whole is so firm and entire, that it may be called a cham- CHAP. II. ber hollowed out of one piece of marble. From this room you pass into (I think, says my author) six more, one within another, all of the same fabric with the first. Of these the two innermost are deeper than the rest, having a second descent of about six or seven steps into them.

In every one of these rooms, except the first, were coffins of stone placed in niches, in the sides of the chambers. They had been at first covered with handsome lids, and carved with garlands; but now most of them were broken to pieces. The sides and ceiling of the rooms were always dropping, with the moist damps condensing upon them. To remedy which nuisance, and to preserve these chambers of the dead clean, there was in each room a small channel cut in the floor, which served to drain the drops that fell constantly into it.

But the most surprising thing belonging to these subterraneous chambers was their doors; of which there was only one remaining entire, being left as it were on purpose to puzzle the beholders. It consisted of a plank of stone, of about six inches in thickness, and in its other dimensions equalling the size of an ordinary door, or somewhat less. It was carved in such a manner as to resemble a piece of wainscot. The stone, of which it was made, was visibly of the same kind with the whole rock, and it turned upon two hinges in the nature of axles. These hinges were of the same entire piece of stone with the door, and were contained in two holes of the immovable rock, one at the top, and the other at the bottom.

From this description it is obvious to start a question, how such doors as these were made? Whether they were cut out of the rock, in the same place and manner as they now hang? Or, whether they were brought, and fixed in their station, like other doors? One of these must be supposed to have been done; and whichsoever part we choose as most probable, it seems at first glance to be not without its difficulty. But thus much I have to say, says Mr. Maundrell, for the resolving of this riddle, which is wont

PART III. to create no small dispute among pilgrims, viz. that the door, which was left hanging, did not touch its lintel by at least two inches; so that, I believe, it might easily have been lifted up, and unhinged. And the doors, which had been thrown down, had their hinges at the upper end twice as long as those at the bottom: which seems to intimate pretty plainly, by what method this work was accomplished.

To the forementioned account of these sepulchres, given us by our own countryman, the Rev. Mr. Maundrell, I shall adjoin one or two particulars from what Le Bruyn hath said concerning the same place. He observes then, that this place lies, not only to the north of Jerusalem, but also about an Italian mile out of Jerusalem; that the large square room (mentioned also by Mr. Maundrell) has several small doors, that lead out into five or six other apartments, each of them forty or fifty paces square, and round which there are several other less rooms, some of which are made in fashion of ovens. It is in these rooms they laid the dead bodies upon benches, raised about two or three feet from the ground, and which are cut out of the very rock, (called therefore by Mr. Maundrell, niches,) and some they laid upon the ground. Le Bruyn tells us, he found in these rooms as many sepulchres, or places for corpses, as amounted in all to about fifty. In one of these rooms, which seemed to be more lofty than the rest, he saw three coffins, one broken, and the other two whole. They were all open, upon the front of the chief of which were engraven two rounds in the nature of circles, each of them having several lines drawn close to one another. Between these two rounds are three pieces of branch-work like palm-trees, and one at each end, being five in all. The cover of this coffin, which lies upon the ground, is likewise adorned with branch-work. The pieces of the coffin, that is broken, lie upon the ground just by, and had formerly some decoration or ornament.

The Rev. Mr. Maundrell, speaking of these grots, called now-a-days the sepulchres of the Kings, says, for what

reason they go by that name is hard to resolve; it being CHAP. II. certain, none of the Kings either of Israel or Judah were buried here, the holy Scriptures assigning other places for their sepulchres. Unless, adds he, it may be thought perhaps, that Hezekiah was here interred, and that these were the sepulchres of the sons of David, mentioned 2 Chron. xxxii. 33. Now the words of this text run thus in our English version: And Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the chiefest of the sepulchres of the sons of David. Where by the sons of David, Mr. Maundrell seems to understand such as were not Kings of Israel or Judah, but his other sons properly so called, and immediately born of him. Whereas, I think, thereby are rather to be understood Solomon, and the succeeding Kings of Judah, called the sons of David, by a form of speech frequently made use of by the sacred writers, who by the name of sons denote, not only the immediate sons properly so called, but also grandsons, and all others descended from a person in any succeeding generation. So that, when it is said in the forecited text, that Hezekiah was buried in the chiefest of the sepulchres of the sons of David, thereby may be very well meant, that he was buried in the chiefest of the sepulchres of the Kings descended of David. Whence it will follow, that he was probably buried in the city of David. And this opinion is expressly confirmed by the Syriack and Arabick interpreters in their version of the said text.

