« السابقةمتابعة »
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 planted”.
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
Other passages will be found in the note. 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. that I have ventured to introduce the transept and its
* 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 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 Gol.
gotha.” (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.)
“Though I should deny (the Crucifixion), this Golgotha confutes me near which we are now assembled; the wood of the Cross confutes me which has from hence been distributed piecemeal to all the world." (x111. 4.)
It was in accordance with this hypothesis
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 Basilica of St Peter at Rome, and have, therefore, cotemporary similarity to support them. It is not impossible that a representation of the Cross planted upon this Golgotha may have given rise to the improbable supposition of later ages, that the actual foot-hole of the Cross was known and preserved; for the first mention of this hole occurs so late as the seventh century, in the work of Arculfus, and he only tells us that a great silver Cross was planted on the very spot where the original Cross once stood at the Crucifixion. The reservoirs of water mentioned by the Bordeaux Pilgrim, may be traced in several places. Some of them have already occurred to us. That called the Well of Helena, at the north-western corner, still supplies the inhabitants of the Church. The so-called “Prison " and the place of the “Invention of the Cross,” are each described as resembling ancient cisterns; and, lastly, there is actually an enormous reservoir (at Z Fig. 3,) still in existence close to the north side of the Portal of Constantine in the street of St Stephen, which now bears the name of the Treasury of Helena, and which Schultz (p. 61) declares to be the most ancient and remarkable cistern which he had seen in Jerusalem. Mr. Williams informs me that he conjectures the dimensions to be at least sixty by thirty feet; but being full of water, and only to be viewed by torchlight from a platform on one side, it is very difficult to measure or even estimate its magnitude. It must be nearly upon a level with the excavation that is now occupied by the Chapel of St Helena. This chapel in my plan of the Basilica falls partly within and partly without, as if a crypt had once stood on its site, so contrived as to be accessible from within the nave, and when once entered, to afford a passage under the atrium to the cavern where the Cross was discovered. The greater part of the sides of the chapel are certainly of rock, but I think it likely that an examination of the contiguous buildings on the north and east sides would show that similar excavations were originally extended in those directions, so as to connect this crypt with the cistern called the “Treasury of Helena.” There is no evidence to prove whether or no the cavern, at present shewn as the place of the Invention of the Cross, was the same in which that remarkable transaction took place. The historical evidence of the finding of the so-called three Crosses and Nails in the presence of St Helena and of Macarius, is so strong that it is impossible to doubt it. But it appears to me equally impossible to believe for an instant the genuineness of these relics, which, after all, were probably pieces of timber and iron-work belonging to foundations of some former structure, which, having been accidentally turned up in the course of the excavations, were promoted by the excited imagination of Helena to the high office which they immediately assumed. From the silence of Eusebius we may infer that he disbelieved their authenticity. However, they exercised so remarkable an influence upon the world, and especially upon church architecture, that their history is by no means to be lightly dismissed; for they were at once accepted by the Christian world as genuine, and venerated accordingly, to a degree which it is very difficult to believe or understand in our present state of feeling upon these subjects.
“For though it (the Sepulchre) be now adorned, and that most excellently, with royal gifts, yet it was before a garden, and the token and traces thereof remain.” (x1 v. 5.) “The diligent chanters of the Church who imitate the angel-hosts, and continually sing praises to God, who are thought worthy to chant psalms in this Golgotha.” (x111. 26.) “Wherefore is this place of Golgotha and of the Resurrection not called, like the other churches, a Church, but a Testimony 2 It was, perhaps, because of the Prophet, who had said (Zeph. iii. 8.) On the day of my Resurrection at the testimony.” (x1 v. 6.) “The soldiers then surrendered the truth for silver, but the kings of this day have in their piety built this holy Church of the Resurrection of God our Saviour, inlaid with silver, and embossed with gold, in which we are assembled.” (x1 v. 14, 22, 23.) “And after the holy and salutary day of Easter...... ye shall come all the days of the following week after the assembly into the holy place of the Resurrection, and there ye shall hear other lectures.” (xviii. 33.)
This seems to shew, (according to
Mr. Newman, from whose translation of the Catechetical Lectures I have selected the above passages,) that St. Cyril delivered his last five Lectures in the Anastasis or Church upon the site of the Holy Sepulchre; and Mr. Newman adds that St. Cyril delivered his first eighteen Lectures in the Basilica of Constantine or Church of the Holy Cross, (Euseb. Laud. c. 9) called also the Martyrium or Testimony, as being built close upon and in memory of our Lord's passion. He has overlooked the passage which I have quoted immediately before this last, which proves that the fourteenth lecture was delivered in the Anastasis. There is therefore no reason to suppose that the last lectures were delivered in a different place from the first. According to my interpretation of the Eusebian descriptions there was no church upon the site of the Sepulchre, excepting the edicula of the Sepulchre which stood in the midst of an open court. Moreover, Eusebius winds up his account of the building by calling it “the Martyrium of the Resurrection,” (L. 3. c. xi.;) a name
which appears to have been given to
the whole building.
THE BUILDINGS OF THE SECOND PERIOD,
The Martyrium of Constantine, described in the last chapter, was utterly ruined by the Persians in the year 614: the buildings were set fire to, and studiously demolished; and we shall find reason to believe that, in the re-building, the original plan was considerably altered: partly from the want of funds, and partly from the changes which had taken place in the forms and arrangements of churches, and from the additional Holy Places which had accumulated round about the Sepulchre by the growing traditions of the spot. At all events, the description of the Martyrium by Eusebius is exceedingly different from the description of the buildings on the spot during the second period. The history of this period' informs us that the credit of the restoration is principally due to Modestus, the Superior of the Monastery of Theodosius, who, as Eutychius in the tenth century, relates, “came to Jerusalem and constructed the Churches of the Resurrection, of the Sepulchre, of the Calvary, and of St Constantine, as they now exist’.” The buildings on this spot had now, therefore, acquired the character of a group of three distinct churches, (the Sepulchre being included within the Church of the Resurrection); and these churches were not architecturally connected or symmetrically disposed, whereas, in the original Martyrium of Constantine, as I have shewn, the entire site was occupied by a symmetrical mass of building.
* Holy City, Vol. 1. pp. 303, 4. * Eutychii Annales, Tom. 11. p. 219. Vol. II. 17