Yet from these slender materials, the skilful pen of Châteaubriand 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.

extant.

"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 Eusebius relates, in speaking of the place of the resurrection, that hitherto impious men, or rather the whole 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 underground,' 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 tenour 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.

".... We have seen that the supposed cross was certainly in existence so early as the time of Cyril, 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 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 at 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.'t Yet Helena erected a church upon the mount of Olives; and assuredly there could have been no tradition 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."

Dr. Robinson goes on to illustrate the fallaciousness of the ancient topographic traditions in the instance of the 'grotto of the nativity,' at Bethlehem; and then says

"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, 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. Thus on every view which I have been able to take of the question, both

* Euseb. Demonst. Evang. VI. 18.

Acts i. 12. Luke says, they returned unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbatlı-day's journey.' As to the measurement therefore, this accords precisely with the same writer's testimony, Luke xxiv. 50, 51; and is dissonant only in the name—a disagreement easily explained in looking at the map of Jerusalem-Bethany being a short distance beyond the mount of Olives, on the same path, the return of the disciples might easily be so designated. But both statements alike contradict the ancient tradition, on the strength of which the church of the ascension was erected on the western brow of the mount of Olives, which, in a direct line, is only two thousand feet from the city wall, and barely half a mile from the opposite gate, near the pool of Bethesda. This spot was neither a sabbath-day's journey from Jerusalem,' nor was it, as far as Bethany."

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 place 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 such 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 side of the city, on the roads leading towards Joppa or Damascus."

Upon the general character of the proceedings and traditions of the ancient church, this accomplished traveller has expressed himself in a manner which powerfully confirms the representations made in these numbers. In commencing his section on the 'Topography and Antiquities' of Jerusalem, he requests his readers" to bear in mind, that for the lapse of more than fifteen centuries Jerusalem has been the abode not only of mistaken piety, but also of credulous superstition, not unmingled with pious fraud. The FOURTH CENTURY appears to have been particularly fruitful in the fixing of these localities (the alleged sites of the gospel history) and in the dressing out the traditions, or rather legends, which were attached to them. . . . . This is the point to which I would particularly direct the reader's attentionthat all ecclesiastical tradition respecting the ancient places in and throughout Palestine IS OF NO VALUE, except so far as it is supported by circumstances known to us from the Scriptures, or from other contemporary testimony." Bib. Research. vol. i. pp. 371-374.

....

Every line of the preceding extracts is pertinent to the question in hand; and this question touches closely the general argument in which we are engaged. Let us then sum up the evidence that has been adduced.

It appears that Jerusalem, after its two devastations, by the Roman arms, had almost fallen from the notice or memory of mankind; nor did it take a prominent place in the ecclesiastical economy of christendom during the eras of pagan persecution. But soon before the visible triumph of christianity, and especially at the moment of that triumph, the mingled fanaticism and superstition which were then spreading like a frenzy through the church, took a sudden direction toward Palestine, as the scene of the Gospel history. This rush of the winds from all quarters of the Roman world fanned the embers of religious feeling that were almost gone out, among the rubbish and ruins of Zion. The church authorities there awoke to nurse the flame thus rekindled; and in a very short time, as well the eastern as the western nations, fixed their gaze upon the towering blaze.-The Holy City became, as in a moment, the centre of romantic devotional sentiment to all the world.

It was just as this movement was setting in toward Palestine, that the empress-mother (unquestionably sincere and devout) with all the fervour of eighteen, and the childishness of eighty, set out on a pilgrimage-not so much to visit the holy sites, as to exhume, or to create them. Unhappily for the consciences of the Syrian clergy, this exalted lady carried with her the treasury-key of the eastern provinces; or, we might say, a promissory note, bearing her son's signature, but left for herself or her attendant clergy to fill up, at their pleasure, as to the amount. In setting out on this voyage of discovery,' she proclaimed her intention to lay a tenfold offering of' gold, frankincense, and myrrh' at the feet of the Saviour, or of his ministers. Alas for them!-the enormous bribe was far more than enough to secure their acting a traitorous and shameless part. And the blasphemous frauds then contrived and perpetrated, continued to debauch the clergy of Palestine, and other countries, and to degrade and befool the people of christendom, during long centuries; and even to the present moment.