The Press.
London, England, 1857-01-10 00:00:00

PAMPHLETS.

H'orks of the Rev. Thos. APCrie, D.D. Part VII. Black-
wood and Son—Owc nu Man Anything. Longtnans—The
Public Prosecutor. Butterworth—Rudiments of Musical
Grammar. John Hallah. J. W. Parker—Sunday lours:
A Holiday Companion. Addey and Co.

PERIODICAL.
The Newspaper Press Directory. Mitchell.

DR. ROBINSON, AND THE AUTHENTICITY
OF THE HOLY PLACES AT JERUSALEM.

TO THE EDITOR OF 44 THE PRESS."

Sir,—While admitting, as every one must do, the
learning, the acuteness, and the laborious research
of Dr. Robinson, it appears to me his mode of deal-
ing with the presumptive evidence in favour of the
authenticity of the Holy Sepulchre amounts to
special pleading. Considering the high position of
the American divine, his crusade against the Hill of
the Cross is unfortunate, because, should he fail in
convincing unprejudiced inquirers, his want of
success will tend indirectly to support the preten-
sions of more apocryphal sites and relics.

As many of your readers may not have studied the
evidence on this subject, perhaps you may find room
for a tew remarks in reply to the argument of 1)r.
Robinson as recently quoted in THE PRESS In
doing so I presums only to take a plain, and as I
imagine a common-sense, view of evidence which
has been collected by persons more learned than
myself; and I do not pretend that after an anxious
personal examination of the localities I was able,
from so doing, even in my own mind, "to confirm,
or shake, or make a faith " in reference to the
subject.

It must be observed that all Dr. Robinson's re-
marks apply as much to the site of the Crucifixion as
to that of the Holy Sepulchre. " The evidence," as
Dr. Robinson says, "on which the whole question
turns is of two kinds, topographical and historical."
With regard to the first, it appears to me that no
positive conclusion can be arrived at. I admit that
the supporters of the site have failed to establish, by
any topographical research, the exact position of the
ancient wall of Jerusalem. The investigations of
1)r. Robinson have been attended with no better
success. Both parties have, in fact, suggested bourn•
duties to suit their own preconceived ideas. Time,
and the shocks of war, have obliterated the remains
of several successive walls ; and the debris of ages
has so altered the levels as to change the relative
positions of some buildings, and utterly extinguish
others. So early as the tenth year after Our Lord's
crucifixion the wall of Jerusalem was extended, in a
northern direction, by Agrippa ; and the supposition
is at least probable that Calvary was at that period
included within the city. The most, however, I
would contend for under this head is, that Dr. Robin-
son has discovered no fact which can be cons►dered
as in any respect conclusive in support of his case.
Turning to the historical part of the argument,
the position of Dr. Robinson is entirely negative. He
does not advance one single direct prcof, but relies
exclusively upon the supposed silence of certain
comparatively obscure authors. Dr. Robinson admits
that the church of the Holy Sepulchre occupies the
site of that built by Constantine, and therefore the
last fifteen hundred years are not involved in the
controversy. Thus (again to quote Dr. Robinson's
words) "the single question at issue is this,—Did
there exist in the time of Constantine any such his
torical evidence or tradition respecting the place of
Our Lord's sepulchre, as to lead to the selection of
the present site as the true one ?" I submit that Dr.
Robinson fails to meet this inquiry when he declares
" F.usebius to be the first and chief witness," and
endeavours to settle the point by a reference to one
or two authors whose pages, as they have come down
to us, are silent on the subject.

Our Lord suffered A.D. 33. The scene of the
Crucifixion was called Golgotha, from its being the
common place of execution, or from its resemblance
to a skull. In either case it was a natural eminence.
We know, from the Book of Hebrews, that the spot
was perfectly well known during most of the century,
and, as Jerusalem was at the period of the Crucifixion
crowded with strangers, that knowledge must have
been generally diffused over Judea. In the year 70
Jerusalem was taken by Titus ; but its destruction
was by no means complete, and we Lave direct testi-
mony that many of its chief landmarks were pur-
posely preserved by the conqueror. The Christian
inhabitants almost immediately returned to the city,
and were permitted to establish themselves under
the episcopal superintendence of Simon, who, being
the son of Mary and Cleophas, was the cousin of
Our Lord. From this period to the revolt of the
Jews, A.D. 131, it is utterly impossible to suppose
that Calvary was not perfectly known to the inhabi-
tants of Jerusalem. The Jewish rebellion was
crushed by Hadrian ; and now, turning to Dr.
Robinson's authority, Ensebius, we learn that the
Romans, wishing to obliterate all traces of what they

43

conceived were the superstitions of both Jews and
Christians, erected a temple to Jupiter where the
Holy of Holies once stood, and dedicated another to
Venus on the spot where the crucifixion took place.
This fact is repeated by Soyotuen.
From the epoch of the Jewish rebellion to that of
the fonniation of the church by Constantine a period
elapsed of 190 years. 1t must have been during
these two centuries, if ever, that Calvary became
neglected and forgotten.

