make one inch. No doubt three conventional English barley corns, according to the tables, do make a conventional English inch, but there is nothing to show that three Syrian barley corns make the same conventional inch, and nothing at all to connect the English inch with the Jewish cubit. On the other hand, there has been so much dispute as to the length of the cubit, that we should welcome joyfully any settlement of the question; and if a cubit of sixteen inches, or sixteen inches approximately, serves to clear up the difficulties connected with statements of measurement, we shall be glad. The next objection is obvious: although we know the levels at certain points, we do not know the levels all over the rock. Do we know them at a sufficient number of places to justify the suppositions that the levels are such as this application of Maimonides requires ?

As regards the real site of the Holy Sepulchre, Lieutenant Conder will certainly make enemies both of those who place it on the Sakhrah and those who place it at the traditional site. It was, he thinks, at neither of the places: not at the first, because there stood the Holy of Holies; not at the second, because that, he says, was within the second wall. Where was it? The place called Golgotha' is supposed by some to refer to the shape of the ground, a rounded hill in form like a skull. It was also near the cemetery in which was the tomb of Joseph of Arimathæa. It was not one of the early Jewish kokim tombs, in which each body lay in a pigeon-hole with its feet to the central chamber, for in that case angels could not have been seated one at the head and the other at the feet.' Now, north of Jerusalem, on either side of the main road, is the great cemetery of Jewish times. Here is the tomb of Simon the Just; here that of Helena, Queen of Adiabene, fitted with a rolling stone such as closed the mouth of the Holy Sepulchre. The first of these tombs, if the tradition is true, dates from the third century before Christ; the second was cut in the first century of His era. Thus the northern cemetery was in use in His time. Now, close to the main road to Shechem, and near the northern cemetery, is a rounded knoll, with a precipice on the south side, which contains a cave known as Jeremiah's Grotto. The knoll is called by the natives El Heidhemîyeh, 'the rent,' because it is separated from the Bezetha Hill by a deep trench. The word, however, is supposed to be a corruption of El Heiremîyeh, the 'place of Jeremiah.' A tradition of considerable antiquity connects this place with the martyrdom of Stephen, who was probably brought out to suffer at the usual place of execution. The Jews to this day

Immutability of the East.

439

call the place Beth has Sekilah, the 'Place of Stoning,' and say that it was the ancient place of public execution mentioned in the Mishna, and apparently well known at the time when the tract Sanhedrim was written. Thus to a green hill far away, beside a city wall,' we turn from the artificial rocks. and marble casings of the monkish Chapel of Calvary.

6

Lieutenant Conder concludes his Jerusalem topography as follows:

I have but a word in conclusion to add in support of these views. Immutability is the most striking law of Eastern life. The Bible becomes a living record to those who have heard in men's mouths the very phrases of Bible characters. The name of every village almost is Hebrew; each stands on the great dust-heap into which the ancient buildings beneath its present cabins have crumbled, and the old necropolis is cut in rock, near the modern site. For thousands of years the people have gone on living in the same way and in the same place, venerating (perhaps in ignorance) the same shrines, building their fortresses on the same vantage-ground.

This is also the case in Jerusalem. The great barracks of Antonia are still barracks. The fortress of the Upper City is still a fortress. On the rock-scarp of the Tower of the Corner' a corner tower now stands. On the high ground, where the stronghold of Psephinus once stood, the Russians have erected buildings which are regarded by many as a menace to the city. The Upper Market is a market, the Lower Market (mentioned with the former in the Talmud) is the main bazaar of Jerusalem. The old Iron Gate retains its name in the present Bâb el Hadîd. The Temple area is still a sanctuary. Finally, the Rock of Foundation is still covered by a sacred building, and the Place of the Skull' is now a cemetery, while close to it is the slaughter-house of the city.

Knowing the immutability of sites in Palestine, we cannot, I would urge, consider these facts to be mere coincidences. They are rather strong confirmations of the accuracy of the more generally accepted views regarding the topography and monuments of ancient Jerusalem.

We have now touched upon the principal points of a work which is, in all respects, the greatest contribution to our knowledge of the Holy Land which has been made since the volumes of Dr. Robinson. And yet it is only a forerunner of the memoirs, only put forth as a popular work, so that those who are not likely to read dry details and study the bearings of thirsty facts may be enabled to understand how great a work has been accomplished by the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund. That committee have, indeed, been singularly fortunate in their officers. The names of Majors Wilson and Warren, Lieutenant Kitchener, Mr. Tyrwhitt Drake, M. Clermont Ganneau, and Professor Palmer, are indissolubly connected with Jerusalem, Sinai, and Palestine. But no officer has worked so long for the committee as Lieutenant Conder, or written so well. It may be that some of

his identifications will be challenged, some of his conclusions may, on reconsideration, be abandoned, but the book itself will remain.

