The Portal, or general entrance to the "Martyrium of the Resurrection," as the whole group of buildings is termed by Eusebius, opened upon the market-place. Now the street which at present forms the eastern boundary, is occupied by deserted bazars, and the place, no doubt, has thus been devoted to merchandise from the time of Constantine. But at the very point where, in accordance with the explanation I have given above, the propylæum ought to be situated, there still exist the ruins of columns, which, as M. Schultz says, indicate the former presence of a Roman portal, of the original use of which however he does not appear to be aware. "If we pass through the deserted bazar," (at HL Fig. 1.) says he, (p. 60), “and beyond the southern end of it, we find three mutilated columns, which still remain erect, and project above the surface. A broken shaft of similar work lies on the ground. Behind the southernmost column, if we enter the neighbouring shops, we see in the one the lower part of a pilaster, and in the other the remains of a wall in the massive style of antiquity. These separate fragments correspond with each other, and suggest the conclusion that a great1 portal stood here."

dication of the position of the Church, which completely oversets the opinions lately advanced by Mr Fergusson. This gentleman imagines that the golden gate in the eastern wall of the Temple area is no other than the propylæum in question, completely overlooking or neglecting this passage of Eusebius, which would compel him to fix the market-place in the Valley of Jehoshaphat; a location which, I need scarcely add, is ludicrously impossible.

1 In Fig. 2. I have determined the probable dimensions of the basilica from comparison with those of the church at Bethlehem. This church was erected over the supposed place of the Nativity, at the same time as the Basilica of the Resurrection, and the Church of the Ascension. The Church of Bethlehem remains to this day, with its nave in plan so exactly corresponding to the age of Constantine, that we may be sure that it cannot have suffered essential altera

In the Eusebian description just quoted, there is not only no allusion to the Cross discovered by Helena, but no mention of Golgotha or Calvary. The unity of purpose in the Martyrium which pervades his whole narrative is very remarkable. From the announcement of the Emperor's first intention to the full completion of the edifice, the one only object is to do honour and reverence to the Sepulchral Cave, and to that alone.

And the plan admirably provides for that purpose by furnishing a house of prayer close to it, and by enclosing the sacred spot itself in a court beyond the altar of the basilica.

The question that arises is, whether Calvary was altogether excluded and neglected, or whether it included itself, as a matter of course, from its known and scriptural proximity to the Holy Sepulchre. The only writer contemporary with Eusebius is the Bordeaux Pilgrim, and his visit to Jerusalem (A. D. 333) was made while the building was in progress, for it was begun in the year 326 and dedicated in 335. He says 66 that on the left hand is the little hill of Golgotha, where the Lord was crucified, and about a stone's throw from it the crypt wherein his body was laid, and whence on the third day he arose. There, at present, by command of the Emperor Constantine, a basilica is made, that is, a church of marvellous beauty, having at the side reservoirs whence water is drawn, and a bath behind where children are washed'."

entire building may be assumed to have passed through the Sepulchral Cavern, which was its main feature. The walls of the present choir, however, are not exactly directed eastwards; but the wall of the ancient corridor on the north appears, from Mr Scoles's plan, not to be parallel to the others, and to be nearer to a true easterly direction. I have inclined the axis of Constantine's Basilica so as to place it parallel to this line, and pass through the Portal in St Stephen Street. But my information on these relative positions is necessarily imperfect; and I hope that I may have succeeded in directing sufficient atten

tion to these points to induce some future visitants to Jerusalem to examine them.

1 "A sinistra autem parte est monticulus Golgotha, ubi Dominus crucifixus est. Inde quasi ad lapidem missum est crypta, ubi corpus ejus positum fuit et tertia die resurrexit. Ibidem modo jussu Constantini imperatoris basilica facta est; id est, Dominicum miræ pulchritudinis, habens ad latus exceptoria unde aqua levatur, et balneum à tergo, ubi infantes lavantur." (Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum, Vetera Romanorum Itineraria, Wesseling. Amst. 1735.)

We have here a cotemporary witness to the recognition of Golgotha, but no mention of the exact place or hole in which the Cross was planted2.

St Cyril, also, who was ordained at Jerusalem by Macarius about 335, and became Bishop of Jerusalem in 350, has made in his lectures many allusions to the Golgotha, which are the more interesting because the lectures were delivered in the very Church we are considering, and contain repeated appeals to the places which surrounded the preacher and his congregation, as, for example, to "this holy Golgotha, rising on high and showing itself to this day, displaying even yet how because of Christ the rocks were then riven, the neighbouring sepulchre, where he was laid, and the stone which was laid on the door, which lies to this day by the tomb3." Other passages will be found in the note.

2 Eusebius, in the Laudatory Oration for Constantine (c. 9), says that he, "at the place of the Lord's Martyrium, decorated with all kinds of magnificence a mighty house of prayer, and a sacred temple in honour of the Holy Cross ; and he ornamented the monument of the Saviour with decorations that are indescribable." This seems to refer to a Chapel of the Crucifixion, in addition to the other buildings. We have no reason to suppose that Constantine intended to shew the same reverence for the site of the Crucifixion as for the Sepulchre.

"The cleft (or entrance?) which was at the door of the Salutary Sepulchre... was hewn out of the rock itself, as it is customary here in the front of sepulchres. For now it appears not the outer cave having been hewn away for the sake of the present adornment;

for before the sepulchre was decorated by royal zeal there was a cave in the face of the rock." (Cyril, Lect.XIV. 9.)

"This blessed Golgotha in which... we are now assembled.” (Iv. 10.)

"He who was crucified in this Golgotha." (Iv. 14.)

"The Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost descended on the Apostles... here in Jerusalem in the upper Church of the Apostles......And in truth it were most fitting that as we discourse concerning Christ and Golgotha upon this Golgotha, so also we should speak concerning the Holy Ghost in the upper Church." (xvI. 4.)

It is pretty clear from these expressions that if the exact seat of the Cross had not been fixed upon at this time, at least the site of Golgotha was supposed to be known, and apparently the rock rose up within the Church. It was in accordance with this hypothesis that I have ventured to introduce the transept and its southern chapel into the plan as one way in which this rock might have been displayed. The chapels, separated by a colonnade from the extremities of the transept, however, I have imitated from Constantine's