Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/481

 HOLT

425

HOLY

ruvias and Gonzalez agree that: "Curia Romana ibi censetur esse, ubi est papa cum cancellaria et tribu- nalibus et officialibus suis, quos ad regimen ecclesise adhibet" (the Roman Curia is considered to be where the pope is, with the chancery, tribunals, and officials whom lie employs in the Government of the Chm-ch). (Bangen, "Die romische Kurie", Munster, 1S54, I, i, 5). Hinschius (System des kathohschen Ivirchen- rechts, III, Berlin, 1883, 135, remark 6) follows the medieval opinion: "Ubi Papa, ibi Curia"; but this seems no longer tenable.

Paul Maria Baumgahten.

Holy Sepulchre, the tomb in which the Body of Jesus Christ was laid after His death upon the Cross. The Evangelists tell us that it was Joseph of Arima- thea's own new monument, which he had hewn out of a rock, and that it was closed by a great stone rolled to the door (Matt., xxvii, 60; Mark, xv, 46; Luke, xxiii, 53). It was in a garden in the place of the Crucifixion, and W'as nigh to the Cross (John, xix, 41, 42) which was erected outside the walls of Jerusalem, in the place called Calvary (Matt., xxvii, 32; Mark, XV, 20; John, xix, 17; cf. Heb., xiii, 12), but close to the city (John, xix, 20) and by a street (Matt., xxvii, 39; Mark, xv, 29). That it was outside the city is confirmed by the well-known fact that the Jews did not permit burial inside the city except in the case of their kings. No further mention of the place of the Holy Sepulclire is found until the beginning of the fourth century. But nearly all scholars maintain that the knowledge of the place was handed down by oral tradition, and that the correctness of this knowl- edge was proved by the investigations caused to be made in 326 by the Emperor Constantine, who then marked the site for future ages by erecting over the Tomb of Christ a basilica, in the place of which, according to an unbroken written tradition, now stands the church of the Holy Sepulchre.

These scholars contend that the original members of the nascent Christian Church in Jerusalem visited the Holy Sepulchre soon, if not immediately, after the Resurrection of the Saviour. Following the custom of their people, those who w-ere converts from Juda- ism venerated, and taught their children to venerate, the Tomb in which had lain the Foundation of their new faith, from which had risen the Source of their eternal hope; and which was therefore more sacred and of greater significance to them than had been the tombs of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, which they had hitherto venerated, as their forefathers had for centuries. Nor would Gentile converts have failed to unite with them in this practice, which was by no means foreign to their own former customs. The Christians who were in Jerusalem when Titus laid siege to the city in the year 70 fled, it is true, across the Jordan to Pella; but, as the city was not totally destroyed, and as there was no law prohibiting their return, it was possible for them to take up their abode there again in the year 73, about which time, accord- ing to Dr. Sanday (Sacred Sites of the Gospels, Ox- ford, 1903), they really did re-establi.sh themselves. But, granting that the return was not fully made until 122, one of the latest dates proposed, there can be no doubt that in the restored community there were many who knew the location of tlie Tomb, and who led to it their children, who would point it out tluring the next fifty years. The Roman prohibition which kept Jews from Jerusalem for about two hundred years, after Hadrian had suppressed the revolt of the Jews under Barcochebas (132-3.5), may have in- cluded Jewish converts to Christianity; but it is possible that it did not. It certainly did not include Gentile converts. The list of Bishops of Jerusalem given by Eusebius in the fourth century shows that there was a continuity of episcopal succession, and that in 135 a Jewish line was followed by a Gentile.

The tradition of the local community was undoubtedly strengthened from the beginning by strangers who, having heard from the Apostles and their followers, or read in the Gospels, the story of Christ's Burial and Resurrection, visited Jerusalem and asked about the Tomb that He had rendered glorious. It is recorded that Melito of Sardis visited the place where "these things [of the Old Testament] were formerly an- nounced and carried out". As he died in ISO, his visit was made at a time when he could receive the tradition from the children of those who had returned from Pella. After tliis it is related that Alexander of Jerusalem (d. 251) went to Jerusalem "for the sake of prayer and the investigation of the places", and that Origen (d. 253) "visited the places for the investigation of the footsteps of Jesus and of His disciples". By the beginning of the fourth century the custom of ^^siting Jerusalem for the sake of in- formation and devotion had become so frequent that Eusebius wTote, that Christians "flocked together from all parts of the earth".

It is at this period that history begins to present written records of the location of the Holy Sepulchre. The earliest authorities are the Greek Fathers, Euse- bius (c. 260-340), Socrates (b. 379) , Sozomen (375-450), the monk Alexander (sixth centurv), and the Latin Fathers, Rufinus (375-410), St. Jerome (346-420), Pau- linus of Nola (353-131), and Sulpitius Severus (363- 420). Of these the most explicit and of the greatest importance is Eusebius, who writes of the Tomb as an eyewitness, or as one having received his information from eyewitnesses. The testimonies of all having been compared and analysed may be presented briefly as follows: Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constan- tine, conceived the design of securing the Cross of Christ, the sign of which had led her son to victory. Constantine him.self, having long had at heart a desire to honour "the place of the Lord's Resurrection", " to erect a church at Jerusalem near the place that is called Calvary", encouraged her design, and giving her imperial authority, sent her with letters and money to Macarius, the Bishop of Jerusalem. Helena and Macarius, having made fruitless inquiries as to the existence of the Cross, turned their attention to the place of the Passion and Resurrection, which was known to be occupied by a temple of Venus erected by the Romans in the time of Hadrian, or later. The temple was torn down, the ruins were removed to a distance, the earth beneath, as having been contam- inated, was dug up and borne far away. Then, " be- yond the hopes of all, the most holy monument of Our Lord's Resurrection shone forth " (Eusebius," Life of Constantine", III, xxviii). Near it were found three crosses, a few nails, and an inscription such as Pilate ordered to be placed on the Cross of Christ.

The accounts of the finding of the Holy Sepulchre thus summarized have been rejected by some on the ground that they have an air of improbability, es- pecially in the attribution of the discovery to "an inspiration of the Saviour", to "Divine admonitions and counsels", and in the assertions that, although the Tomb had been covered by a temple of Venus for upwards of two centuries, its place was yet known. To the first objection, it is replied that whilst the historians piously attributed the discovery to God, they also showed the human secondary agents to have acted with careful prudence. Paulinus is quoted as saying that " Helena was guided l)y Divine counsel, as the result of her investigations show". As to the second objection, it is claimed that a pagan temple erected over the Holy Sepulchre with the evident purpose of destroying the worship paid there to the Founder of Christianity, or of diverting the worship to pagan gods and goddesses, would tend to preserve the knowledge of the place rather than to destroy it. What appears to be a more serious difficulty is offered by writers who describe the location of the basihca