Acts xxi, 15: We took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem.
This is one of those passages whose meaning is quite likely to be misapprehended, unless the reader is well acquainted with the changes which have taken place in the English language since the Bible was translated. Probably nine-tenths of all who read the verse suppose, and very naturally too, that Paul and his companions were provided with such conveniences as now are known by the name of carriages. Even writers of books have fallen into the same error. Thus we read in Wilson's “Travels in Egypt and the Holy Land:
“This, I am inclined to believe, was not the track which was taken by the apostle Paul when he went up to Jerusalem from the coast, as he appears to have traveled in some conveyance moved on wheels; for it is so far from being in any degree possible to draw one along, that, on the contrary, a great exertion is necessary for travelers to get forward their mules.”
The error here is a comparatively harmless and amusing one, but the same mistake has been made the foundation of serious cavil at the truth of the passage. “How is this possible,” says a modern objector, “when there is nothing but a mountain track, impassable for wheels, between Cesarea and Jerusalem?” The blunder in the former case and the sneer in the latter would alike have been saved, had the writers known that when the Bible was translated, “carriage” did not mean “that which carries,” but “that which was carried.” “We took up our carriages” means no more and no less than “we took up our baggage,” or, as one of the earlier translations familiarly expresses it, “we trussed up our fardels.” Prof. Scholefield, in his “Hints for an Improved Translation of the New Testament,” recommends that the passage be rendered, “we put up our baggage.”
There are other passages in the Bible where the word “carriage,” is evidently used as synonymous with baggage. For example, “So they turned and deserted, and put the little ones, and the cattle, and the carriage before them.” Judges xviii, 21. “And David left his carriage in the hand of the keeper of the carriage.” 1 Sam. xvii, 22. David's “carriage” consisted, as we learn from the preceding verse, of an ephah of parched corn, ten loaves of bread, and ten cheeses. Examples of a similar character may readily be cited from historians and essayists who were contemporaneous with the translators of the Bible. North, in his translations of Plutarch, says that Spartans withdrew an opposing army, and took all their carriage; and Bacon, quoting 1 Sam. xxx, 24, speaks of those “who stood with the carriages,” substituting the word “carriages” for “stuff,” which appears in the ordinary version.
In fact, “carriage,” “luggage,” and “baggage,” were not only formed in the same way, but were originally synonyms; baggage being that which is bagged, luggage that which is lugged, and carriage that which is carried.
THE LAW OF GOD AND THE SABBATH WHICH IT ORDAINS.
By W. H. Littlejohn
BY W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
(Continued.)
We turn now to look at what is generally regarded as the strong defense for Sunday-keeping. It is found in the fact that Christ met with his apostles on the first day of the week at sundry times between his resurrection and ascension. It is not an unusual thing, for those appealing to this line of argument, to refer to these meetings in a manner which would seem to indicate that they were so numerous, and occurred with such regularity as to establish the existence of a custom. Should we lose sight of the fact that had he met with them on every first-day which occurred between the events spoken of above, it could have been but six times in all, we would naturally infer from the use which they make of the word “habit,” that this practice was of much longer duration than the facts will admit of, even though it had been kept up during the whole forty days. How great then should be the surprise of every one who looks into this matter, when he learns that should we grant them all that they ask, it will be impossible for them to show that the Lord met with his apostles on such occasions more than twice after his resurrection. The question then is narrowed down to this:
Is there anything in the circumstances attending these two meetings as narrated in the gospels, which goes to show that the first day of the week was then, and therefore ought now, to be regarded as holy time?
Such an interrogatory, we unhesitatingly answer in the negative, and offer as a justification, the following reasons:
1. Because there is not a word nor syllable, which can be construed to teach, even by implication, either that the apostles so understood it, or that Christ designed that they should. An omission which can never be satisfactorily explained, by those who believe in first-day sanctity. For it is perfectly incredible that God should have set apart a new day for rest and worship, and attach to its neglect a penalty whose consequences should be eternal in duration, without leaving a line or a letter by which his friends might be instructed, or his enemies condemned. Such a thing if it were true, would not only furnish an instance of an abrupt departure from the course which he has ever pursued, even in matters of minor importance, but it would be difficult to reconcile it either with the principles of justice or mercy.