Jerusalem had, however, alway,s numbered among
its inhabitants a large society of Christians, chiefly
Gentiles, who were governed by Gentile bishops.
Latterly the Christian religion became triumphant,
and was adopted by the State, as well as by vast
numbers of the people. The early Christians, cling-
ing to their faith in spite of adverse circumstances,
were not likely to forget that revered mount where
their Redeemer was crucified ; and all classes of
Hebrews might well remember the spot where the
" good magician," the "false prophet," or the "King
of the Jews," was cruelly put to death.

A German author, writing in 1778, describes
Tyburn as being distant about two miles from Lon-
don. In 1978, will not tradition alone be able to
indicate its site, though it may then be in the centre
of the city ? L► the year 8.8, Constantine having at
his command all the records, plans, measurements,
and statistical facts regarding Jerusalem, which the
matchless civil administration of Rome had most
undoubtedly collected and preserved, fixed upon the
ruins of the Temple of Venus as the spot where Our
Saviour died, and, minutely searching the ground
around it, discovered a tomb, hewn in the rock, cor-
responding exactly to the description given in the
Scriptures of the sepulchre of Our Lord.

Should a mistake as to the tomb have been com-
mitted, it is difficult to conceive that the blunder
could extend to the better-marked and still more
sacred spot where the salvation of mankind was
accomplished. According to Dr. Robinson, that
blunder was glaring and prodigious. Not alone was
the place mistaken, but it was mistaken for a locality
that was at the period of Our Lord's death within
the walls!

The tombs of kings and prophets, buried ages
before the birth of Christ, were remembered, whilst
the Pool of Siloam, and the Garden of Gethsemane,
and many a spot beside, retained the more recent
reverence they had received from being associated
with scenes in the life of Him whose death was yet
unable to fix upon the minds of men the memory of
its locality !

At the close of the third century the Christians
were equally unacquainted with the Gospels and with
the recent history of their city, and the Jews knew
nothing of the not very remote topography of their
loved Jerusalem ; whilst the pagsn, whose hand had
obliterated the landmarks, forgot to expose the
palpable ignorance of both ! All this Dr. Robinson
requires us to believe.—l am, sir, your obedient

servant,
East Lothian.

R. S. S.

RUSSELL'S MODERN EUROPE.
TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS."

Sir,—ln your notice of Routledge's new edition of
" Russel'►'s History of Modern Europe," inserted in
THE PRESS of last Saturday, the reviewer state"
that the only new portion of the work is the history
of six years, from 1850 to 1856, and that the othtr
part, from 1809, lias been rewritten. Such, however,
is not the case. The former edition published 1 y
Messrs. Routledge concluded with the death of
Alexander of Russia in 1825, and I have added th•
history of the thirty years that have elapsed since..—
I have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Jan. 5, 1857. G. 11. T.

THE DISCOVERER OF BOSWELL'S LETTERS is thus
week named by Mr. Hornby, of Weybridge, into
whose hands the letters ultimately passed, and by
whom they were partly prepared fur publication. Mr.
Hornby writes to the Times:—

Several years ago a Major Stone, of the Hon. East
India Company's service (the printer has by mistake
printed " clergyman " instead of " gentleman " in the
preface, as in my manuscript), resided at Boulogne, and
obtained the letters exactly as stated. At his death they
passed into the possession of his nephew, Mr. Augustus
Boyse, of the Inner Temple, an old friend of my own, and
from this gentleman I obtained them ; and having carefully
examined and arranged them, was preparing them for
publication when I wat ordered to Constantinople on offi-
cial duty, which prevented my completing the task I had
undertaken. I left therefore the labour of editing and
seeing the volume through the press to a friend, who be-
stowed no inconsiderable amount of labour and research
on the performance of this friendly office. I again repeat
that the account of the circumstances under which those
letters were preserved is strictly true. As to the authen-
ticity of the letters themselves, I have placed them in the
hands of Mr. Bentley, the publisher, so that any critic who
may have the curiosity to inspect them may also have the
means of judging for himself.