are in the identical places where the north and south sides of the Sacred Oratory once stood; whilst the place where the Ark once lay is in the vestibule of the gate-way itself, and almost touching the sill of the inner door-way. THE SAKHRA CUT TO FIT THE PORCH OF If the Sakhra was the Central Core of the Temple Area, and occupied a central position, as Mr. Beswick's discovery and the Biblical statement by Ezekiel (xliii., 12) affirm it to have done, then important consequences follow, which will subject this discovery to a very singular and severe, but very important test. And, if it stands this test, it would seem as if it were useless to subject it to any other. Granting that the Sakhra and its apex had their site in the very center of the Old Temple Area, where the Porch of the Temple stood, it would seem to be a natural inference that the Crown of the Rock would be cut down in length, and depth, and width, to suit the length, width and depth of the Porch of the Temple wherever the rock required it. Mr. Beswick assures us that such is the fact. The of apex the Sakhra is cut at the sides as if to a pattern, and made to fit into the vestibule and porch of a temple having the plan and measurement of the Temple built by Sol omon. | ing the width of side-walls or pilasters upon which the platform rested) 38.4 ft. by 5.9 ft., the total width being 7.385+5.908= 13.2934 ft. The crown of the Sakhra has these two vertical cuttings of 7.385 and 5.9 ft. in width on the northern side of the rock, made due east and west. Captain Wilson, of the English Palestine party, sent out in 1854, says of these cuttings: "On the western side it is cut down in three steps, and on the northern side in an irregular shape, the object of which could not be discovered." The two vertical cuttings have had their corresponding ones on the south side, but these have been almost defaced, although still visible. And these cuttings are exactly at the same distance from the western wall as the vestibule and platform of the Porch were distant from the same base line of verification in the Temple Area in Solomon's day. NUMERICAL TEST OF THE MAIN DISCOVERY. When Herod enlarged the Temple Area by adding another cloister called the Court of Gentiles, he could only make this addition to three of its sides; for the west wall of the inclosure came in contact with the Old Temple Area at the western side of the Court of Israel. There was no space between. This is one of the most important points in Mr. Beswick's discovery; and it is one which has never before been suspected-the Court of Gentiles, added to the Temple Area by Herod, had no western side whatever. It had only three sides, as stated by Josephus (“Wars,” v., 5, 1). The new court was 30 cubits=44.3113 ft. in width; therefore the northern and southern sides of the Temple Area were 30 cubits shorter than the eastern and western sides. At the north-western angle of the Area was a north-western cloister, which united the Temple Area with the Antonia. According to Mr. Beswick's careful measurements of the Sakhra, under the Dome of the Rock, the northern side is cut down vertically from the western edge of the crown, or from west to east, to a distance of 9 cubits=13.2934 ft.; and the distance of the nave-sill in Solomon's Temple to the front of the platform of the Porch was also 9 cubits 13.2934 ft. Hence the stones of the outer pavement of the Court were laid down up to the very sides of the vestibule and platform of the Porch. Then again, the width of the eastern front was 30 cubits; but if the thickness (2 cubits) of the sidewalls of the vestibule be deducted, there will be left 30-4=26 cubits=38.4 ft., inside measurement, as the length of vestibule inside. This accords with the shape of the Beswick's discovery. Josephus says: Sakhra, as the explorer sees it to-day. The Crown of the Rock is actually cut down to this length, 38.4 ft., from north to south, by 13.2934 ft. from west to east. The Vestibule in Solomon's Temple was in length Its length was 220 cubits = 324.949 ft., including the width of the Antonia. Now Josephus gives the entire length of these cloisters, and his estimate will enable us to test the correctness and value of Mr. "And the cloisters were 30 cubits wide (the three cloisters forming the Court of Gentiles); and the whole circuit of cloisters measured six furlongs when the Antonia also is included."-" Wars," v., 5, 2. Mr. Beswick gives the following lengths 38.4 ft. by 7.3852 ft. And the platform of the sides of the outer cloister in Herod's of the Porch was also in length (not includ- ❘ day: Feet. 530 560 560 = = 827.14513 827.14513 2180 3219.95783 220 = 324.94987 between the length of the north-west clois782.83379 ter, of which the Antonia formed a part, 782.83379 and by which it was joined to the Temple Courts. The identification of this site has been based upon direct and indirect proofs too numerous to mention. Everything appears to fall into line and take the most suitable and natural position the moment Mr. Beswick's plan is placed upon a map of the Haram drawn to the same scale as his own. In this respect, the Ordnance Survey map of the Haram, published by the English Palestine Exploration Fund, has done him good service, and might have been made to suit his purpose. 6 furlongs 2400 = 3544.90770 Therefore the whole circuit of the outer cloister measured six furlongs, or, 2,400 cubits, as Josephus described it when Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus. This is a very remarkable and severe test of Mr. Beswick's plan of the Temple Area, which has been based upon his discovery of the Temple site. No other plan yet presented has ever stood this test, including those of Robinson, Fergusson, Williams, Porter, Lewin, Lightfoot, Kraft, Barclay, Tobler, Thrupp, and, lastly, Captain Warren. Of course, all these estimates are based upon the fundamental discovery, that the Sakhra was the central core of the Temple Area. Occupying a subordinate place in this discovery is the site of the Fortress Antonia, and among the many proofs which Mr. Beswick cites is the following. At the south-east corner of the site, where he has placed the Antonia, the natural rock has been cut to the actual shape of a corner, as if to form the angle of some ancient building of the same size as the Antonia. This rocky angle has been hitherto overlooked by every other explorer. Its identification and recognition spring out of the fact that this was the only spot where the Antonia could have been, if Mr. Beswick's plan of the site and area of the Old Temple be correct; and, upon looking for the evidences of its existence upon this spot, the scarped angle was found to occupy the site. It clearly belongs to a square of 124.0717 ft., and leaves a space of 100.439 ft. on each side, north and south, to make up the 324. 