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.2 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. 2) See the account and the au thorities, as given above, pp. 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. 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.2Yet 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 ακρωρείας 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. better accredited in respect to the Holy Sepulchre. Indeed, the fact that no pilgrimages were made to the latter, goes strongly to show that there was no tradition respecting it whatever. We arrive at a similar, though less decided result, in following up another parallel tradition of the same kind. The Cave of the Nativity, so called, at Bethlehem, has been pointed out as the place where Jesus was born, by a tradition which reaches back at least to the middle of the second century. At that time. Justin Martyr speaks distinctly of the Saviour's birth, as having occurred in a grotto near Bethlehem.' In the third century, Origen adduces it as a matter of public notoriety, so that even the heathen regarded it as the birthplace of him whom the Christians adored.2 Eusebius also mentions it several years before the journey of Helena;3 and the latter consecrated the spot by erecting over it a church. In this instance, indeed, the language of Scripture is less decisive than in respect to the place of the ascension; and the evangelist simply relates that the Virgin "brought forth her first-born son, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."4 But the circumstance of the Saviour's being born in a cave would certainly have not been less remarkable, than his 1) Γεννηθέντος δὲ τότε τοῦ παι δίου ἐν Βηθλεέμ, ἐπειδὴ Ἰωσὴφ οὐκ εἶχεν ἐν τῇ κώμῃ ἐκείνῃ ποῦ καταλῦσαι, ἐν δὲ σπηλαίῳ τινὶ σύνεγγυς τῆς κώμης κατέλυσε· καὶ τότε αυ τῶν ὄντων ἐκεῖ, ἐτετέκει ἡ Μαρία τὸν Χριστὸν, καὶ ἐν φάτνῃ αὐτὸν ITEDEíze. Justin. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. 78. p. 175. Hag. Com. 1742. 2) Origen. c. Celsum I. 51. Opp. Tom. I. p. 367, ed. Delarue. 3) Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. VII. 2. p. 343, Col. 1688. In this passage, instead of διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἀγροῦ δείξεως, it should doubtless read διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἄντρου δείξεως. Comp. the τῆς γεννήσεως ἀντρον as used of the same cavern, Euseb. Vit. Const. III. 43.-Jerome, seventy years later, affirms that from the time of Adrian onwards, Adonis was worshipped in this eavern; but as all the earlier writers are silent as to any such desecration, it is perhaps nothing more than a rhetorical parallel to the statue of Venus in Jerusalem. Hieron. Ep. XLIX, ad Paulin. Opp. Tom. IV. ii. p. 564, ed. Mart. 4) Luke ii. 7; comp. vs. 12, 16. having been laid in a manger; and it is natural to suppose that the sacred writer would not have passed it over in silence. The grotto moreover was and is at some distance from the town; and although there may be still occasional instances in Judea, where a cavern is occupied as a stable, yet this is not now, and never was, the usual practice, especially in towns and their environs. Taking into account all these circumstances, -and also the early and general tendency to invent and propagate legends of a similar character, and the prevailing custom of representing the events of the gospel-history as having taken place in grottoes,'—it would seem hardly consistent with a love of simple historic truth, to attach to this tradition any much higher degree of credit, than we have shown to belong to the parallel tradition respecting the place of our Lord's ascension. The two traditions which we have now examined, both present a much stronger case, than any thing which ever has been or can be urged in behalf of the supposed Holy Sepulchre. Yet one of them at least, 1) On the subject of grottoes, I subjoin the very apposite remarks of Maundrell, Journey, etc. Apr. 19th. "I cannot forbear to mention in this place an observation, which is very obvious to all that visit the Holy Land, viz. that almost all passages and histories related in the Gospel, are represented by them that undertake to show where every thing was done, as having been done most of them in grottoes; and that, even in such cases where the condition and the circumstances of the actions themselves seem to require places of another nature. Thus, if you would see the place where St. Anne was delivered of the blessed Virgin, you are carried to a grotto; if the place of the Annunciation, it is also a grotto; if the place where the blessed Virgin saluted Eliza beth; if that of the Baptist's or of our Saviour's nativity; if that of the agony, or that of St. Peter's repentance, or that where the Apostles made the creed, or this of the Transfiguration; all these places are also grottoes. And in a word, wherever you go, you find almost every thing is represented as done under ground. Certainly grottoes were anciently held in great esteem, or else they could never have been assigned, in spite of all probability, for the places in which were done so many various actions. Perhaps it was the hermit-way of living in grottoes, from the fifth or sixth century downward, that has brought them ever since to be in so great reputation." The historical notices in the text, show that this practice is of much earlier date than is here assigned. and probably both, have no foundation in historic truth. On this ground then, as well as on all others, the alleged site of the Sepulchre is found to be without support.1 Thus in every view which I have been able to take of the question, both topographical and historical, whether on the spot or in the closet, and in spite of all my previous prepossessions, I am led irresistibly to the conclusion, that the Golgotha and the tomb now shown in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, are not upon the real places of the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord. The alleged discovery of them by the aged and credulous Helena, like her discovery of the cross, may not improbably have been the work of pious fraud. It would perhaps not be doing injustice to the bishop Macarius and his clergy, if we regard the whole as a well laid and successful plan for restoring to Jerusalem its former consideration, and elevating his see to a higher degree of influence and dignity. If it be asked, Where then are the true sites of Golgotha and the sepulchre to be sought? I must reply, that probably all search can only be in vain. We know nothing more from the Scriptures, than that they were near each other, without the gate and nigh to the city, in a frequented spot. This would favour the conclusion, that the place was probably upon a great road leading from one of the gates; and such a spot would only be found upon the western or northern sides of the city, on the roads leading towards Joppa or Damascus. III. STATISTICS. The details in the preceding pages have extended themselves far beyond the limits originally proposed and will at least prove to the reader, that during ou 1) After this discussion, it would be of little avail, to dwell upon the arguments usually drawn from the form and condition of the presen |