They had covered the sepulchre1 with earth brought from other quarters; and then erected over it a sanctuary of Venus, in which to celebrate the impure rites and worship of that goddess. All these obstructions

Constantine caused to be removed, and the Holy Sepulchre to be purified. Not content with this, he gave directions to build a magnificent temple or place of prayer over and around the sepulchre. His letter on this subject to the bishop Macarius is preserved by Eusebius; and presupposes the recent and joyful discovery of the "sign (or monument) of the Saviour's most sacred passion, which for so long a time had been hidden beneath the earth." This discovery the emperor regards as a miracle, which it is beyond the capacity of man sufficiently to celebrate, or even to comprehend. The church was completed and dedicated in the thirtieth year of Constantine, A. D. 535. On this occasion a great council of bishops was convened by order of the emperor from all the provinces of the empire, first at Tyre, and then at Jerusalem. Among them was Eusebius himself, who took part in the solemnities, and held several public discourses in the Holy City.*

In like manner Constantine gave orders to erect a church on the site of the terebinth of Mamre, where Abraham had dwelt; and where, as was supposed, the Saviour had first manifested his presence in Palestine. The emperor wrote on the subject to Eusebius, who has preserved the letter. This church is also mentioned by the Bordeaux pilgrim and by Jerome.5

1) Eusebius everywhere speaks of the sepulchre as a cave, artgov. De Vit. Const. III. 26, 33.

2) Euseb. Vit. Const. III. 30, τὸ γνώρισμα τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου ἐκείνου πάθους ὑπὸ τῇ γῇ πάλαι κρυπτό

μενον.

3) See in general Euseb. Vit. Const. III. 25-40.

4) Euseb. Vit. Const. IV. 43-47. Sozomen II. 26. Tillemont Mémoires, etc. VII. p. 12.-The site of the Jewish temple appears to have been left untouched by Constantine; see above, Vol. I. p. 438.

5) Euseb. Vit. Const. III. 5153. Itin. Hieros. p. 599. ed. Wess. Hieron. Onomast. art. Arboc.

Such is the account which Eusebius, the cotemporary and eye-witness, gives of the churches erected in Palestine by Helena and her son Constantine. Not a word, not a hint, by which the reader would be led to suppose, that the mother of the emperor had any thing to do with the discovery of the Holy Sepulchre, or the building of a church upon the spot. But, as I have already remarked, this was the age of credulous faith, as well as of legendary tradition and invention, if not of pious fraud; and this silence of the father of Church History respecting Helena, was more than made good by his successors. All the writers of the following century relate as with one voice, that the mother of Constantine was from the first instigated by a strong desire to search out and discover the Holy Sepulchre and the sacred cross on which the Saviour had suffered. A divine intimation had pointed out to her the spot; and on her arrival at Jerusalem, she inquired diligently of the inhabitants. Yet the search was uncertain and difficult, in consequence of the obstructions by which the heathen had sought to render the spot unknown. These being all removed, the sacred sepulchre was discovered, and by its side1 three crosses, with the tablet bearing the inscription written by Pilate. The tablet was separated from the cross; and now arose another dilemma, how to ascertain which of these three was the true cross. Macarius the bishop, who was present, suggested an appropriate means. A noble lady of Jerusalem lay sick of an incurable disease; the three crosses were presented to her in succession. The two first produced no effect; but at the approach of the third, she opened her eyes, recovered her strength, and sprang from her bed in perfect health. In consequence of this discovery,

1) Theodoret. Hist. Ecc. I. 17.

Helena caused a splendid church to be erected over the spot, where the crosses were found. The same writers relate also the erection by Helena, of the two churches at Bethlehem and on the Mount of Olives.1

Leaving out of view the obviously legendary portions of this story, it would seem not improbable, that Helena was the prime mover in searching for and discovering the sacred sepulchre; and that through her representations her son was induced to undertake the erection of the church; which in this way might still be appropriately ascribed to her. The emperor's letter to Macarius, as we have seen above, seems to presuppose some such event. Yet how are we then to account for the entire silence of Eusebius as to any such discovery by Helena; supported as it is by the like silence of the pilgrim of Bordeaux, A. D. 333 ? 3 Possibly Eusebius, the flatterer of Constantine, may have chosen to ascribe all to the piety and magnanimity of his patron; and while the church was building under the emperor's auspices for six or seven years after Helena's death, her participation in it may have been unknown or overlooked by the pilgrim.