2. Because these meetings were too few in number precept.
3. Because there is nothing in the mere fact that the Saviour showed himself to his apostles after he rose from the dead, which is in itself calculated to inspire the conviction that in so doing he changed the character of the day on which it occurred, from profane to sacred. For if there is, then are there two days, instead of one, which have been thus transformed, and which consistency would demand should be treated165with equal honor. Since John informs us that the third occasion on which the Lord appeared to his apostles, was that of a day upon which they were fishing in the sea of Tiberias. As this was after the time when it is claimed by our opponents that the sacredness of the first day was established, they will either be compelled to admit that this third appearance was on some other day than this, or else they will overturn their whole theory by claiming that the apostles were devoting it to secular pursuits. Nor is this all. The Saviour himself, as if for the express purpose of removing from their minds any apprehension that his presence in his resurrected body in any way affected the nature of the day on which he had presented himself to them, deliberately instructs them to proceed in their labors by casting in their net on the other side of the ship. This done, their efforts were rewarded in such a manner that nothing but miraculous power enabled them to get safely to land the multitude of fishes which they had taken at this draught. Afterward, at his bidding, they unite in making a meal from fish which they themselves had seen in process of cooking upon the embers. But as the Lord never erred in judgment, and never by word, or deed, either directly or indirectly authorized any man to do a wrong, and as the apostles under his direction were engaged in employment which would have been wholly inadmissible on holy time, it follows that the day on which these transactions occurred, was not such an one. We have, therefore, one well-authenticated instance in which the Saviour in person, between the time of his death and ascension, met with, ate with, and reasoned with his followers, without in any way altering the character of the day on which these things were done. As it was true in this case, it would be in every other. And though our antagonists could point to a hundred meetings of like nature, instead of but two, the time on which they occurred, would in no wise lose its secular properties on their account. For if the transformation in question be predicated upon the quality of the events, then the number is immaterial. And if, the conditions being all complied with, they have failed once, to produce the results claimed, they would continue to do so though repeated indefinitely; simply because the effect looked for never was, and never can be, the legitimate sequence of the cause assigned.
4. Because, if it had been the intention of Christ to signify to his disciples by these meetings that the day on which they occurred was to be looked upon as holy, then the second and not the first, was the one which they must have understood him as dignifying in this manner. For it will be remembered that by the Jewish system of marking time, the day began and ended with the setting of the sun, instead of midnight, as with us, who have adopted the Roman method. A good illustration of this fact is afforded by one of the Evangelists in the statement which he makes that the women kept the Sabbath (i. e. the seventh day,) which followed the crucifixion, according to the commandment. The context showing that they commenced it with the setting of the sun on the day which we denominate Friday. It terminated therefore at the same time on the day which we now call Saturday. For they kept the Sabbath from evening to evening. At its close commenced the first day, which continued till sundown on what we would now designate Sunday. Then began the second day. Bearing in mind now, that the first sunset which followed the resurrection marked the beginning of the second day, let us attempt to trace the events which immediately preceded it. Read for this purpose the twenty-fourth chapter of Luke, wherein is given a detailed account of the wonderful journey of Cleopas and his comrade, from Jerusalem to Emmaus. Having reached their destination, they invite a third party, who has joined them on the way, and whose words have caused their hearts to burn, to tarry with them. Assigning as a reason, “that it was toward evening, and the day was far spent.” He complies. The delay incident upon the preparation of a meal follows. They then sit down together to meat. The stranger reveals himself as their risen Lord, and vanishes. With hearts overjoyed at what they have beheld, their first impulse is to bear the good news to those who had been their partners in distress, and who might be still ignorant that Jesus, whose death had occasioned their grief, was again alive. But this resolution was more easily formed than executed. For at least seven weary miles were to be retraced by feet already weakened by protracted effort. Ordinarily two full hours would have been consumed before they would have again found themselves within the walls of the great city. But as they were the bearers of tidings more grave than any which were ever before committed to mortals, they doubtless traversed this distance in less time than this. Yet there are limits, beyond which the powers of endurance will not pass, let the pressure be never so great. The body cannot keep pace with the thoughts. It bounds forward like the deer, it rushes on for a time with almost superhuman energy, but the heaving lung, the palpitating heart, the aching side, and the rushing blood, soon compels the conviction, that though birds may cleave the air with apparently tireless wing and incalculable velocity, man is chained to the earth by an inexorable law which renders it necessary that his transit from point to point, should be comparatively slow and tedious, be the emergency what it may. Since, then, the disciples were but men, it is to be presumed that while they were making ready for, and partaking in full or in part of a meal, deciding upon a course to be pursued, traversing seven miles, finding their friends, listening to an account of the circumstances under which Simon had seen the Lord, and proceeding with a narration of what had befallen them, that day would have expired which was so nearly ended to begin with, that the shortness of time for which it could last could be legitimately used as a valid reason why a fellow traveler should put up with them for the night. If we are right in this, then the first had unquestionably terminated and they had fairly entered upon the second before Christ became one of the number which constituted that assembly, which it is claimed were met together, and by such meeting dedicated the day on which it occurred to the purposes of religion.
