charge in a later additional note. In all this, however, he exhi bits himself as the skilful controversialist, rather than as the experienced and candid interpreter of Scripture.

The pith of his first argument lies in the remark, that" one does "not see how a tradition can be said to contradict Scripture, which "on the face of the matter does but take one text instead of an

other, and contradict a point of Jewish antiquities, viz. the length "of a Sabbatical journey." As to the Sabbath-day's journey, the specifications respecting its length are too various and uncertain to afford any sure basis for arguinent; and I have therefore never taken it into the account. But the assertion that the tradition in question "does but take one text instead of another," requires some conside

ration. It takes for granted, (if it means any thing,) that the text in Acts which speaks of the Apostles as returning "from Mount Olivet," implies that the ascension took place on the summit of that mountain, where the church was afterwards erected. But does this idea lie at all in the language of the sacred writer? Were it to be said of an inhabitant of Albany, that he went down Hudson's river to Staten Island, and then returned home from New-York; would it follow in any man's mind that Staten Island and the city of New-York were on one and the same spot? Or were it to be related of a Fellow of Oriel College, that he went from Oxford to the column in Blenheim Park, and there did a certain act; and that he afterwards returned from Woodstock, which is eight miles from Oxford; would it be a necessary conclusion that the said act was done in Woodstock, or that the eight miles had any thing to do with the place of the act? This serves at least to show, that the tradition, in thus taking "one text instead of another," had no solid ground to go upon.

Again, even did the text in Acts prima facie afford the implication in question, yet there is no principle of interpretation more clear than this, viz. that where two texts of Scripture exhibit an apparent discrepancy, and one of them is clear and explicit, while the other is less so, then the latter is to be interpreted by the for

Now language cannot be more definite and explicit than that of the text in Luke, which says that Jesus "led his disciples out as far as to Bethany (weis Bnoavíar); and lifting up his hands he blessed them; and it came to pass while he blessed them (iv tý evλoyeïv avròv avrovs) he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven." The parting takes place in the very act of blessing; and this occurs after reaching Bethany and in connexion with Bethany. This text then, according to all sound principles of interpretation and of common sense, must be the rule of exegesis as to any other texts connected with the ascension. And as Luke himself places Bethany " at the Mount of Olives," not indeed upon the summit, but upon its eastern slope, would not the Apostles, on Luke's own representation, in returning from Bethany, return also from the Mount of Olives?

1 Luke xix. 29.

In recurring to the subject in his additional note, the essayist attempts to evade the force of this reasoning by the comparison of a parallel passage in Mark, where, on the evening after his resurrection, our Lord, it is said, "appeared to the eleven as they sat at "meat, . . . and said unto them, Go ye into all the world, etc.... 66 SO then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received 66 up." "It may be argued then," he says, "that as St. Mark, "in spite of the sequence of these words, does not fix the date "of the ascension upon Easter-day, neither does St. Luke [in the "language above cited] fix the place of the ascension at Bethany." But are these cases so entirely parallel? Mark relates that the Lord "appeared to the eleven ... and said unto them ;" and the words which he spoke were apparently uttered the same evening. So also Luke relates, that the Lord "led them out as far as to Bethany, and lifted up his hands and blessed them." Here in like manner the force of the and shows that the blessing took place at Bethany. But with this the parallel stops. Luke goes on to state, that "while he blessed them," in the very act of imparting his blessing, "he was parted from them." Mark on the contrary narrates, that "after the Lord had spoken unto them (μerà rò lahñoαi avrois), he was received up." He does not say, nor necessarily imply, that this took place immediately after; and we know from the direct testimony of the other Evangelists, that the ascension did not occur until forty days afterwards. The comparison therefore is lame and nugatory. Nor is there the slightest foundation in the testimony of the Evangelists, nor in any laws of interpretation, for supposing, as the essayist does, that our Lord first went out to Bethany, and then returned to the summit of the Mount of Olives before he blessed his disciples. The language is explicit to the contrary. Indeed, this whole effort of the essayist would seem to be little more, than a mistaken endeavour to bend the truth of the Gospel for the support of a legend of the church.2

Mark xvi. 14 sq. Essay. p. ccxvi. It is perhaps worthy of notice, that Eusebius, when first speaking of the Mount of Olives, makes it prominent, not so much as the place of the ascension, (though he mentions this,) but rather as the place

"where our Lord taught his disci"ples the mysteries respecting the "end, gì tys ovræedilaç. "See above p. 163. n. Afterwards, in describing the founding of the church by Helena, he is more specific as to the ascension; but says the church was

The preceding considerations, as it seems to me, go far to settle the question as to the value of any " antecedent probability” in behalf of the reputed site of the Holy Sepulchre. The remarks have been extended thus far, because they prepare the way for a briefer discussion of the historical argument, to which we now turn.

