290

THE SKULL OF ADAM.

denoting, not a burial ground or a place of execution, but a spot to which a certain tradition was attached; and so the word Golgotha and the skull of Adam appear to be the same.* "But near the former," says the Reviewer, "was the tomb of Christ, according to Scripture; therefore it was near the latter; that is, where it has always been placed." And this is the more likely to be correct, as the Greek and Latin priests themselves are totally unacquainted with the origin of this tradition, and knew nothing whatever of the true meaning of the name given to the place shown as the repository of Adam's skull.†

There are four things that must be taken into account when discussing this question of the identity of Calvary and the Holy Sepulchre. The probable position of such a place; its bearings with regard to the plan of the ancient city; the scriptural authority; the traditions, and the writings of authors since the days of St. Helena. The three first of these points I have endeavoured to answer already; to discuss the fourth, I would be compelled to wade through masses of literary lumber that are

* In our version the word xpavov is translated Calvary, on what authority I know not, except from the Latin term Calvarium (a skull); and if Calvary be a proper name, so ought SKULL.

+ The absurd opinion that it derived its name from the supposed resemblance of this rock to the form of a skull as related by Reland, and adopted by Mr. Buckingham, is too ridiculous to require comment-the latter author contradicts the same statement in page 286 of his book.

REVERENCE FOR EASTERN TOMBS.

291

hardly equalled by the rubbish that at present surrounds the spot.

But the absurdities and foolish legends which are often mixed up with the accounts of ancient authors and with the tales of modern monks and friars, are not sufficient reasons for disbelieving or ridiculing all we hear or read concerning this place; no more than because an extravagant or idle tale is told by the people of our own country we are not to investigate the ruins or the incidents to which it refers.

It is extremely unlikely that while the tombs of other friends would be visited, reverenced, wept over, and strewn with flowers, as has ever been the case in a country where peculiar veneration is paid to the mausoleums of relatives, the place hallowed as the depository of the body of our Saviour would be forgotten or neglected by his disciples, or his earthly relatives, and friends; or that this tomb would in a short time become unknown to the early Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem. Surely then such a tradition would be transmitted for at least three hundred years. Nay, the very tomb of Joseph of Arimathea itself would be remembered for two hundred years, and we fully agree in the words of a learned critic and divine now no more, who says " nor was it only its superior sanctity which would preserve its memory. As the private property of an opulent Christian family it would be secured from pollution or injury; and the tomb itself was no 'hereabouts' which tradition was to settle, but an object too visible, and too definite

292

POSITION OF THE GARDEN.

either to be overlooked or mistaken. While a single Christian survived in the town it could never cease to be known and venerated; and it certainly will require a considerable weight of argument to induce us to believe, that while the tombs of Ajax, of Achilles, of Æneas, of Theron, are ascertained by satisfactory tradition, a sepulchre of a date so much more recent, and of so much more forcible interest should have been allowed to sink into obscurity, or have been supplanted by a spurious and imperfect copy."

But the learned author of the critique from which I have quoted, has fallen into a grievous error in stating that "there is also another circumstance which has been rashly taken as granted-namely, that the tomb of our Saviour was in the same place as his cross." In answer to this objection I must again refer to Scripture, which states that "in the place where he was crucified, there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus." And the rolling a great stone against the mouth of the sepulchre would rather incline us to believe that the garden in which it was placed was a comparative level, and not the steep precipitous side of a valley, as Clarke and Buckingham have supposed. The former, in endeavouring to disprove or at least to contradict every previous account, has gone a little too far in asserting that the stone above the ↑ John, xix. 41, 42.

* Quarterly Review, 1813.

THE MODERN TRAVELLER.

293

entrance to the chamber is verd-antique, and not the usual limestone found in the country; a fact which all future travellers can easily ascertain.*

We know from undoubted authority that the Romans who retained possession of Jerusalem after the time of Titus, placed a statue of Venus over the tomb of Christ; and also the fane of Jupiter over the place of the Crucifixion. These remained

*The author of "The Modern Traveller" has fallen into the usual mistake of persons who have to collect their information from the descriptions furnished by others, without being able from personal inspection to describe the places they write upon themselves. He has too hastily adopted the opinions of Dr. Clarke; for, in page 122 we find him saying—" But the spot in question, as we have seen, could never have been either a burialplace or a place of crucifixion, not being without the city." Again, in page 126, he objects to the sepulchre on account of the white marble sarcophagus shewn as the tomb of Christ; which, he says, must have been hewn out of the compact grey limestone rock; forgetting that this white marble is merely said to cover the actual soros, as I have stated in a former part of this work. He, however, answers his own objection in the very next page, by saying, that "all that the pilgrim is permitted to see is a marble casing of a supposed rock." The stone in the centre of the outer apartment is not shown as that rolled to the door of the sepulchre, but that on which the angel sat, and which is no doubt legendary; but it cannot be urged as a proof against the identity of the tomb, as it is not half the size of the doorway; while that shown by the Armenians is about one-half too large. Notwithstanding these inaccuracies and hasty conclusions, the work of Mr. Conder is one without which no traveller should visit the Holy Land; for it contains an epitome of all that has been written upon it; and, though compiled by a person who never visited the country, it is often the best guide that can be obtained, even in Jerusalem itself.

294

LABOURS OF ST. HELENA.

standing until the third century, when the Christian empress, upon her arrival in Jerusalem, had them removed; and reduced the place to the state in which it at present appears. An objection has been raised against the identity of the tomb, from its being a crypt above ground; but it is quite natural to suppose that the enthusiastic Helena, in order to adorn and do honour to the sepulchre, had the intervening ground cut away; is, leaving the Rock of Calvary standing, she rend the rock that formed the gradual intermediate slop between it and the tomb; and so left that which was above the surface, not like a grave, but hewn in the face of a rock, a detached crypt, the bottom of which stands about ten inches above the floor of the church. In form and construction it corresponds in every particular to the other tombs about Jerusalem; especially to those in the rocks above the village of Siloam.

It is a

curious fact, that the sarcophagus is on the right hand side; and in confirmation of this, we read that when the women came to the sepulchre, "they saw a young man sitting on the right-hand side.”*

Clarke referred with great confidence to the effect that fire would have upon the sepulchre. That test has since been tried; the whole place was burned down since his visit; and though the surrounding pavilion was destroyed, the actual tomb remained uninjured, being "hewn out of a rock." The Rev. Mr. Nicolayson informed me. that,

* Mark, xvi. 5.