So much for the first. The second can be disposed of with greater brevity. In fact, it has been disposed of already. For as all are agreed that the phrase “after eight days,” means either one week or more, it is manifest that, take whichever horn of the dilemma they please, those with whom we contend will find their theory untenable. Insomuch as by adopting the view that the time which elapsed between these two gatherings was just equal to one week, they would thereby bring the latter exactly this length of time later than the former; i. e. on the commencement of that day known among the Hebrews as the second, and commencing at sundown on our Sunday.
On the other hand, should they proceed on the hypothesis that the period measured by the expression quoted above was greater than one week, they would be carried beyond one first day, and landed short of another. Thereby overturning with their own hands the mighty structure which they themselves had reared upon the dogma that these meetings occurred upon consecutive first days.
There is left them, therefore, but the alternative either of abandoning altogether as incorrect the idea that these assemblies sanctified the day on which they occurred, or else they must observe the only hours which under any circumstances could with any show of reason claim to have been thus hallowed; viz., those which begin with the setting of the sun on Sunday, and end at the same time on Monday.
5. Because the disciples themselves, in the presence of the Lord, did things, without being rebuked, which would have constituted them the first offenders against the newly-appointed rest day. Take for instance the journey to Emmaus, referred to above. It was unquestionably begun under the impression that the day on which it was made was but a common one. It is fairly inferable from the account given, that the village of their destination was also that of their home. And that it was a desire to reach this, that they are endeavoring to gratify. This wish, however laudable in itself, was we think, such an one as, owing to the distance which it would be necessary to travel before it could be accomplished, every Israelite would have considered impracticable on the Sabbath. Are you ready to say that they would have been wrong in this? Are you prepared to admit that what you call the Christian Sabbath, is of a nature that would grant you larger liberty in this respect? Think you that individuals at the present time, actuated by no higher motive than that of reaching their homesteads, would be justified in making a distance of seven miles on Sunday? If not, please explain how it was that Cleopas and his friend thus desecrated the first Sunday under the new order of things, before Jesus, without being made aware of their sin, or being condemned therefor.
But, say you, how do you know that Christ did not announce to them that they were trespassing upon holy time, and upbraid them for so doing?
We answer: The last act which he performed was that of revealing himself in his true character. Up to this point, he had been regarded by them as a wayfarer, whom fortuitous circumstances had thrown in their society. It is true that, beginning with Moses and the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures, the things concerning Christ, showing therefrom that he ought to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory. But he did this, not as the person to which the Scriptures he had cited referred, but simply as one who had faith enough to believe, and wisdom to understand and correctly apply the language he had quoted. How then, without bringing himself under condemnation with those whom he was seeking to admonish, could he, while looked upon by them as but a man like themselves, censure them for violating the sanctity of that day upon which Christ had risen, while he, himself, was a partner in their crime. Had he ventured on such a course, the same hearts which had burned with admiration for that wisdom which qualified him to instruct, would have been filled with indignation at that impiety which had rendered him capable of deliberately committing the very sin against which, while standing in the clear light of duty, he had so solemnly warned others. Especially would this have been true when, upon reaching the destination of the two, he expressed his determination to go still further. Instead of extending to him the hospitalities of a quiet home, the dictates of an ordinary prudence would have suggested that it were safer to rid themselves of the presence of one who had shown himself incapable of moral restraint, in at least one marked case, which had come under their own observation.
Again, we think they would have deliberated long, before retracing their steps from the city, after their guest had revealed himself as the risen Son of God, if he had previously, though unrecognized by them at the time, indicated, that in taking them they were desecrating through ignorance, hours which had been hallowed by the events of that morning.
Thus much for a class of testimony which, though it constitutes the larger portion of that foundation upon which rests the mightiest innovation upon God’s law which man ever attempted, not only refuses to furnish the desired authority, but when tested, is found to yield the most satisfactory reasons for believing that both Christ and his apostles acted in a manner which at once forbids the idea that they looked upon the first day of the week in the light in which it is now regarded.
