had about that time quitted the field, put off the boots, and passed to the verge of Socinianism."

The numerous testimonies which have been quoted must surely be sufficient to commend this treatise to the reader. We have formerly hinted our opinion, that "The Doctrinal Puritans" is not a happy title for this series of republications, and it is confirmed by the present case, to which the term is inapplicable, as it had become obsolete when Abbadie wrote. But it would be pertinacious to insist on a dispute which is merely de nomine, non re. We are glad to see this work reprinted, under any form, for it is one which ought always to be kept before the public, that the demand may be promoted by the supply.

A note of some importance might be added at page 276, where Abbadie, arguing against Crellius the Polish Socinian, terms him "one who holds the first place among our opponents." It appears from Crantz's History of the Moravians, and the translator Latrobe's additional note, that in his latter days he joined that community, owing to an acquaintance he had formed with Count Zinzendorff, and that he found his principal consolation at the latter end of his life in the very doctrines he had earnestly opposed. (See Dr. Pye Smith's "Scripture Testimony to the Messiah,” vol. ii. p. 225, note, ed. 1847.) "This (adds Mr. Latrobe) has been testified, not only by his daughters, but by all who were with him before his end." We have a volume of Abbadie's Sermons, entitled "Les Caractères du Chrestien et du Christianisme," published at The Hague in 1695, and which belonged to the Carmelite convent at Rennes in France, being inscribed as appertaining to the "Carmes de Rennes, 1698." Whether his great reputation was the cause which admitted it into their library cannot of course be known. As it contains "Des Reflexions sur les Afflictions de l'Eglise," that is to say, the persecution of the French Protestants, it could not have been very acceptable in that respect. At some remarks on superstition, as attaching to the Romish Church, and a favourable contrast of Protestantism, at p. 269-70, some person has written, "Hæc et sequentia cum justis non scribantur," which is the only note of

the kind. A precaution seems to have been taken against its being stolen, by inscribing the ownership, not only on the title, but also at p. 23. We remember cheapening the volume, but were silenced by the answer, that Abbadie's writings were highly esteemed at Rennes; and the same determination will be found by persons who attempt to gain an abatement on the works of M. Cellerier, a modern Genevese divine, copies of which the French booksellers are always ready to buy as marketable articles.

Ecclesiastical and Civil History Philosophically considered. By the Rev. G. Townsend, D.D. 8vo. 2 vols.

ON the whole, we think we can give no other character of this work than such as Heeren, in his "Manual of Ancient History," has given of Dr. Gast's History of Greece; viz.-" Although this is not a chef d'œuvre, still it deserves to be mentioned." It has, we are of opinion, much staple matter, which may form the basis of a standard work; but in some respects it is too defective, and in others too redundant, to be pronounced such in its present shape. There is a want, too, of that care in writing which bespeaks a thorough intimacy with the subject in all its minor points. Thus, at p. 67, vol. i. note, the last Bishop of Geneva, La Baume, is called by his Latinised name Balma; a mistake similar to that by which Dr. Stebbing, in his Continuation of Milner, calls Winram, a Scottish priest, who visited Wishart in prison, Viniramus, apparently from Buchanan's Latin. Mr. Townsend is too much inclined to trace great events to little causes-see the notes at pp. 67, 104. The style requires revision; as when we are told (vol. ii. p. 22), that in the seventh century relics were more esteemed "than the Pigot or other costly diamonds are at present by jewellers, ladies, or princes: they were as much esteemed as they were useless." The last clause is a truism, which might do very well in a speech, but is below the dignity of writing. At p. 696 occurs this clause, "John Wycliffe, like John Calvin," a piece of writing which a tutor would strike out of a schoolboy's theme. However, the reader

At p. 88, note, the History of Popery,

who will disregard these blemishes, and concede that "such distinctions fly before real merit," will be instructed by the work. The author announces in the title-page that this portion contains "the first three books." We trust that the hints we have given will have a good effect on the forthcoming volumes; and if they appear harsh it is because we regret to see anything proceeding from Mr. Townsend's pen that we cannot exclusively praise.

An Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem, with Plans, &c. of the Church built by Constantine the Great over the Holy Sepulchre, now known as the Mosque of Omar. By James Fergusson, F.R.A.S. Royal 8vo. SCEPTICISM in matters of more importance than erections of brick and stone is, unhappily, a marked feature of the literature of the day. For ages it has been believed that certain holy places were to be seen at Jerusalem sacred to the Christian visitor as spots marking some event in the earthly ministration of our Lord. Modern scepticism has long raised its voice against sites hallowed with holy associations, until at length we may expect the very place of the holy city itself to be made a matter of controversy.

A particular church in Jerusalem has long been believed to cover the spot where the sepulchre which was bestowed by St. Joseph of Arimathea existed. To St. Helena or her imperial son the structure was reputed to owe its origin, and it was not doubted that the edifice marked the site of the sacred cave.