However this may be, and notwithstanding the silence of Eusebius, there would seem to be hardly

2) Rufinus, ob. circa 410, Lib. I. (XI.) 7, 8. Theodoret, fl. c. 440, lib. I. 18. Socrat. fl. c. 440, lib. I. 17. Sozomen, fl. c. 450, lib. II. 1. Rufinus speaks of a divine intimation as well as of minute inquiry; and so Sozomen, and apparently Socrates. Sozomen also mentions the story of a Jew as one of the chief actors; but rejects it. The story of torture and the like, belongs apparently to a later age. Comp. Paulin. Nolan. Epist. XI. Marinus Sanutus in Gesta Dei per Francos, II. p. 121. Adrichomius, p. 176.

2) Page 13, above. Wesseling denies this; Itin. Hieros. p. 595,

note on Golgotha. His chief reason is, that the word uagrigior refers to the church built, and not to the sepulchre or cross found. The word, however, in the letter of Constantine, is not uagtugor, but rvúgioua; Euseb. Vit. Const. III.

30.

3) The Itin. Hieros. merely speaks of the church erected by Constantine over the sepulchre; and says not one word of Helena or of the cross. Even the churches of Bethlehem and the Mount of Olives, which Eusebius ascribes to Helena, are referred by the pilgrim to Constantine; pp. 595, 597, 599, ed. Wesseling.

any fact of history better accredited, than this alleged discovery of the true cross. All the historians of the following century relate the circumstances as with one voice, and ascribe it to the enterprise of Helena. But this is not all. Cyrill, who was bishop of Jerusalem from A. D. 348 onward, only some twenty years after the event, and who frequently speaks of preaching in the church erected by the munificence of Constantine, mentions expressly the finding of the cross under that emperor, and its existence in his own day.' So too Jerome, describing in A. D. 404 the journey of Paula, relates that in Jerusalem she not only performed her devotions in the Holy Sepulchre, but also prostrated herself before the cross in adoration.2 Yet neither of these fathers makes mention of Helena in any connection with either the cross or sepulchre. It would seem, however, to be as little reasonable to doubt the existence of the alleged true cross at that early period, as it would be to give credit to the legendary circumstances related of its discovery. was probably a work of pious fraud.

It

In the writings and traditions of succeeding centuries, the name of Helena became more prominent. Her memory and her deeds were embalmed and magnified in story as successive ages rolled on; until in the fourteenth century not less than thirty churches were ascribed to her within the limits of Palestine.3

SEC. VIII.] CENT. IV.—CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE. 17

And to the present day almost every remaining church in that country, of any antiquity, is in like manner referred in monastic tradition to the munificence of Helena. Yet if we adhere, as we must, to the testimony of all the writers near her time, the only churches which she can be regarded as having built, are those at Bethlehem and on the Mount of Olives; except so far as she may have taken part in the construction of those connected with the Holy Sepulchre.

The Christian temple thus erected over the holy places at Jerusalem, according to the description of Eusebius, had little resemblance to the structure which exists there at the present day.' The first care of Constantine was to erect a chapel or oratory over the sacred cave or sepulchre itself. This edifice was decorated with magnificent columns and ornaments of every sort. No mention is made of its magnitude or elevation, as is the case in respect to the neighbouring Basilica; whence we may infer that the chapel was not large. Before this, on the East, was a large open court or area ornamented with a pavement of polished stones; and surrounded on three sides by long porticos or colonnades. This place was apparently held to be the garden near which Christ was crucified; and as such it is also mentioned by Cyrill as having been beautified by regal gifts. The eastern side of this court was shut in by the Basilica, or church, erected over the rock on which the cross was supposed to have stood, and which was held to be Golgotha. This edifice is described as of great extent

ters of the fourth and fifth centuries.

1) See in general, Euseb. Vit. Const. III. 33-39. Touttée Descr. et Hist. Basilicae S. Resurrect. in Cyrill. Hieros. Opp. p. 418.

2) John xix. 41. Cyrill. HieVOL. II.

3

ros. Catech. XIV. 5. p. 206. ed. Touttée.

3) Comp. Cyrill. Cat. X. 19. XIII. 23. ed. Touttée. From this rock or monticule was doubtless derived the epithet Mount as applied to the present Golgotha or Calva