were worked.

Constantine now resolved to recover the Sepulchre and to erect a church, the splendour and beauty of which should surpass all others. Eusebius tells us, that the pagans had piled a mound of earth over the cave, had paved the surface and placed upon it a temple to Venus; the emperor caused these to be removed, when "as soon as the original surface of the ground, beneath its covering of earth appeared, immediately and contrary to

all expectation, the venerable and hallowed monument of our Saviour's resurrection was discovered." The cave was adorned with marbles, a colonnade was erected round it, and a basilica was built in honour of the Anastasis, or Resurrection.

Two questions at once suggest themselves. Did Constantine discover

!

THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE.

the true site? Does the present church stand upon the same spot with his basilica? To these questions the most contradictory answers are given. By some it is maintained that the emperor was guided, in his search, by accurate information, that a continuous tradition connects his edifice with the present church, and that, consequently, we have the very places of the entombment

and resurrection fixed beyond reasonable doubt. Others, holding that the true site was discovered by Constantine, yet assert that during the intervals in which Christians were banished from Jerusalem by Persian and Mohammedan conquerors, the original edifice was destroyed, the locality forgotten, and that a new church sprang up upon a different site, around which legends have clustered in the lapse of ages which have no historical basis. Others,

again, assert that Constantine was the dupe either of superstition or of imposture, and that there was absolutely no evidence that the sepulchre was where he sought for it.

Into the protracted and angry discussions which have raged upon these questions, I do not propose to enter here. But after a careful examination of the site and of the arguments urged by the various disputants, I come to the

conclusion that the place of the crucifixion and entombment must be sought elsewhere, and not on the spot which tradition points out. Though the indications of Scripture may be insufficient to show us where it was, they are yet quite adequate to tell us where it was not.

1. It was outside the city, yet near to it (John xix. 20; Hebrews xiii. 12).

THE SITE OF CALVARY.

2. It was a place where interments were permitted, and as a matter of fact did take place (Matt. xxvii. 59, 60; Mark xv. 46, 47; Luke xxiii. 53; John xix. 41, 42).

3. There was a garden in "the place" (John xix. 41).

4. It was by the side of a road leading up from the country (Matt. xxvii. 39; Mark xv. 21, 29; Luke xxiii. 26).

5. It was a spot capable of being seen by a considerable number of persons from a distance (Matt. xxvii. 55: Mark xv. 40; Luke xxiii. 49).

6. It was within sight and hearing of a place whence the priests could stand without danger of defilement (Matt. xxvii. 41; Mark xv. 31; John xviii. 28).

7. It was not far from the barracks of the Roman soldiers, some of whom ran and fetched the vinegar-the ordinary posca, or sour drink of the legionaries-when Jesus on the cross cried, "I thirst" (Matt. xxvii. 48; Mark xv. 36).

8. The language of the evangelists seems to imply that the procession, on leaving the judgment hall, passed not through the city but outside it (Matt. xxvii. 31, 32; Mark xv. 20; Luke xxiii. 26; John xix. 17).

The present site fails to satisfy any one of these conditions. It is not only far within the walls, but apparently must have been so in the time of our Lord when the city was much larger and more populous than now, though in the time of Constantine, when the walls were demolished and the city desolate, it may have been outside the inhabited district. Even if by any sudden bend, or re-entering angle the line of circumvallation left it outside, which, however, is very unlikely, it must still have been in the midst of houses, for we find that Agrippa, twelve years afterwards, constructed a third line of wall to enclose an extensive suburb which had sprung up on this side; and we know that the ceremonial law and social usages of the Jews forbad the formation of graves among the abodes of the living.

Where could the priests have stood who so feared' defilement, that they would not enter the judgment hall amongst a crowd of Roman soldiers and

VIA DOLOROSA.

rabble? In a place of public execution and interment, they must have been defiled.

If, as seems certain, houses were all round the present site, where could the great multitude have watched from "afar off?"

The judgment hall and the barracks are believed to have been in the Castle of Antonia. In this case the Via Dolorosa must have led, as tradition now marks it, through the heart of the city, crowded at the time to its utmost capacity by the multitudes who had come up to the feast. The rulers feared "an uproar among the people," many of whom many of whom "believed on Him;" hence the need for taking Him by subtlety, and for hurrying over the trial in an illegal and stealthy manner. Is it likely that they would run the risk of a disturbance and a rescue in the crowded street? especially with a guard of only four soldiers.3 We can hardly doubt that, in accordance with the indications of the narrative the rulers would choose some place for the execution to which they could pass immediately from the prætorium into the open country.

We have but to transfer the scene of the crucifixion from the northern to the eastern side of the city, in the valley of the Kedron, to find all the requirements of the narrative satisfied. It is, and always must have been, outside the walls. It was a recognised place of interment, the valley to this

1 The close proximity of the Pool of Hezekiah affords a strong incidental proof that the site of the church must always have been inside the walls. It is most improbable that this vast cistern should have been outside for the use of the besiegers, or that the wall should have included the pool and excluded the church. 3 Ibid. xix. 3.