Although the rock was altered in appearance by paring it down to suit the structure, and the building had been frequently repaired, it was believed by those cognizant of ancient architecture that in the main the fabric remained substantially the original building until the year 1808,

when the circular part of the church being burnt, the greatest misfortune which fell upon it as a building succeeded, having been a few years after rebuilt in a theatrical style by some modern architect, so that the lover of ancient Christian architecture who visits the hallowed edifice will now be offended by the sight of an Italian building as modern and as unsightly as some new churches in our metropolis.

This ancient church appears to have been regarded from the period of its construction by St. Helena as really covering the holy sepulchre; that it was the church which the Crusaders sought to regain, above all the other churches still existing in the holy city, and that it was the spot to which the pilgrim directed his footsteps from the time of its erection by the sainted empress, would appear hitherto to have been unquestioned. In the nineteenth century, the age of the march of intellect, when the extent of mind seems to be measured by its powers of doubting, it is not a matter of surprise that an attempt should be made to deprive the structure of this long and uninterrupted possession of its honours.

A gentleman of the mercantile profession, well informed, well read, an acute observer of the buildings of the countries through which he travelled, but who had never personally visited Jerusalem, and who derived his knowledge of the holy precincts alone from books, aided by the observations of an intelligent artist (Mr. Catherwood), has taken upon himself the task of demolishing at once the sanctity of the pile, and with a decisive blow to level the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to the grade of the House of Loretto, which, in conjunction with the faith of two recent English pilgrims, has afforded him room for a sneer, which we think the sequel will shew to be misplaced.

The author, feeling that he could not demolish altogether the weight of the testimony of ages, seeks to prove only the false appropriation of the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre; which he does by bringing forward another church, once Christian, but now degraded by the service of the false prophet. This is a building until lately inaccessible to Christians, and known

praying place. He rejected the "Dome of the Rock," and sought another spot. The interview with the Patriarch, however, proves that the Church of the Rock was connected with the Temple; but it was not, nor was it supposed to be, the site of the praying place which the Mohammedan sought after. The interview, however, goes far to disprove the fact of its being ever supposed to be the Church of the Rock of the Sepulchre, which would have been an object of abhorrence to the Caliph.

We will now look for a moment at the evidence afforded by the actual buildings.

The Dome of the Rock is a polygonal structure, and the architecture in its detail may indicate the time of Constantine; from the view given of it, it shows a fine example of the new style of architecture then springing up, in which the arch was about to supersede the entablature. It was here united with it in a very awkward manner, being stilted as it were over every column by a portion of the arch passing through it; the columns are Corinthian, and the details late Roman. A double aisle circulates round the building. The author supposes the design was afterwards copied in the church of St. Stefano at Rome: it appears to be in very good preservation, and little altered, with the exception of a Saracenic dome raised over the rotunda by Soliman I.; it covers a rock and cave, and in this respect corroborates the author's views. We have already given a reason for the sanctity of this rock and cave, which, sacred as it was regarded, was not the object sought after by Omar; this however is certain, that if the infidel had regarded it as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre he would not have treated it with the respect which he did on his interview with the Patriarch. Admitting as we do that the Dome of the Rock was a building of the age of Constantine, we now turn to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Taking the same source of information as our author, for no other can now be had, the views show arches springing from Corinthian columns; clumsy, it is true, but, testing them by Mr. Fergusson's authority, the Golden Gate, the evidence of the architecture is quite sufficient to shew the acknowledged his

tory of the sepulchre, and to prove that it was a coeval structure with the Dome of the Rock.

A most respectable authority on such points, the late Dr. Milner, says, "that after all that has been said and written, the church and choir of the Holy Sepulchre cannot be proved to have been rebuilt or essentially changed since they were erected by Constantine's mother about the year 320."

We agree with Mr. Fergusson in dating the Dome of the Rock in the age of Constantine rather than in that of Justinian; but the same internal evidence which ascribes that edifice to Constantine sustains the tradition of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as it existed before the last fire being of the same age. So far the evidence afforded by the building is utterly at variance with the theory of Mr. Fergusson, which as far as such evidence can do proves the two structures to be coeval.

The author is hardly pressed to account for the difficulty interposed by the existence of the present church: he therefore appends to its history a gratuitous assumption of his own, which is this: he supposes that, at the commencement of the eleventh century, the Christians, being driven out of his presumed Church of the Holy Sepulchre, did between 1030 and 1048 build themselves another church, and fabricate a fictitious sepulchre; although he candidly acknowledges that the proposition is liable to the objection of improbability. It is indeed so; if the Christians had fabricated such a structure, it would have in itself afforded the means of detecting the fraud they had committed. The architecture would have been of the Romanesque of the eleventh century, as there is no evidence of any imitation of an earlier style in any building of high antiquity. The works of Constantine are as easily distinguished from those of Justinian as both are from the Romanesque of the eleventh century. All representations that we have seen support the conclusion of Milner, who was not a man to write without reflection upon the probable age of any building. Mr. Fergusson supports his views upon the age of the Dome of the Rock by the evidence afforded by