monastery near the eastern gate. The bishop, who had apparently had dealings with Khalid in arranging the encampment, was in the habit of taking his stand upon the wall, and communications sometimes passed between him and the Moslem chief. One day he said to him, "O Abu Sulaiman, your affair is progressing and I have a promise from you. Come to an understanding with me about this city." So Khalid called for an ink-bottle and parchment and wrote "In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful: This is what Khalid b. al-Walid grants to the people of Damascus: when he enters it he will give them security for their lives and goods and churches. The wall of the city will not be destroyed and none of their houses will be occupied. For this they have the covenant of God, the pledge of the Apostle of God and of the Caliphs and the Believers. No molestation will be offered them if they pay the Jizya."

Al-Waqidi, who wrote in the second century of Islam, says he had actually seen this document, and gives an explanation why the date of it is some months later than the actual taking of Damascus. It was first written without date. But later the bishop got it renewed, and the signatures of the other Moslem generals appended to it. There seems no reason to doubt this. The city, of course, was not in the bishop's (or abbot's) hands to surrender. There was a garrison of Roman troops in it. His part in the bargain seems to have been to convey to the Moslem commander information as to a suitable opportunity for assault. This he did, informing

him of a festival night, and that a certain gate was entirely unguarded. With the assistance of the people of the monastery Khalid procured ladders, climbed the wall, captured, and opened this gate practically without a blow. Abu Ubaida, the other Moslem general, to whom also we may suppose the information had been conveyed, had a severe fight with Roman soldiers at the gate which he assaulted. But when the city was in Moslem possession he agreed to the conditions which Khalid had granted for the case of capitulation. This he would hardly have done if, as other accounts aver, he had forced the Jabian gate, independently of the bishop's information, and the bishop's agreement with Khalid had been made in consequence of the city being thus placed practically at the mercy of the Moslems. It is agreed that the city of Damascus was regarded as having been taken by capitulation, while the suburbs were regarded as a prize of war, and therefore unconditionally at the disposal of the Moslems.

On the whole, the conditions of the capitulation seem to have been observed. Some of the houses of Damascus were occupied by the Moslems, but the explanation is given that a proportion of the inhabitants left the city and joined Heraclius at Antioch and that the houses were thus left vacant.

The story of the Church of St. John is well known. The Moslem mosque was close beside it. Whether a part of the church was so used, is not certain. We do not hear of any complaint of the Christians as to any encroachment to begin