The alleged regular succession of bishops, from the time of St. James to the reign of Adrian, is also a matter of less certainty, than is here represented. Eusebius, the only authority on the subject, lived two centuries afterwards; and says expressly, that he had been able to find no document respecting them, and wrote only from report.1 More important is the circumstance related in connection with Adrian, that this emperor erected heathen temples on Golgotha and over the sepulchre about A. D. 135. Could this be regarded as a well ascertained fact, it would certainly have great weight in a decision of the question. But what is the evidence on which it rests? The earliest witness is again Eusebius, writing after the death of Constantine; who merely relates that a temple of Venus had been erected over the sepulchre by impious men, but says not one word of Adrian. The historians of the following century relate the same fact in the same manner. It is Jerome alone, writing about A. D. 395, or some sixty years later than Eusebius, who affirms that an idol had stood upon the spot from the time of Adrian.3 There is moreover a discrepancy in the accounts. Eusebius and the other historians speak only of a temple of Venus over the sepulchre. Jerome on the other hand places the marble statue of Venus on the "rock of the cross" or Golgotha, and an image of Jupiter on the place of the resurrection. Here the Latin father is probably wrong; for Eusebius was an eye-witness; and the former is therefore equally liable to have been wrong in ascribing these idols to Adrian. What then after all is the amount of the testimony relative to an idol erected over the place of the resur 1) Hist. Ecc. IV. 5. 2) Euseb. Vit. Const. III. 26. Socrat. H. E. I. 17. Sozom. II. 1. VOL. II. 10 3) Hieron. Ep. XLIX, ad Paulin. Tom. IV. íi. p. 564. ed. Martianay. rection, and serving to mark the spot? It is simply, that writers ex post facto have mentioned such an idol as standing, not over the sepulchre known of old as being that of Christ, but over the spot fixed upon by Constantine as that sepulchre. Their testimony proves conclusively that an idol stood upon that spot; but it has no bearing to show that this spot was the true sepulchre. Eusebius, the cotemporary and eye-witness, makes no mention of any tradition connected with the idol. Jerome sixty years later is the only one to ascribe it to Adrian; and Sozomen in the middle of the fifth century is the first to remark, that the heathen erected it in the hope, that Christians who came to pay their devotions at the sepulchre, would thus have the appearance of worshipping an idol. Yet from these slender materials, the skilful pen of Chateaubriand has wrought out a statement so definite and specious, that most readers who have not had an opportunity of investigation, have probably regarded the matter as a well-established fact. Thus then the positive proofs alleged in favour of an earlier tradition respecting the Holy Sepulchre, vanish away; and there remains only the possibility, that a fact of this nature might have been handed down in the church through the succession of bishops and other holy men. Yet there are also various circumstances, which militate strongly even against such a probability. One of these is the utter silence of Eusebius and of all following writers, as to the existence of any such tradition. Nor is this all; for the language both of Eusebius and of Constantine himself, seems strongly to imply, that no such former tradition could have been extant. Eusebius relates, in speaking of the place of the resurrection, that "hitherto impious men, 1) Sozomen, H. E. II. 1. or rather the wole race of demons through their instrumentality, had made every effort to deliver over that illustrious monument of immortality to darkness and oblivion." They had covered it with earth, and erected over it a temple of Venus; and it was this spot, thus desecrated and wholly "given over to forgetfulness and oblivion," that the emperor, "not without a divine intimation, but moved in spirit by the Saviour himself," ordered to be purified and adorned with splendid buildings. Such language, certainly, would hardly be appropriate, in speaking of a spot well known and definitely marked by long tradition. The emperor too, in his letter to Macarius, regards the discovery of "the token of the Saviour's most sacred passion, which for so long a time had been hidden under ground," as "a miracle beyond the capacity of man sufficiently to celebrate or even to comprehend." The mere removal of obstructions from a well-known spot, could hardly have been described as a miracle so stupendous. Indeed the whole tenor of the language both of Eusebius and Constantine goes to show, that the discovery of the Holy Sepulchre was held to be the result, not of a previous knowledge derived from tradition, but of a supernatural interposition and revelation. I have already alluded to the silence of Eusebius respecting the part which Helena bore in these transactions; and have detailed the circumstances under which, according to later writers, she was enabled to find and distinguish the true cross. We have also seen that this supposed cross was certainly in existence 1) Λήθῃ τε καὶ ἀγνοίᾳ παραδε δομένον. 