(To be continued.)
INFIDEL WRITERS.—We have had writers of that description who made some noise in their day. At present they repose in lasting oblivion. Who, born within the last forty years, has read one word of Collins, and Toland, and Chubb, and Morgan, and that whole race who called themselves Freethinkers? Who now reads Bolingbroke? Who ever read him through? Ask the booksellers of London what has become of all these lights of the world. In as few years their few successors will go to the family vault of “all the capulets.” Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, while thousands of great cattle, reposing beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that, of course, they are many in number; or that, after all, they are other than the little, shriveled, meager, hopping, though loud and troublesome, insects of the hour.—Edmund Burke, “Reflections on the Revolution in France.”
Historical Department.
Prophecy is History in Advance.
THE JERUSALEM OF TO-DAY.
A CORRESPONDENT sends us the following article, taken from the “English Churchman’s Magazine.” Whatever serves to give us a better idea of Jerusalem, that ancient, illustrious, and typical city, as the following article most emphatically does, will be of interest to our readers, as it must be to every student of the Bible.
The city of Jerusalem fills a place in the history of the world which is perfectly unique and unparalleled. We do not mean this merely with regard to the sanctity of her associations with the facts of our redemption, and the supernatural events of our Lord’s resurrection and ascension. Apart from this she attracts the attention of the historian and the archæologist by the extraordinary length of time over which her authentic and unbroken history extends. Jerusalem was a city in the days of Abraham, and it is now nearly four thousand years since the memorable meeting between her king Melchizedek and the patriarch victorious over the Canaanitish kings. The mountain of Moriah was the scene of the offering of Isaac, and there is not wanting a certain probability to the opinion of those who hold that there also was the true scene of the mystic vision of angels which cheered the flight of the patriarch Jacob.
Then comes the only gap in this marvelous history. Pass over the interval between the days of the patriarchs and the conquest of Canaan, and from thence forward we never lose sight of Jerusalem and of her vicissitudes. Her next appearance is in the story of Joshua’s campaigns in Palestine. Adonizedek (Josh. x, 1–21,) is now her king—a name whose affinity to that of Melchizedek agrees with the opinion that the Salem of the days of Abraham is one with the Jerusalem of the days of Joshua. From the distant days of Adonizedek to our own the annals of Jerusalem are absolutely continuous, and the history of the world may almost be said to be written in the massive remains of her walls, her fortifications, and her conduits. There we may yet discern the enormous stones laid by Jebusite masons in the old foundations of the defenses of Zion. There we may yet see the works of David, of Solomon, of Hezekiah, of Manasseh, of Nehemiah, of Herod, of the Romans, of the Crusaders, and of the Saracens. The cities of ancient Egypt have an antiquity perhaps even more towering, but the current of their history was intercepted in the far-off ages, and they speak to us only of a mysterious past which holds no communion with the intervening life of the world. Rome yet remains laden with the associations of her long career, but by the side of Jerusalem she is only a modern creation. The historic age of Jerusalem was already old ere the fabled Romulus and Numa came upon the scene. Even as her sacred Scriptures are interwoven with the religious life of almost every nation under heaven, so also her long annals are crossed by those of nearly every historic people of the world.
Not less remarkable have been the vicissitudes of this strange city. Regarded by the light of her actual fortunes, her name Jerusalem would seem to have been given in a sad and sarcastic irony. Jerusalem, “Inheritance of Peace,” of all cities in the known world she has least answered to her title, if by peace we are to understand a peace outward, and secular, and historic. “The City of the Sieges,” is the name which her actual history would rather have suggested had the name been given with any prophetic forecast of her material history. It is the one distinctive mark of Jerusalem—the number and the severity of her sieges. No city in the known world has endured so many or so destructive captures. Her continuous history opens with a siege, when we read in Judges i, 8, how the children of “Judah had fought against Jerusalem and had taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.” And even then we find the evidence of its peculiar strength as a place of defense; for though the “children of Judah” had thus reduced the portion of it which lay within the borders of their own tribe, that is, the “Lower City,” we read further on in the same chapter (verse 21,) that “the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem”—that is, who inhabited the fastness of the “Upper City,” or Mount Zion. And not only so, but these Jebusites still retained their ancient stronghold until the eighth year of the reign of king David, and even he did not attempt its reduction until all the rest of the country was subdued, so that its capture marked his completed conquest of the whole territory of Palestine (2 Sam. v, 6–9). From the first siege mentioned in the book of Judges to the great siege under Titus,—a space of fifteen centuries—the city was seventeen times besieged; it was razed to the ground twice, and twice its walls were destroyed. In A. D. 614, it was taken by Chosroes II., King of Persia; in A. D. 629 it was recovered by the Emperor Heraclius; the Khalif Omar took in A. D. 636; and, to pass over other occasions, it was taken by the crusading army under Godfrey of Bouillon, in the year 1099.
