Pompeii, Herculaneum, and other cities-wherein the temple of every heathen deity, and the residence of every heathen philosopher, have been examined with labour and care the most minute, and described with surpassing accuracy-this, the first, the most holy, the greatest, and I might add, that which shall be the last of cities, has been comparatively neglected and forgotten; a city consecrated to the service of Jehovah, and where he manifested himself to his people; the scene of the labours, sufferings, and death of Messiah; a city, to whose establishment and future glory nations shall yet rise and fall, monarchs flourish, and dynasties decay; a city planned by the great Architect of the world, and before the splendour of which the greatest metropolis, the mightiest people, and the most transcendant achievements of man shall pass away, or be made subservient. Having endeavoured to answer the objections as to the site of the sepulchre, I find it still further necessary to remove some popular or “vulgar errors" upon this subject. It is generally supposed that Calvary or Golgotha (which are synonymous) was a mount, or a considerable hill. This mistake is common to most authors, and is one into which Gibbon himself has fallen; but there is no scriptural warrant for such a supposition. It may, however, have been a small elevation or mound of some fifteen feet high, placed in the natural valley that surrounded the outer wall. Again, others suppose it to have been a place of public execution and a common grave-yard, and this opinion they rest on the word Golgotha (yoλyo¤â), and translate it "the place of skulls," or "of a skull." Now if this supposition be correct, is it not as likely that the evangelists would have mentioned it as a place of execution (or, as some writers have been pleased to call it, a "gallows") as a place of "skulls?" A learned correspondent of the Edinburgh Review* has thrown considerable light upon the meaning of the word Golgotha; bi he too falls into the mistake of making it a place of public burial, "the place of the skulls of men," giving to the word DN Adam, the general appellation of men or mankind, and not the proper name of our first parent. The monks and guardians of the Holy Sepulchre point out a place in the cleft of the rock, *See Critique on Dr. Clarke's Travels in this Review for Feb. 1813. beside the cross, where they say the skull of Adam was discovered at the time of the crucifixion, and even pretend to show the skull itself; and they gravely assert that the father of mankind had himself interred there, in order that his bones might be sprinkled with the blood of our Saviour! Such is the absurd tale related by Epiphanius, and still retailed by the friars to all devout pilgrims. But this place appears to have had an earlier date than the tradition of monks and fathers, and its existence is believed by both Jews and Mooslims, and is mentioned in the works of the latter.* Now it is probable that this spot in the trench outside the walls (and if the tradition concerning it existed from an early date, it would be a reason for its not being included in the city) was called the place of the skull, or as St. Luke writes: “kai ôre ἀπελθον επὶ τον τοπον τον καλουμενον κρανίον—and when they were come to a place called SKULL;" —a proper name, 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 know nothing whatever of the true meaning of the name given to the place shown as the repository of Adam's skull.t 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 endea * See the work of Jalal-Addin, referred to at page 460-3. + In our version the word ngavov 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. 473 voured to answer already; to discuss the fourth, I would be compelled to wade through masses of literary lumber that are only 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 and injury; and the tomb itself was no 'hereabouts' which tradition was to settle, but an object too visible and too definite either to be overlooked or mistaken. While a single Christian survived in the town it would 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 * Quarterly Review, 1813. I believe this article was written by the late Bishop Heber, 474 THE MODERN TRAVELLER. 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."-(John xix. 41, 42.) 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 entrance to the chamber is verdantique, 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 *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 shown 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 had been written upon it up to the date of its publication; 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. LABOURS OF CONSTANTINE AND HELENA. 475 statue of Venus over the tomb of Christ, and also the fane of Jupiter over the place of the crucifixion. These remained standing until the beginning of the fourth century (326), when the Christian empress, upon her arrival in Jerusalem, had them removed; and her son Constantine 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 emperor and his mother, in order to adorn and do honour to the sepulchre, had the intervening ground cut away; that is, leaving the Rock of Calvary standing, they removed the stone that formed the gradual intermediate slope 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 fact, it is related by Eusebius, that they had to excavate to find the care of the sepulchre. 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."-(Mark xvi. 5.) 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, anxious to learn what appearance it then presented, he made many inquiries, and at last found an old Greek priest, a sincere man, and one well worthy of credit, who stated to him that the morning after the fire he went into the tomb; and that as the white marble coating was broken across and not yet replaced, he saw beneath it a plain trough or sarcophagus hewn out of the floor of the church, and not composed of masonry, as Dr. C. supposed. This man, Mr. N. described as totally unacquainted with any of the disputes regarding it; and knowing nothing whatever of antiquities.* In the last edition of "Three Weeks in Palestine," its writer quotes |