prepared for the reception of our Lord's body was to the right, on the North side, seven feet in length, and higher than the rest of the pavement by three palms. Which place did not open from above, after the manner of common sepulchres, but on the south side, along the whole of which the corpse could be inserted. Whence that of St Mark may be more clearly understood, that the women entering in, saw a young man sitting on the right:' for the place of the Lord's body, where the angel sat, was on the right; neither was it divided, but continued throughout, as being all cut in one and the same rock."

The passages heretofore cited prove incontestably, first, that the Monument in question was a rocky cave, and next, that the Sepulchre invented or recovered by Macarius is that which continued to be an object of Christian veneration up to the end of the ninth century.

But in the earlier half of the eleventh century an event occurred, which is sometimes supposed to have materially affected the site. The theory of the entire transference of the tradition at this period from another locality to that which is now venerated, will be noticed in detail hereafter; I shall only here deal with that of Dr Schultz, who imagines that the rocky cave of the Sepulchre was wholly destroyed, by order of the Khalif Hakem, and that a close imitation of it was subsequently erected on the exact spot; an imitation so close as to exhibit the very peculiarities which marked the original to be a new and unfinished grave.

I am not aware what authority my friend has for his

2 Schultz's Jerusalem, p. 99.

hypothesis, for he cites none; and none that I have consulted afford it any countenance, except perhaps William of Baldensel, who however does not venture to fix the time of the destruction of the original monument1. It is true, indeed, that an attempt was made to destroy the cave by fire, though the Church only was included in the Khalif's sentence; but it should be remembered that the writer to whom we owe this fact, himself informs us of the failure of the attempt, the circumstances of which were detailed in Europe by a French Ecclesiastic, who was present at what he described and since we have the narrative from a contemporary chronicler, a compatriot of the traveller, who had opportunities of personal intercourse with him, (for they resided not more than twenty miles apart,) I can no more doubt the main particulars than if we had them from the tongue or pen of an eye-witness; and I apprehend that few historical facts rest upon surer evidence2. But the question still remains, whether we find any traces of the rock at a later period, and whether we have any reason to believe that it still exists beneath the marble wainscoting with which the Sepulchre is cased within and with

This writer (A. D. 1336) is the earliest I have met with who called in question the existence of the actual Rock-tomb. He calls the Sepulchre, "parvula domicula," and says of it: "Illud vero advertendum est, quod monumentum illi sanctissimo loco superpositum, non est illud in quo corpus Christi sacratissimum examine primitus est immissum; quia sacro attestante eloquio, monumentum Christi erat excisum in petrâ vivâ. Illud vero ex petris pluribus est compositum de novo conglutinato cæmento, minus artifici

aliter, et minus quam deceat, ordinate." He argues that the Christians would not have left any part of the true monument to be insulted by the infidels; but adds "Veruntamen, quicquid sit de hoc, ipse locus Sepulchri Christi formaliter moveri non potest, sed remansit et remanebit immobilis in æternum." Guilielmi de Baldensel, Hodeporicon ad Terram Sanctam, Ap. Canisii Thesaurum, Tom. IV. p. 349.

2 See the particulars in detail in Vol. 1. p. 346, &c., and the passages in note 3, p. 349.

out. Numberless writers might be cited to prove the current belief in the existence of the rock within the casing, but as they might all have been mere dupes, I confine myself to those who declare that they have seen it. They are, from the nature of the case, comparatively few; for implicit faith needed not, nor sought for ocular demonstration, and it were very illogical to argue against the existence of the rock, because the unquestioning belief of pilgrims has prevented express notices of the sight; for the incrustation of marble, which concealed it from view, seems never to have been removed until the 16th century.

The Russian pilgrim Daniel visited Jerusalem during the reign of King Baldwin II., and as he is the first to describe the tomb after its adornment by the Franks, his account is important and interesting3. "Under this same open Roof (of the Rotunda) is the Lord's Sepulchre, after the following fashion-as it were a small cave cut out in the rock, having small doors. One can creep in by bending down on the knees. The height is that of a short man, and all beautiful; four cubits in length and in breadth. But when you have crept into that cave by those small doors, on the right-hand side there is a ledge cut out in the very rock of the cave. On that ledge lay the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that ledge is now covered with a marble casing: and there are made on the front three circular apertures1, and by those apertures you may see that sacred rock; and there all Christians kiss. The sacred ledge where

3 This writer was present at the ceremony of the Holy Fire on Easter Eve A.D. 1130, and repeated his visit at a more quiet time.

4 These three apertures are noticed again by other writers, as e. g. Willibrand de Oldenberg (A.D. 1211) ap. Leonis Allatii Opuscula, p. 147.

the body of Christ lay is in length four cubits, and in breadth two cubits, and in height a cubit and a half.” Then, after some further account of its adornment, he concludes: "Such is the Lord's Sepulchre; this cave such as I have described it, after having diligently inquired from those who have been on the spot from of old, and have thoroughly known the holy places." This may be said to represent only the popular belief of the time; but he had ingratiated himself with the Latin guardian of the Sepulchre; "and he, having seen my love for the Holy Sepulchre of the Lord, and for himself, and having moved the slab which was on the top of the Holy Sepulchre, broke off a small piece of the sacred Rock for a blessing for me, and charged me with adjuration to tell it to no one in Jerusalem."

I think that this passage alone, coupled with the fact that many pilgrims from this period downwards adopt the very language of Adamnan or Bede in describing the Holy Sepulchre, might suffice to establish the identity of the Sepulchre of the 12th century with that of earlier times, as regarded its outward features; and it would be equally tedious and unnecessary to accumulate proof of what has not even yet been questioned, viz. that the Sepulchre of the Crusaders is the same as that which is now shown. But one witness, who had ocular proof of the existence of the rock in the 16th century, must be cited for the very curious particulars which his narrative contains.

Father Boniface of Ragusa was Guardian of the Holy Sepulchre from A.D. 1550 to 1559; and again from A.D. 1563 to 1565. During his former presidency, in A. D. 1555, he superintended considerable repairs about the Sepulchre, of which he afterwards wrote a full account,

when Bishop of Ragusa, in A. D. 1570. tract the following particulars1.

From this I ex

The fabric of St Helena, which enclosed the Sepulchre of our Lord, was threatening to fall, when Pope Julius III., at the instigation of the Emperor Charles V. and his son Philip, ordered Boniface, then Superior of the Franciscan Convent, to undertake its restoration. The necessary funds were supplied by the Emperor, a firman was obtained from the Sultan Sulimán, and the work commenced. "In order that the new structure might prove firmer and more durable, it was judged expedient to level the ancient one with the ground; on the demolition whereof, the Holy Sepulchre of our Lord, cut in the rock, offered itself plainly to our eyes; whereon two angels were seen depicted, one of whom said, in writing, 'He has risen, He is not here;' the other, pointing with his finger to the Sepulchre, 'Behold the place where they laid Him;' which pictures, when first they felt the influence of the air, in great part vanished. But when it became necessary to move one of the slabs of alabaster with which the Sepulchre was covered, there clearly appeared to us that ineffable place whereon the Son of Man rested for three days." The discovery of relics, and other circumstances, are not to my purpose; but the remark that "many Christians, both of the West and of the East, were present on this occasion," is important as a guarantee for the truth of the narration.

The rock was then again concealed from sight, both to prevent, it is said, the superstitious devotion of the

This curious document, first edited by Gretser, is cited by Quaresmius, Tom. 11. p. 512.