It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that the memorials of ancient Jerusalem, and the determination of the ancient localities, have to be sought painfully beneath the surface of the actually existing city and far below the level of the ground on which most of her modern buildings stand. It is no wonder that her minor eminences have been levelled, her valleys and her hollows filled up; that the spade and the pickaxe are the true instruments of antiquarian discovery, and that the identification even of her ancient physical outlines should, in many particulars, have become matter of vehement discussion and debate. The last thirty years have been peculiarly fruitful in writers upon the topography of Jerusalem. Scholars and antiquarians and artists have not been wanting, until the present condition of the Holy City, the chief questions as to its historic sites, and the physical peculiarities of its position have become familiar to every educated man. But M. Pierotti comes before us with claims and qualifications distinct from all who have preceded him, inasmuch as he has enjoyed opportunities such as have never before fallen to the lot of any Frank explorer. He was eight years resident in the Holy City, as architect-engineer to the Pasha of Jerusalem. During this period a large amount of building was in progress, so that his opportunities of actual excavation have been greater than those, not merely of any living man, but perhaps of any individual whatever during modern times. His own description of the sumptuous volumes now before us announces them as “the fruits of eight years of continual labor . . . in which I have been constantly occupied in excavating and removing the rubbish accumulated over the place during so many centuries, in retracing the walls, in examining the monuments and ancient remains, and in penetrating and traversing the conduits and vaults; so that I trust I am in a position to throw some fresh light upon the subject of Jewish archeology. In arranging the plan of my work, I have rested chiefly upon the Bible, the traditions of the Rabbis, and the works of Josephus, and have made but little use of any other authorities upon the ancient topography of the city; but to compensate for this I have made excavations, and watched those made by others, have formed intimacies with the inhabitants of the country, have sought for information on the spot; regardless of personal risk, have worked with my own hands under the ground, and so have obtained much knowledge of that which lies below the surface of the soil in Jerusalem; and have pursued my purpose, at one time with bribes, at another with force, and always with patience, perseverance, and courage.”
It is clear, therefore, that M. Pierotti has enjoyed opportunities of investigation altogether unprecedented, and yet with all these he scarcely seems to set at rest many of the points in debate respecting the topography of Jerusalem. There are indeed some conclusions which we can hardly think will ever be again questioned. The site of the Holy Sepulchre and the identity of the Rock under the Mosque of Omar with Solomon’s Altar of Burnt Sacrifice, are surely settled for ever. So also is the fact of the former existence of a deep valley, extending the whole way from the present Damascus gate to the valley on the south of the city. Yet with all the evidence of laborious research which it contains, there is nothing in the whole book which strikes us so forcibly as the extraordinary obstacles which were continually interfering with the desired thoroughness of exploration. Armed as M. Pierotti was with official authority, even he was compelled to content himself with brief and stolen visits to the places of interest, to disguise his objects, and to lie in wait months or even years for favorable opportunities. On some points, as, e. g., the exact course of the outer northern walls and of the valley which anciently bounded the northern side of Mount Zion, time and further observation are clearly needed to test or to confirm his views. In the meanwhile, we will endeavor to give our readers some idea of the very vivid picture of Jerusalem and its general features, which the careful perusal of M. Pierotti’s book has brought once more before our mind.
For the purposes of a general explanation, we may describe the position of Jerusalem as follows: There is a high, mountainous ridge stretching from north to south through Palestine. Its valleys are deep, sudden, and irregular. On the western side lies the maritime plain which fringes the Mediterranean; on the eastern side is the deep valley through which, in a most winding and irregular course, and with a most remarkably rapid descent, the Jordan rushes. This ridge reaches its greatest height, about 5,000 feet, at the situation of Jerusalem, and the individual hill, or mountain, on which Jerusalem stands, resembles a kind of promontory of table land, surrounded on three sides by some of those deep, sudden valleys already mentioned as frequent in the region. On the fourth or northwest side it is united by land of a high level with the general mountain system of which it forms a part. Thus Jerusalem stands on a kind of tongue-shaped mountain amid mountains. On the east, and south, and west, deep valleys cut it off from the neighboring heights, so that the plan of the high ground thus described is a kind of irregular oblong from north to south, connected by an elevated plateau on the northwest with the general table-land of the country.
