Im

any such mistake as the opposite theory supposes. posture would most likely have found the site without the range of the third wall also, in order to be as safe as possible; while, on the other hand, the intelligence which determined that its situation within the third wall was no objection to its identity, would conclude that its position within the second wall was so; and the historical knowledge implied in the former conclusion, would form a strong presumption in favour of accurate information with reference to the Sepulchre.

Besides which, it deserves to be considered, that the very name assigned to the place where our Lord suffered would tend to preserve the memorial of the site among the natives; and to suppose that the site was lost, is to suppose nothing less than that the very name of a peculiar feature in the topography of Jerusalem had irrecoverably perished; which does not appear to have been the case with any other hill, or with any valley in the neighbourhood. It is inconceivable that, while Mount Sion, the Mount of Olives, and the valley of the Kedron, retained their distinctive appellations, that hill which the Christian population would not fail to regard with the deepest interest at least, if we may not say reverence, should have lost its name-a name, be it remembered, universally received in our Saviour's time, and the memorial of which was preserved in the writings of the Evangelists. The Christian Church, as we have seen, had

1 Dr Robinson speaks of "the preservation of the ancient names of places among the common people" as the most satisfactory kind of tradition, but does not apply it here. "The Hebrew

names of places continued current in their Aramean form long after the times of the New Testament, and maintained themselves in the mouths of the common people," &c. &c. Vol. 1. pp.

never been absent from Jerusalem for more than a few years at the utmost, probably not more than two2; and would any Christian who had once known the place Golgotha fail to identify it after ever so long a period, however accident or design might have altered its character? It must be remembered too, that the effect of this part of the New City being thinly inhabited3, would be that its features would undergo little or no alteration by the overthrow of Jerusalem'.

Subsequently, the very attempt to obliterate the memorial of our Lord's Resurrection, would serve to perpetuate the tradition of the site. For it matters little whether the temple of Venus, erected over the spot with this design, was the work of Hadrian or no, if the tradition of the design was authentic. It avails nothing to urge that Eusebius merely ascribes it to impious men, while later writers specify the founder of Elia; because even if it were demonstrable that Hadrian had no hand in it, the fact itself would not be affected, that the idol fane was set up to desecrate and to obliterate the site. Yet it is very far from improbable that this was done by the direction, or at least with the sanction of Hadrian, especially if the renegade Aquila retained any influence in his councils after his apostacy from the Christian faith; for while we have

375,6. Strange that the most interesting and important place in all Jerusalem should form an exception to this rule! That Golgotha or Calvary should be no more known in the beginning of the fourth century!

2 See Vol. 1. pp. 202, 3.

* See above, p. 20.

*St Cyril of Jerusalem says of the

place, "Though it now be adorned, and that most excellently, with royal gifts, yet it was before a garden, and the tokens and traces thereof remain." Cat. XIV. 5.

5 Yet Dr Robinson insists on this as if it were a matter of the last consequence. See Vol. 11. pp. 73, 74.

See Vol. 1. p. 206.

the testimony of a writer contemporary with Eusebius to a similar pollution of the Mount of the Lord's House under the same Emperor', we have a much earlier record of a shrine dedicated to Venus at Jerusalem, in a continuous series of coins, commencing with his immediate successor Antoninus Pius2, nor have we any intimation of its existence at an earlier period: and since in the time of this Emperor "the crucifixion and burial of our Saviour was almost in the memory of man," we may conclude, with Dr Clarke, that "this powerful record of the means used by the pagans to obliterate the rites of Christianity, seems to afford decisive evidence concerning the locality of the tomb, and to place its situation beyond the reach of doubt3."

And it is worthy of remark, that neither Eusebius, nor any of the writers of that century, imply any difficulty in ascertaining the locality. They all speak as if it had been a well-known fact that the fane of Venus covered the Holy Sepulchre. The only difficulty was to clear it from the heaps which had been raised over it'; and the expressions of astonishment which the

1 The author of the Jerusalem Itinerary (A.D. 333), speaking of the temple-area, says, "Sunt ibi et statuæ Hadriani. Est et non longe de statuis," &c. Itin. Hieros., p. 598. ed. Wesseling, A.D. 1735. See more fully, Vol. 1. p. 239-242, and Dio Cassius, LXIX. 12.

