subsequent visits to the spot, I cannot say whether the church belongs to the era of the Crusades, or to an earlier period. I cannot however admit that it can be called a French work[503], because the Crusaders were not French alone, but of many different nations. The same author writes, "The only contemporaneous documents which we possess relating to the Magdalene Church are in the account of John of Würtzburg, and in the Cartulary. He tells us that it was served by the Jacobite monks. 'Near the city-wall, not far from S. Ann's on the north, is the Church of S. Mary Magdalene, occupied by the Jacobite monks. These assert that it stands on the site of the house of Simon the Leper.... A cross marked on the pavement of the church indicates (according to the same monks) the spot where Mary knelt at the feet of Jesus[504].' The Cartulary contains the title of an agreement[505] between the Latin Canons of the Holy Sepulchre and the Jacobite monks of S. Mary Magdalene. The document is not dated, but from the signatures it must have been written about A.D. 1160. After Jerusalem had been taken by the Saracens the church was converted into a school, and was called _Maïmonieh_, the name it still bears among the Mohammedans. 'The school of _Maimun_' (writes Mejir-ed-Din) 'near to the gate of the city called Sahera, was formerly a Greek church (i.e. Christian): it was endowed in 593 (A.D. 1197) by the Emir Faris-ed-Din-Abu-Said-Maimun, son of Abdallah-el-Kasri, treasurer of King Salah-ed-Din.'" Let us now consider the testimony quoted above. John of Würtzburg undertook his journey after the middle of the twelfth century, and found the Jacobites already established in the Magdalene Church. Now if the church had been built by the Crusaders, the pilgrim would have been sure to mention it, nor would they have been likely to give it up to the Jacobites. I believe that the Canons allowed it to remain the property of the Jacobites, because it had originally belonged to them. It also appears to me that the names of the Canons must be exactly known before it can be proved, on the evidence of the signatures alone, that the agreement was made in A.D. 1160. Again, why are the words of Mejir-ed-Din[506], 'a Greek church,' necessarily to be taken as equivalent to a Christian church? I maintain that Saladin and his followers were too well acquainted with the difference between the Latins and the Greeks to make this slip in a public document. I am therefore inclined to believe that the church had been built before the arrival of the Crusaders, and that possibly it might have been injured during the siege, and repaired afterwards by the Jacobites, who were for that reason allowed to retain it. I cannot adopt any other theory, because I am unable to understand the Crusaders giving a church to the Jacobites, who were considered heretical after A.D. 541, because they maintained that there was but one (the divine) nature in Christ, and were therefore called Monophysites.