This tongue or oblong is itself divided by a smaller depression or valley severing it in two also from north to south, and each portion terminates in a sharp, precipitous, rocky, pointed end, so that the tongue-form we have spoken of becomes really a double tongue, or one which is divided by the central valley above named, so as to end in two points. Of these two divisions, the western is higher than the eastern; this western portion is the Mount Zion of David, and is the site of the old Jebusite fortress which held out against the Israelites all through the times of the Judges, through all the days of Saul, and until David’s capture of it in the eighth year of his reign. The slopes of this hill to the eastward, toward the minor valley which divides it from the eastern hill, were occupied by the town which the children of Judah captured in the early days of their invasion. So much for the present for the western mountain. Eastward from the dividing valley, and exactly opposite to Zion, that is, at the southern end of the tongue of land in question, we have the not less famous mountain of Moriah. Here was the scene of Abraham’s sacrifice, here was the threshing-floor of Araunah, and here subsequently was the Temple of Solomon. Here also, in later times at the northwest angle of the Temple inclosure, was the fortress Antonia, the “Castle” mentioned in the Acts (xxi, 34, etc.), and in which was the Roman governor’s residence, and the pretorium or hall mentioned in St. Mark xv, 16. Both these famous mountains, Zion and Moriah, are at the southern extremity of the ground-plan of Jerusalem, and they look down upon the deepest portions of the surrounding valleys. Northward from each stretches the remainder of the plateau, and this remainder was in later times built167over and included within the city walls, but the Jerusalem of David included only Zion and its eastward slope, and the Jerusalem of Solomon included only Zion and Moriah. These two distinct elevations were, moreover, cut off from the rest of the plateau by an irregular cross valley running east and west, so that, to recur to our former figure, the double tongue is crossed half way by a valley running east and west. The city of David and Solomon lies to the south of this valley, while to the north of it lie the subsequent additions which grew up before its final destruction by Titus.
M. Pierotti’s experience as an architect enables him to speak with confidence regarding the date and character of the workmanship of successive ages and periods. He considers that the old Jebusite fortress “covered the platform of Zion which reaches from its southern extremity to the castle still existing on the north, and is bounded on the east by the tomb of David, the Armenian convent, and the English church. This opinion is confirmed by the remains of an old wall, which the Armenians found on building a seminary and rooms for pilgrims, and by the discovery of an ancient pool. Both these appear to be the work of a very early age, and anterior to the introduction of Phœnician art into Jerusalem.”
At a subsequent period M. Pierotti made a series of excavations with the view of tracing the line of David’s fortifications on the south and east of Zion, and “found the rock hewn vertical, or cut into steps, or else steep and broken; on it fragments of ancient masonry still remained, built of large, irregular blocks fitted together without mortar; in some places other rows of stones, joined with greater skill, were laid upon these, which in turn supported others rudely rusticated in high relief, with the surface rough. I am inclined to think that the lower rows belong to the period of the Jebusites, the next to that of David, and the upper to a later date. Near the Pool of Siloam the vertical hewn rock is again plainly seen, and also inside the city, on the west side of the Tyropean valley. . . . I believe, therefore, that the wall of David can be traced on the south and west. A careful examination of the western brow of Zion, and the configuration of the ground, show that this wall must have followed its present course.”
The Tyropean valley, or Valley of the Cheesemongers, mentioned in the above quotation, is the north and south valley which separates the two mountains of Moriah and Zion. The western side was, of course, the slope of the mountain of Zion and of David’s city, which occupied this mountain only; it was fortified by him on the side facing Moriah, as well as on the other sides. The Pool of Siloam was outside the town at the end of this valley, and underneath the precipices of Zion and Moriah. Such, in as few words as we can describe it, was the city of David.
