“At the southern end of the enclosure is the mosque of El Aksa, ornamented with a dome and covered by a sloping roof. The mosque of the Mogharibeh, the college of the Dervishes, and the Serai, the residence of the pasha, stand on the west and north sides—while the whole extent of the eastern side of the city is only broken by St. Stephen’s Gate, and the long-closed ‘Golden Gate,’ with its two round arches and small domes. “This is the view over which Jesus wept, when He beheld its beauty, and thought upon its ruin and desolation; and strange and thrilling, indeed, is the feeling it gives to one now: the gloomy ravines lose much of their effect seen from above: the surrounding hills are, one and all, the very dreariest, barrenest, and ugliest one can find anywhere, and yet the whole is beautiful, and even the fastidious and trifling are impressed by it.” [Illustration: SKETCH PLAN OF SITE OF JERUSALEM. _After Robinson._ ] It is when we endeavour to fill in the details of the city itself that our difficulties and perplexities commence. They are caused partly by the vague and indefinite language of ancient historians and topographers, and partly by the fact that valleys have been filled up, hills have been levelled and successive cities have arisen upon the ruins of those which have preceded them, thus effacing the landmarks which would otherwise have guided us. Mediæval and monkish traditions have likewise done much to obscure and pervert the true topography of Jerusalem. Learning and labour have been wasted in the endeavour to defend theories which have nothing in their favour but ecclesiastical authority. Theological controversies have thus been imported into questions which ought to have been discussed only in the light of historical and geographical science. We know from Josephus that the city stood on two hills, divided by the Tyropæan Valley. One of these was Zion, the other Acra. We read likewise of Bezetha, Moriah, and Ophel. Did these last form a separate ridge or were they names given to parts of one of the former? If so, to which—Zion or Acra? The sketch plan given above shows the conclusion arrived at by Dr. Robinson, who maintains that there were three separate hills. Other writers of scarcely inferior authority identify the Temple ridge with Zion—others again with Acra. Notwithstanding the confident dogmatism with which each of these views has been maintained, I cannot say that any of them have carried full conviction to my own mind. It is to be hoped that the explorations now in progress may throw some light upon these obscure questions. No less conflicting are the views as to the sites of the SEPULCHRE and of the TEMPLE. Though the Temple claims priority in the order of historical sequence, yet, for reasons which will subsequently appear, we first consider the site of the Sepulchre. [Illustration: ENTRANCE OF CHURCH OF HOLY SEPULCHRE.]