To instance only the most prominent of those analogies, you will find the “holy” and the “most holy” bear the same relation to each other, as the cerebrum and cerebellum of the human mechanism. Nor need this at all be wondered at, seeing that, from the very faintest reflection, it must suggest itself to the most indolent that the divine ingenuity most prominently shines forth in the human anatomy; and that, therefore, from the exalted sentiments which this is calculated to inspire of the Godhead, “the noblest study of mankind is man.”[427] Viewing it in this light, and coupling it with that piety which is known to have animated the bosom of David’s anointed son, I cannot pass on without participating in that sublime exclamation, which bespoke at once his gratitude and his humility, after the consummation of his mighty task. “But will God,” said he, “indeed dwell on earth! Behold! the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee, how much less this house that I have builded!”[428] Now to the _era_ for the erection of our Round Towers. “As they have neither dates nor inscriptions,” say Sir John Ware, “and as history is silent on that head, it cannot be expected that I should point out the time when they were erected in this country.”[429] A very cheap way, certainly, of getting over a difficulty! The same was the mode adopted by him, and with equal candour, a few pages earlier, as to the development of their _destination_, when he says: “I confess it is much easier to combat and _overthrow_ everything that has been hitherto advanced by writers in favour of the _Danish claim_ to these monuments of antiquity and the _uses_ of them, than to _substitute anything solid and satisfactory in their room_.”[430] But inasmuch as the latter problem has been solved, one is led to conclude that the obstacles to the former are but imaginary also. To begin then. Camden, speaking of them, in the thirteenth century, says he believes them to have been erected in the seventh, but does not know by whom! But I put it to any rational thinker to say whether, if they had been a creation of the seventh century, it would be possible for a writer of the thirteenth to have been ignorant of their origin, and that too at a time when _tradition_ was universal? and every father made it a point to instil into his son the events and circumstances that happened in his own day? This writer’s testimony is sufficient, at all events, to show that they existed in the seventh century. Bishop Cormac, we have seen before, has recorded them as objects of antiquity in his own time; and this being, at the latest, within the ninth century, they must have had existence before the seventh; else they could not well be deemed _ancient_ two centuries after.