9498 ft., which was the length of the northwest cloister. The western wall of the Haram is therefore a reliable base line, and a line of 250 cubits=369.26 ft., drawn from the middle of the Sakhra to this base, is a first standard offset, to which all others are reduced, forming north and south sides to the court and walls of the Temple Area. According to the Talmud, "The greatest space was on the south, the next on the east, next on the north, and least on the west." (Lightfoot, "Descr. Temple Hieros." c. 3.) In other words, the Temple and Courts were on the north-west part of its own inclosure, as seen on Mr. Beswick's plan; and as they were placed against the western wall of the inclosure, the space inclosed was “least on the west." ANOTHER NUMERICAL TEST. A casual and seemingly unimportant remark is made by Josephus in relation to the enlargement of the Temple Area by Herod. The old south wall of the inclosure was extended by Herod, until its south-west angle was in line with the old western wall; it was now 625 cubits=923.153 ft. according to Mr. Beswick's measurement. Herod now carried the eastern front forward, so as to make the entire length of the whole Temple Area equal in width. Its northern and southern sides were alike and equal, being 923.153 ft. And as the northern Court of Gentiles limited the Temple Area on the north, the eastern and western walls of the inclosure, not including the Antonia branch, measured by the distance of the north and south walls, were both of equal length, namely: 1,220.039 ft., including the width of walls, north and south. But as the north and south walls were each 8 cubits=11.816359 ft. thick (" Wars," vi., 5. 1), and the east and west walls were each only 4 cubits=5.903179 ft. thick, the length of space inclosed was only 911.33 by 1,196.4 ft. Its half would be: 500X500 250,000 cubits. 738.52x738.52=545415.33 ft. The newly inclosed space was exactly twice as large as that before inclosed. Josephus says that such was the fact. "Herod rebuilt the Temple, and encompassed a piece of land about it with a wall, which was twice as large as that before inclosed." ("Wars," i., 21., 1.) This proof, like the former one, is numerical in character, and is wholly based on the discovery that the Sakhra is that Mount Moriah, whose apex or crown was in the center of the Temple Area, for the outer Court of Gentiles on the north fixes the limit of the eastern and western walls, and the extent of the area northward. COURT OF GENTILES HAD NO WESTERN SIDE. This result of Mr. Beswick's researches is one of the most valuable and important of all his discoveries, growing out of the fundamental determination which fixes the site of Solomon's Temple where the Sakhra occupies the central spot in the area. It is also one of the most unexpected of his discoveries. He asks the pertinent question, "If the Temple Area inclosed by Solomon and Nehemiah was placed against the western wall, would you not either have to pull down this wall, or else have no western cloister to the Court of Gentiles?" On the other hand, Mr. Beswick claims that Josephus distinctly affirms that the Court of Gentiles had only three sides, while he also says that the Court of Israel was quadrangular or four-sided. Josephus declares that the Inclosure wall of Herod was built up on three sides only. "And when Herod and others had built walls on three sides of the Temple round about from the bottom of the hill, they then encompassed their [the three walls] upper courts with cloisters."-"Wars," V., 5, I. The western wall remained as before; the three sides round about were only north, east, and south, and the cloisters built upon them could only be three in number. The cloisters and their walls were only three in number. This passage is simple and clear. A western cloister to the Court of Gentiles is never referred to by Josephus. On the other hand, Mr. Beswick claims that in the same passage Josephus speaks of the Court of Israel as being four-square in such a way as to imply that the Court of Gentiles he had just described was not foursided. He says: * * "When you go through these cloisters [Court of Gentiles] unto the second Temple, etc., for that second Temple was called the Sanctuary. This Court [Court of Israel] was four-square.""Wars," v., 5, 2. This marked distinction would have no meaning if it were not designed to teach that the Court, of Gentiles was not foursquare. This radical error appears to be universal; it has been overlooked in all the published plans of the Temple Area, without a single exception. The Court of Gentiles had no western side whatever; it was threesided, and not quadrangular. And this fact, which has never before been even suspected, readily accounts for some remarkable statements of Josephus when describing the attack of the Roman legions under Titus on the western wall of the Temple Area. He says: "Titus gave orders that the battering-rams should be brought and set over against the western edifice of the inner temple [or Court of Israel]."—" Wars,” vi., 4, 1. "The one bank was over against the north-west corner of the inner temple [Court of Israel]."— 'Wars," vi., 2, 7. Mr. Beswick, when citing this passage, asks, “How could the battering-rams be placed against the western cloister of the inner temple, or Court of Israel, before a single cloister had been stormed and taken ?" extended along the western side of the Temple Of course, if the Court of Gentiles had Area between the wall and Court of Israel against the north-west corner of the Court then the banks would have been placed first court would have been the Court of of Gentiles, and not the inner temple. The Gentiles. But Josephus says: "The legions came near the first court, and began to raise their banks. The one bank was over against the north-west corner of the inner temple.' In this passage, the first court is clearly the court of the inner temple, or Court of Israel, on the west side of the Inclosure. There are a number of such passages in Josephus. This single element in Mr. Beswick's discovery will almost revolutionize our illustrated plans of the Temple Area during the life-time of the Savior. BEZETHA HILL-SITE OF SECOND AND THIRD WALLS. Mr. Beswick says that the old northern wall of the Temple Area was pulled down by Titus to its very foundations in the rocky |