The precise point of inquiry here to be investigated is: Did there exist, at the time, any such historical evidence or tradition respecting the place of our Lord's sepulchre, as to lead to the selection of the present site as the true one? In this case, too, Eusebius is the main witness. No earlier Father makes even the slightest allusion to the sepulchre, or to any tradition respecting it, as then existing; nor does any later writer speak of the circumstances attending the discovery, until seventy years after the event. The Bourdeaux Pilgrim, and also Cyril, are utterly silent; Eusebius, therefore, the cotemporary and an actor in these transactions, the friend and agent of the emperor Constantine in Palestine, is the sole witness to whom we are indebted for the historical facts. The plausible stat ment of Chateaubriand as to the "antecedent probability," and even necessary existence of such a tradition, the essayist wisely passes over in silence; and it is therefore not necessary for me again to recur to it. The facts, as they come out from the testimony of Eusebius, present the following considerations.

Eusebius, writing ten years or more before the discovery of the sepulchre, speaks of crowds of pilgrims who flocked to Jerusalem to pay their devotions on the mount of Olives, where our Saviour taught his disciples and then ascended into heaven." He speaks also of the place of our Lord's nativity in Bethlehem, which indeed was marked by a still earlier tradition. Now had there been in like manner a distinct tradition respecting our Lord's sepulchre, it is difficult to conceive how these crowds of pilgrims, who were so wont to seek out even the most trivial scriptural localities, should

built over the cavern in which Christ taught his disciples the unspeakable mysteries. Vita Const. III. 41, 43. This may serve to explain the language of the Bourdeaux Pilgrim, to which allusion has already been made, p. 163 above: "Inde ascendis in montem Oliveti,

ubi Dominus ante passionem Apostolos docuit. Ibi facta est Basilica jussu Constantini;" Itin. Hieros, p. 595, ed. Wesseling.

'See Bibl. Res. in Palest. II. p.

70 sq.

See above page 177.
Bibl. Res. II. p. 78 sq.

have neglected to ascertain and visit the sacred spot; and also, how Eusebius should have omitted to allude to the fact, when speaking of the two other collateral traditions. On this ground, therefore, there arises a strong presumption, that no such former tradition was then extant.

Again, the language of Eusebius directly implies the non-existence of any such tradition. He relates that after the council of Nicea, the emperor Constantine became desirous of" performing a "glorious work in Palestine, by adorning and rendering sacred "the place of our Lord's resurrection. This was undertaken by "him not without a divine admonition, but as moved thereto in "spirit by the Saviour himself. For hitherto impious men, or " rather the whole race of demons through their instrumentality, "had made every effort to deliver over that illustrious monument "to darkness and oblivion." Such language, certainly, would hardly be appropriate in speaking of a spot definitely known and marked by long tradition. The emperor too, in his letter to Macarius, preserved by Eusebius and already referred to, regards the discovery of “ the monument of the Saviour's most sacred passion, which for so long a time had been hidden under ground," 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, as I have elsewhere remarked, the whole tenor of the language both of Eusebius and Constantine, shows 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."

But it is urged by the essayist, that "the warrant for the preserva❝tion or recovery [of the Holy Sepulchre], is the pagan temple raised "over it upon the destruction of the city by Hadrian, which became

a lasting record of the spot." This, as I have admitted, is cer

1 Οὐκ ἀθεεὶ τοῦτ ̓ ἐν διανοίᾳ βαλών, ἀλλ' ὑπ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἀνακινηθεὶς τῷ πνεύματι. Euseb. Vit. Const. III. 25.-For the whole passage, see Euseb. ib. 25, 26. 2 Euseb. ib. III. 30.

Bibl. Researches II. p. 74, 75.

4

Page clvi, note.-It is there also said: The main authority for "the present site of the Holy Sepul"chre is Eusebius. What

"is to be urged against Eusebius I "know not." So far as Eusebius testifies to the fixing of the site of the