2) Euseb. Vit. Const. III. 25, 26. 3) Ibid. III. 30. It is here doubtful whether the word yv Qua (sign) refers to the sepulchre or to the cross; most probably to the latter. See above, pp. 12, 13, 15. 4) See above, p. 14, seq. so early as the time of Cyrill, only some twenty years after its alleged discovery by Helena.' It would seem therefore to be a necessary conclusion, that this main circumstance in the agency ascribed to Helena, must have had some foundation in fact; and, however difficult it may be to account for the silence of Eusebius, it would also appear not improbable, that these later accounts may be in the main correct, at least so far as they ascribe to Helena the chief agency in searching for and discovering the supposed Holy Sepulchre. Yet even in these accounts, she is nowhere said to have acted in consequence of any known tradition; but only to have received a "divine suggestion," and also to have inquired diligently of the ancient inhabitants, and especially, according to some, of the Jews. At any rate, therefore, the place of the Sepulchre was not then a matter of public notoriety; and the alleged miracle, which attended her discovery of the true cross, serves at least to show the degree of ready credulity with which the search was conducted. Thus far the balance of evidence would seem to be decidedly against the probable existence of any previous tradition. But we are now prepared to advance a step further; and to show, that even were it possible to prove the existence of such a prevailing tradition, still this would not have been of sufficient authority to counterbalance the strength of the topographical objections. The strongest assertion which can be made in the case, as we have seen, is the general probability, that such a tradition might have been handed down for three centuries in the church through the succession of bishops and other holy men. But for the value of such a tradition, supposing it to have existed, we have 1) See pp. 15, 16. thorities, as given above, pp. 2) See the account and the au- 14, 15. a decisive test, in applying the same reasoning to another tradition of precisely the same character and import. The place of our Lord's ascension must have been to the first Christians in Jerusalem an object of no less interest than his sepulchre, and could not but have been equally known to them. The knowledge of it too would naturally have been handed down from century to century through the same succession of bishops and holy men. In this case, moreover, we know that such a tradition did actually exist before the age of Constantine, which pointed out the place of the ascension on the summit of the Mount of Olives. Eusebius, writing about A. D. 315, ten years or more before the journey of Helena, speaks expressly, (as we have already seen,) of the many Christians who came up to Jerusalem from all parts of the earth, not as of old to celebrate a festival, but to behold the accomplishment of prophecy in the desolations of the city, and to pay their adorations on the summit of the Mount of Olives, where Jesus gave his last charge to his disciples, and then ascended into heaven.1 Yet notwithstanding this weight of testimony, and the apparent length of time and unbroken succession through which the story had been handed down, the tradition itself is unquestionably false; since it is contradicted by the express declaration of Scripture. According to St. Luke, Jesus led out his disciples as far as to Bethany, and blessed them; and while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.2— Yet Helena erected a church upon the Mount of Olives; and assuredly there could have been no tradition 1) Τῶν εἰς Χριστὸν πεπιστευ κότων ἁπάντων πανταχόθεν γῆς συντρεχόντων, οὐχ ὡς πάλαι κ. τ. λ. καὶ [ἕνεκα] τῆς ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν προσκυνήσεως . ἔνθα [τοῦ λόγου] τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μαθηταῖς ἐπὶ τῆς ἀκρωρείας τοῦ τῶν ἐλαιῶν ὄρους τὰ περὶ τῆς συντελείας μυστήρια παραδεδωκότος, ἐντεῦθεν τε τὸν εἰς οὐρα νοὺς ἄνοδον πεποιημένου. Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. VI. 18. p. 288. Colon. 1688. 2) Luke xxiv. 50, 51. See more in Vol. I. p. 375. Note 1. |