cross' fell at length into the hands of the infidels, in the fatal battle which broke the christian power in Palestine (1187). Long had this spurious relic, and ill-omened monument of the spiritual debauchery of the Nicene age, been trusted to, as a sure defence against all harns: Certum solebat esse tutamen, says pope Gregory VIII., et contra paganorum incursus desiderata defensio. It had been carried from Jerusalem to the head-quarters of the christian forces in Galilee, then unhappily weakened by the dissensions of the chiefs. Counsels-absurd or traitorous, gave to Saladin an occasion of which he knew how to take terrible advantage:-all was lost, but the reputation of valour;all, and the true cross! Capta est crux Dominica, trucidati episcopi, captus est rex !*

I should think it an insult to the reader's understanding to attempt an exposure of the hundred absurdities involved in the supposition that the three crosses produced by the bishop of Jerusalem, at the demand of the empress, were indeed the three crosses of Golgotha. Even if otherwise it could be entertained, which, as we shall see, it cannot, the story is refuted by its intrinsic absurdities, and by its overdone specialities. The one cross was not enough—but there must be the three; and the nails; and the Roman spear; and the title (and the sponge and the blood, according to some.) If however there be any who harbour a lingering wish to believe that the holy sepulchre and true cross of St. Helena are what they are alleged to be, I would gladly leave them in undisturbed possession of this their picturesque persuasion, were it not important to the present argument to place before the intelligent and reasonable reader, evidence which so strikingly illustrates the temper and modes of proceeding that characterised the Nicene age. In doing this I avail myself with no ordinary pleasure of the invaluable Biblical Researches in Palestine' of Professor Robinson, and Rev. E. Smith-a work which opens a new era in sacred geography and topographic criticism. The many and important results of these researches have been elicited by a determined adherence to the rule of rejecting altogether the monkish traditions, concerning the spots of biblical history, and which most of them are to be traced to the fourth century; while a careful examina+ Acta Concil. VI. Part 2, p. 1890.

tion of the surface and of its antiquities, as compared with the traditions of the people of the country, and especially when sustained by a radical identity of names, has served to. bring the modern geography of Palestine into an intelligible accordance with the ancient.

The devastation of the city after the siege by Titus-the long interval subsequently, during which it was wholly or nearly forsaken by Jews and Christians-and the utter overthrow which followed upon the capture of Jerusalem under Adrian, had not merely spread confusion over the site, but had broken the chain of topographic tradition; so that when, a century later, the city was again resorted to by the Christians, nothing less than a scrupulous and well-informed survey of the ground, and of its ruins, could have availed to recover, with any certainty, the lost knowledge of particular spots. In the place of any such intelligent care, stolid ignorance and fanatic infatuation took their freakish course over the rugged surface, bestowing the biblical designations upon eminences, caverns, or ruins, at hazard. Such, for the most part, was the origin of those traditions which the church of the fourth century adopted, and has handed down, in the keeping of the monks, to the too easy faith of modern travellers.

But the travellers now before us have followed another track; and in rejecting the fables of fifteen centuries, they have restored to historical science the long-lost biblical Palestine. After adverting to the facts which have already been here adduced, and citing Eusebius, Dr. Robinson continues-" 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 (the Nicene era) 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. ... However this may be, and notwithstanding the silence of Eusebius (and of the pilgrim of Bordeaux) there would seem to be hardly 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; Cyril," &c. . . . Our author here adduces the passages which have been already cited from Cyril, and adds one from Jerome, who, in his epistle to Eustochium, mentions the circumstance that Paula, at Jerusalem, not only performed her devotions in the holy sepulchre, but also prostrated herself before the cross in adoration. - Prostrataque ante crucem, quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret, adorabat.

"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. It was probably a work of pious fraud." (What else could it be, if not a genuine miracle, and a true cross?)

After following the history of Jerusalem through the course of time, to the present moment, the author reverts to the subject of the church of the Holy Sepulchre, and with equal candour and acumen states the question so long and hotly agitated concerning the authenticity of the tradition which vouches for the spot as the true Golgotha and place of the Sepulchre. The determination of this, in itself, unimportant controversy, bears so directly upon my immediate purpose that I shall lay before the reader the substance of the section which Dr. Robinson devotes to the subject. Biblical Researches: vol. ii. pp. 64-80.