2 See a fuller notice of this coin (a copy of which is given at the close of this Chapter) in Vol. 1. p. 240, and the references.

3 Clarke's Travels, Vol. II. p. 310. 4 So far is it from being true that

"the balance of evidence would seem to be decidedly against the probable existence of any previous tradition," that I am persuaded an impartial reader would find it impossible to avoid the conclusion, from the language of Eusebius and others, that such a tradition did exist. It is taken for granted throughout. And this explains why St Helena is nowhere said to have acted in consequence of any known tradition. "Divine suggestion" is never said by the earlier writers to have guided her to the spot, as is implied,

success of the undertaking called forth would be amply justified by the state of complete preservation in which it was found after so long an interval, especially as they might not unreasonably have feared that the concealment of the spot had been preceded or attended by an attempt at the destruction or defacement of the Sacred Cave. Whether it be a reasonable argument against the existence of such a tradition that "no pilgrimages were made to it" before, covered as it was by an idol temple, is for the consideration of those who urge it; but can any devout believer bring himself to suppose that the "many Christians who came up to Jerusalem from all parts of the earth before the age of Constantine, 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"," would be indifferent to the scene of the Crucifixion and Resurrection? They would, without doubt, enquire for this sacred spot, and be pointed to the idol-temple which had been erected to pollute it; while the continued opposition of the civil magistrate, breaking out in frequent persecutions, would make them despair of all attempts to recover it, until the conversion of Constantine and the pious zeal of his venerable mother brought about this happy consummation. The Holy Sepulchre was recovered as soon as circumstances allowed of it.

And should any be disposed to question the pro

but simply to have disposed her or her son to recover it, while the diligent enquiry among the ancient inhabitants, is only mentioned by later writers. Nether Eusebius, nor St Cyril, nor

St Jerome, who would be best informed, say a word about it. B. R. Vol. 11. pp. 76, and 14, 15.

5 Bib. Res. 11. 78.

Ibid. p. 77, from Eusebius.

bability of the Holy Sepulchre being regarded with reverence before the time of Hadrian, considering such veneration as a symptom of later superstition and corruption, it must be remembered that, right or wrong, the Christians of the apostolic times were certainly in the habit of treasuring up the relics of the saints and martyrs'; and the same fond feeling would lead them much more to preserve the memorials of our Saviour's Passion and Resurrection, as they did, we know, of His miraculous Nativity. So that if the erection of the idol-shrine was later than Hadrian3, the greater chance there would be of a correct tradition of these sites, as mere tradition would have less to do with the preservation of them-religious veneration more.

With this strong presumption in favour of a right conclusion, we find the Holy Sepulchre placed exactly where the impugners of the tradition, in accordance with the sacred writers, fix its situation, with reference to the ancient city-walls, as far as their course can now be ascertained1. Under these circumstances the

1 See e. g. Martyrium Sti Ignatii, sect. vi. p. 254, ap. Pat. Apost. Op. Ed. 3a Hefele, A.D. 1847; (Conf. S. Chrysostomi Serm. Paneg. in S. Ignatium. Tom. v. pp. 504, 5. Edit. Eton. A.D. 1612;) and Martyrium Sti Polycarpi sectt. xvii. xviii. Ibid. p. 292, 4.

2 Justin Martyr, (A.D. 150,) Dial. sect. 78, Op. p. 175, speaks of the Cave of the Nativity at Bethlehem, in a manner which implies that it was well known; and Origen, (A.D. 230,) cont. Celsum, 1. 51, p. 39, ed. Cantab. Spenceri, states that pilgrimages were then made to it.

3 As Dr Robinson wishes to make

4 So Clarke writes,-that Golgotha was without the city, and very near to one of its gates, (Vol. 11. p. 552), and the tomb of Joseph "in a garden" in the place where our Saviour was crucified; and then, with strange inconsistency, he removes them far apart, marking the place of Crucifixion on Mount Sion, outside the modern gate, and the place of burial in the deep Valley of Hinnom, and on the opposite side! Dr Robinson writes: "We know nothing more from the Scriptures than that they (Golgotha and the Sepulchre) were near each other, without