which is neither supported by fact nor analogy. Near St. Stephen’s Gate, a distance of less than 500 feet to the north, is the northeast angle of the Haram wall, and unquestionably is the original angle of the wall which inclosed the Temple area. Five courses of antique stones distinctly beveled, beautifully hewn, and of great dimensions, remain _in situ_, and are as entire as when laid there by the hand of the Jewish mason. The largest of the blocks is twenty-four feet long, three high, and over five wide, at once reflecting the wealth and mechanical art of that early age. This section of the wall projects eight feet, forming a corner tower eighty-four feet long; and the five courses of stone, measuring nearly twenty feet from the base to the top of the quoins, suggest that this was one of the bastions of the famous Tower of Antonia in which Pilate held his “Judgment Hall.” But to suppose the antiquity of these stones, and that they occupy their original places, is regarded by some as a confutation of our Lord’s prediction, “There shall not be left one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down.”[79] Reference, however, to the prophecy in all its scope, will disclose the fact that Christ spoke of the stones of the Temple, and not of the stones composing the wall of the city; and both history and research now prove how terribly have been fulfilled his fearful and exact words. The manner in which these lower layers have been preserved intact is simple and natural. In the demolition of the walls of the city by Titus and also by subsequent conquerors, the lower courses escaped notice, having been buried up in the débris of the upper layers; and in the reconstruction of the wall by Suleiman I., he permitted them to remain undisturbed in their primeval beds. The modern portions of the wall are too heterogeneous in their character and of too mean a masonry to have any claim either to antiquity or to Jewish workmanship, and the upper and lower layers no less mark two distinct periods of national history than two eras in mural architecture. The former indicate an age of weakness and poverty, the latter of power and wealth; the one discloses haste and confusion, the other deliberation and artistic accuracy; the modern is in keeping with the art and taste of the sensual Moslem, the ancient is in harmony with the pride and genius of the Jew. Nor is there any reason for supposing the lower layers to have been the work either of the Romans