There are, of course, points to which serious objection might be taken. One might, for instance, fairly ask the author to reconsider his suggestion as to the murder of Sisera, and to reconcile, if he can, the theory advanced with the words of Jael: Turn in, my lord, turn in to me: fear not.’ The topographical requirements, too, of Capernaum, should be stated in full, because not all the readers of Tent Work' have the author's special knowledge. The same remark applies to the chapter on Jerusalem. It was, no doubt, from a generous motive, not to seem as if he was attacking any other writer in laying down his own conclusions, that Lieutenant Conder abstained from mentioning the name of Mr. Fergusson or his theory. Unfortunately, Mr. Fergusson's theory has not been accepted in his own books only. It has been adopted in Smith's Bible Dictionary, where it is allowed to appear as if it were actually proved, and accepted by everybody, the only theory out of all the rest whose case had been made out to the satisfaction of all. We should not have objected if the views of Mr. Fergusson had been fairly stated side by side with those of Canon Williams and others. But it is nothing short of a blot upon an otherwise great work that they are allowed to be set forth by the proposer and inventor himself. Still, the facts being as they are, we think that Lieutenant Conder might have considered the ignorance of the outside public, and added a chapter, or an appendix, on the difficulties of Jerusalem topography. It will be understood that in this place we are pronouncing no opinion on Lieutenant Conder's, or any other of the eighteen schemes for the reconstruction of Jerusalem topography which are now before the world.

One more objection. There are in a work which-however genially it may be written-deals with a great and serious subject, a few personal reminiscences which may be pleasant to the writer, but are not interesting to the general reader. Lieutenant Conder writes so well that we would willingly exchange all these anecdotes, including the long account of the fight at Safed, for more of his detailed descriptions.

As regards the appearance of the country, the violent alternations of heat and cold, the pleasures and discomforts of camp life in Palestine, the hardships borne with a cheerful mind, the long hot day's labour in the field, the evening work in the tent, the days spent among the wild flowers of Sharon in early spring, those among the hills in the wilderness of

The Future of Palestine.

441

It

Judah, the summer in the Lebanon, we may fairly allow that Lieutenant Conder has shown descriptive powers for which his previously published reports had hardly prepared us. was not for the sake of these that we opened his book, yet from these we learn to know the country better. One writer, and one alone, has in this respect surpassed the young officer of engineers who has surveyed Palestine.

We had intended to consider Lieutenant Conder's observations on the Future of Palestine. Our limits forbid more to be said than that he thinks the happiest future which could befall the country would be its occupation by some strong European power, which might recognize the value of its natural resources; but until some such change occurs the good land must remain a desolation.' It is difficult to see what strong European power could, at the present moment, occupy the country without making its possession subservient to political interests and ambitions. Perhaps Major Warren's suggestion is a more hopeful one-that the only way to settle the Eastern Question, so far as Palestine is concerned, is for the Jews themselves to have it back-a suggestion which for different reasons has occurred to a great many other people.

ART. VII.- Mr. Hughes on the Establishment.

The Old Church. What shall we do with it?
HUGHES, Q.C. Macmillan and Co.

By THOMAS

WE have been greatly disappointed in Mr. Hughes's book. His well-known Erastian opinions as a faithful and admiring pupil of Dr. Arnold, his generous sympathies, his manly fairness, and his intellectual ability, led us to anticipate a work in which the principles and questions involved in the State Church question would be stated with scrupulous fairness, with clear intellectual and spiritual apprehension, and with tolerable completeness. We are always glad of a full discussion of this great controversy with an honourable and able opponent. We therefore prepared ourselves for a formal and lengthened discussion of the positions and arguments that we anticipated. We have been compelled to relinquish our intention; for although any book might serve as a peg upon which to hang a dissertation, we have no care for a discussion in which both sides of the argument would have largely to be supplied by ourselves. The form of Mr. Hughes's book may account for our disappointment. It is not an essay or argu

ment aiming at anything like completeness. It is a collection of speeches on the State Church question, delivered on various occasions, and adapted to the uses of the platform. It is therefore little more than a comment on the argument, and even as such it is scrappy, allusive, and superficial. It discusses no one point with anything like fulness. It makes no pretence to completeness; not even, we regret to say, to the completeness which is essential to fairness. It is astonishing with what apparent unconsciousness Mr. Hughes ignores the more fundamental parts of a position, and skims over the thin ice of great depths with most innocent self-complacency. In any attempt, therefore, to deal fully with this book it would be necessary to complete and reduce to exact meaning almost every statement of the author before testing it by evidence and argument. Mr. Harwood's book, fundamentally weak as it was, was an attempt at a full discussion. It demanded from us, therefore, the full reply we attempted to give it. It satisfied Churchmen as little as it convinced Nonconformists. By common acknowledgment it gave to the latter so easy a victory that it seemed as if the Lord had delivered him into our Even Church of England papers thought disestablishment better than that.' The book, therefore, is discreetly ignored. Mr. Hughes comes out as a mere skirmisher of the regular army; and to drive in skirmishers is no great feat. Only Mr. Hughes's name, therefore, prevents our dismissing his book in a single paragraph, and postponing everything like discussion until another kind of champion present himself. But as the name of the author of Tom Brown's School Days' carries with it a certain weight, we will point out two or three characteristics of his treatment of the great question at issue.

6

But how, we ask, are we to deal seriously with a speaker who, in the face of the present state of the Disestablishment Question, and of its progress during the last ten years, can condescend to such unreal platform claptrap as this: "The coming assault [in Parliament], so far as Nonconformists are concerned, may, as some people think, be that of a forlorn hope, hurried on because the leaders feel that the supports are melting away behind them, and it is their last chance.' We have no objection to our opponents constructing for themselves such a fool's paradise as this, but we can scarcely be asked to engage in serious assault upon it. It beats Mrs. Partington hollow. Had Mr. Hughes taken the trouble to call at Serjeants' Inn, the courteous officers of the Liberation Society would have told him of a largely multiplied annual income, of large accession of personal members, of the rapid growth