"The place of our Lord's crucifixion, as we are expressly informed, was without the gate of the ancient city, and yet nigh to the city. The sepulchre, we are likewise told, was nigh at hand, in a garden, in the place where Jesus was crucified. It is not therefore without some feeling of wonder, that a stranger unacquainted with the circumstances, in arriving in Jerusalem at the present day, is pointed to the place of crucifixion and the sepulchre in the midst of the modern city, and both beneath one roof. This latter fact, however unexpected, might occasion less surprise; for the sepulchre was nigh to Calvary. But beneath the same roof are further shown the stone on which the body of our Lord was anointed for burial, the fissure in the rock, the holes in which

*

Heb. xiii. 12. John xix. 20. The same is also implied in John xix. 17; Matt. xxvii. 32.

+ John xix. 41, 42.

the crosses stood, the spot where the true cross was found by Helena, and various other places said to have been connected with the history of the crucifixion; most of which it must have been difficult to identify even after the lapse of only three centuries; and particularly so at the present day, after the desolations and numerous changes which the whole place has undergone.

"The difficulty arising from the present location in the heart of the city, has been felt by many pious minds, from the days of St. Willibald and Jacob de Vitry, to our own time; but it has usually been evaded, by assuming that the city was greatly enlarged under Adrian, toward the north or west; or sometimes, that the ancient city occupied a different site. The first to take an open stand against the identity of the holy places, was Korte the German bookseller, who visited Jerusalem in A. D. 1738, at the same time with Pococke. While the learned Englishman slightly passes over this topic, entering into no discussion and expressing no opinion, the honest simplicity of the unlearned German led him to lay before his countrymen a plain account of the impression made upon his own mind, and his reasons for distrusting the correctness of the common tradition. Unacquainted with the historical facts, he confines himself solely to a common-sense view of the case, and urges the impossibility that the present site could have been without the ancient city, because of its nearness to the former area of the Jewish temple. The reasoning of Korte seems to have made a considerable impression among the Protestants of the continent, and is often referred to: but he had no follower among the travellers of the last century; though in the present, the voices of powerful assailants and defenders are heard among both Catholics and Protestants. Châteaubriand led the way in a most plausible defence; and Dr. Clarke, a later writer, though an earlier traveller, foliowed with a violent attack. In later years the parties have been reversed: Scholz, Catholic professor at Bonn, declares that the place of the crucifixion cannot have been where it is now pointed out; because this spot must have been within the ancient city, though he strangely enough admits the identity of the sepulchre. On the other hand several Protestant travellers and writers take sides with the tradition, and support the genuineness both of the sepulchre and Golgotha.

"A true estimate of this long-agitated question must depend on two circumstances. As there can be no doubt that both Golgotha and the sepulchre lay outside of the ancient city, it must first be shown that the present site may also anciently have been without the walls. Or, should this in itself appear to be impossible, then it must be shown, that there were in the fourth century historical or traditional grounds for fixing upon this site, strong enough to counterbalance such an apparent impossibility. The following observations may help to throw some light on both these points.

"Our preceding investigations respecting the temple and the ancient walls of Jerusalem, seem to show, conclusively, that the modern city occupies only a portion of the ancient site; a part of Zion and a tract upon the north, which were formerly included in the walls, being now left out. The nature of the ground and the traces of the ancient third wall which are found, demonstrate also that the breadth of the city from east to west is the same now as anciently. There can therefore be no question that the site of the present holy sepulchre falls within the ancient city as described by Josephus. But as the third or exterior wall of that writer was not erected until ten or twelve years after the death of Christ, it cannot here be taken into account; and the question still arises, whether the present site of the sepulchre may not have fallen without the second or interior wall; in which case all the conditions of the general question would be satisfied.

"This second wall, as we have seen, began at the gate of Gennath, near the tower of Hippicus, and ran to the fortress Antonia on the north of the temple. Of the date of this erection we are nowhere informed; but it must probably have been older than the time of Hezekiah, who built within the city a pool, apparently the same which now exists under his name.* We have then three points for determining the probable course of this wall; besides the general language of Josephus and the nature of the ground. We repaired personally to each of these three points, in order to examine there this very question; and the first measure

This second wall was also apparently the northern wall attacked by Antiochus, adjacent to which there was a level tract or plain.—Joseph. Antiq. XIII. 8. 2.