The opinion therefore mentioned by Le Bruyn seems to be more probable, namely, that here were the sepulchres of Manasseh, his son Amon, and his grandson Josiah, Kings of Judah. For the Scripture tells us, that Manasseh was buried in the garden of his own house, in the garden of Uzza, 2 Kings xxi. 18; and ver. 26. of the same chapter, it is said of his son Amon, that he was buried in his sepulchre, in the garden of Uzza. By which expression may be denoted, that these two Kings, Manasseh and Amon, were not buried in the usual sepulchres of the Kings, situated in the city of David; but in another place, where was

PART III. formerly the garden of one Uzza; and which perhaps. Manasseh might purchase or procure by some other means, and being delighted with the pleasantness of the said gardens, might build there an house; which is called, in the forecited 2 Kings xxi. 18. his own house, as it were to distinguish it from the royal palace built and inhabited by his royal ancestors in the city of David, or on Mount Sion. But now that Josiah was also buried here, is not expressly said in the sacred history. In 2 Kings xxiii. 30. it is only said, that he was buried in his own sepulchre; and in 2 Chron. xxxv. 24. it is said, that he was buried in the sepulchres of his fathers; but it is not added, where those sepulchres lay, whether in the city of David, or in the garden of Uzza. And therefore he might be buried in the sepulchres of his fathers, and yet be buried in the garden of Uzza; forasmuch as his father Amon and grandfather Manasseh are both expressly said to have been buried in the said garden. Since then these three Kings are, I think, the only Kings of Judah, that were buried at Jerusalem, and are not said to be buried in the city of David; and since these sepulchres we are speaking of, on the north of Jerusalem at a mile's distance, were not within the city of David, and yet still discover so great an expense, both of labour and treasure, as Mr. Maundrell observes, that they may well be supposed to have been the work of Kings; and since, lastly, nothing hinders, but the garden of Uzza might be in this very place; on these considerations, I think, it is not improbable, that here were the sepulchres of Manasseh and Amon, if not also of Josiah. By what Le Bruyn says, it seems, that it is further supposed, that the three coffins mentioned by Le Bruyn were those, wherein the aforesaid three Kings were laid. And thus much for the sepulchres of the Kings at Jerusalem. The next thing I shall speak of in relation to old Jerusalem, shall be the gates thereof mentioned in Scripture. rusalem. They are by some reckoned only nine; but more occur in sacred history, at least more names. For therein we read of the sheep-gate, the fish-gate, the horse-gale, the old-gate,

14. Of the gates of Je

the gate of the valley, the gate of the fountain, the dung- CHAP. 11. gate, the water-gute, the high-gate, the gate of Ephraim,

&c.

The sheep-gate is supposed to have been near the Temple, and that through it were led the sheep, which were to be sacrificed, being first washed at the pool Bethesda near the gate.

The fish-gate is supposed by some to have been on the west side of the city; because the sea, viz. the Mediterranean sea, lay that way. But since it is certain, that the sea of Galilee afforded also fish, the westerly situation of the Mediterranean sea is but a very weak argument for the westerly situation of this gate. Hence others place this gate on the north side of old Jerusalem, next after the gate of Ephraim, and the old gate proceeding from west to east. And this supposition seems to be founded on Nehem. xii. 39. where we find the like order observed.

And it is not to be doubted, but that the gate of Ephraim was on the north side of the city; because on that side lay the tribe of Ephraim, to which the chief road probably lay through this gate, whence it came to have the name of the gate of Ephraim; there being several instances to be found of the like nature amongst us, viz. of gates or streets taking their names from some remarkable country or city, to which they lead. Whether this gate be the same as is now-a-days called the gate of Damascus, as leading to Damascus, is not certain, but seems probable.

Otherwise the gate of Damascus was probably either the fish-gate already spoken of, or else the old-gate; with much probability supposed to be so called, as remaining from the times of the Jebusites.

As for the horse-gate, its situation is altogether uncertain. Some there are that think, that this gate, and the sheep-gate, and fish-gate, were so called because they were in manner of three several market-places; and at one gate sheep, at another fish, and at the third horses were sold.