In the days of Solomon Mount Moriah was added. “David bought the threshing-floor of Araunah, a rich Jebusite, at which time it was evidently outside Jerusalem; but when Solomon built upon it, he joined it to the city of David.” (See 1 Kings ix, 15, xi, 27.) Solomon’s wall began on the north side of David’s, and was traced so as to include all Mount Moriah, which it encompassed on the north, east, and south, and then returning a little way up the valley so often spoken of, crossed it, and made a junction with David’s fortification of Mount Zion. The magnitude of the works executed by Solomon in this building of the Temple, and still more in preparing, levelling, and even extending the mountain-top to receive the Temple, is indeed astonishing. The summit of Moriah was hardly of sufficient area for the required purpose. The valley on the east was upward of six hundred feet below the level of the mountain platform. A vast wall was therefore built to the eastward, and the interval between it and the mountain-side was filled in with earth so as to give the requisite extension to the platform above. The details of the Temple buildings are familiar to our readers and need not detain us here; but there is one point on which M. Pierotti spends much care and space, and which ought not to be unnoticed in any account of his researches and opinions. Beneath the dome of the Mosque of Omar, and occupying nearly the whole space below it, there is a rough, unhewn prominence of native rock, which all Mohammedans treat with peculiar veneration. The Mohammedans regard the Mosque of Omar as the legitimate successor of the Temple of Solomon, and M. Pierotti considers their sites to correspond exactly. In this sacred rock—too sacred to be touched or fashioned by any workmanship of man—M. Pierotti considers that we have the actual threshing-floor of Araunah, and the unaltered actual altar of burnt-offering in Solomon’s Temple.
The steps of his argument are these: 1. He assumes that Solomon was extremely unlikely to have chosen any other spot for his altar than that originally indicated by the prophet Gad. Thus, then, if this prominence of rock be the threshing-floor of Araunah it must also be the site of the altar of burnt-offering, and vice versa. The highest portion is about six feet above the pavement. 2. Next, we know that the altar was to be of unhewn stone; so that the bronze altar of Solomon must only have been an ornamental casing for the rock, which must have remained unchanged, so as to form the actual altar. Again, the altar was to be reached by a slope, and not by steps. The shape of the present projection of rock coincides with this condition also, for it has a regular slope on the south side, leading up to the higher portion; and this agrees with the Rabbinical tradition, that the worshipers used to approach the altar from the south. On the remaining sides the rock is vertical, so that it is clear that when the remaining space was leveled for building purposes, there was some object in view in leaving this portion of the rock projecting, and with an approach on one side only. 3. The altar was a square of twenty cubits, which agrees with the size of the present projection of rock, exclusive of the space left for the inclined ascent. So far, well.
(To be continued.)
SUNDAY IN BUFFALO.
By H. P. BURDICK
BUFFALO, N. Y., August 5th, 1867.
I send you the resolutions of a Sabbath (or, rather, a Sunday) meeting, held in St. James Hall, last evening. Rev. Dr. Schaff, of New York city, gave us a talk in German and in English. Rev. Mr. Calkins read the State Law for keeping Sunday, but omitted to read the law of God. Do you think he forgot it? The following resolutions were adopted, without any remarks:
That citizenship in a free State involves responsibilities commensurate with its privileges.
That in a Republic the laws which are a charter of the citizens’ rights are also the standard of his duties.
That the safety of a free government depends upon two indispensable conditions—the careful conservation of liberty, and the effectual enforcement of law.
That as citizens of this commonwealth, whether of foreign or native birth, we have a common interest in its liberties and laws, and taking on ourselves the joint task of protecting the one and enforcing the other, will do what is in our power to transmit to our posterity a government in which freedom shall be the servant of law, and law the bulwark of freedom.
That underneath all the institutions, usages, and virtues that adorn our free State, lies the Christian Sabbath, which we recognize as the source of all competent culture; the safeguard of all true liberty; the pilot of the future, as it has been the pioneer of the past.
That, like liberty herself, the Sabbath should be made secure to every citizen, and as no employment, indulgence or custom may be tolerated in a Republic, which infringes upon the common birth-right of freedom, so none should be allowed which obstructs the universal observance of that day of holy quietness and rest.
Some claim that the primary object of this move is to shut up the many beer saloons in the city on Sunday. I think it would improve the city very much, if these saloons were shut up every day. If these agitators are not more careful, they will dig through the thin covering of the man-wrought institution, and let the people see the true light.—H. P. BURDICK,—in Sabbath Recorder.
THE SABBATH—If keeping holy the seventh-day were only a human institution, it would be the best method that could have been thought of for polishing and civilizing mankind.—Addison.