Our limits forbid us to follow the footsteps of the pilgrim in his minute survey of the "Sepulchres of the Kings," which, it is acknowledged, cannot be traced back to a remoter era than that of the Grecian dynasty at Antioch and Damascus. There are several other tombs and grottoes, to which tradition has attached venerable names, and even consecrated them as the scene of important events; but as they are not remarkable on any other account, we shall not extend to an undue length our description of the holy places under the walls of Jerusalem. We shall simply remark, that a difference of opinion exists among modern travellers in regard to the extent of the ancient city, the ground which it actually covered, the changes that it has since undergone in point of locality, and hence, in respect to the position of some of the more prominent objects which attract the attention of the inquisitive tourist in our own days. Dr. Clarke has distinguished himself by some bold speculations on this head, the effect of which is to derange all the received notions relative to the scene of the crucifixion and the place of the Holy Sepulchre. It will indeed be readily granted, that it is a matter of very small importance to the faith of a Christian to determine whether the decease which was accomplished at Jerusalem took place on the north-western or the south-eastern extremity of that metropolis. But as the history and tradition of many ages have fixed the spot where the cross was erected and where the new tomb in the rock had its situation, it is requisite that the arguments of a writer who himself pays so little respect to authority should be examined with attention. In this case, it is obvious, an inspection of the ground candidly and distinctly reported is of much more weight than the most ingenious reasoning if destitute of facts; on which account, we are happy to have it in our power to refer to the journal of a learned gentleman hitherto unpublished, who about three years ago travelled in Syria and Palestine.