original roughness in the remains of an ancient cistern in the Chapel of the Invention of the Cross, a little to the east of Golgotha. Far better would it have been had S. Helena and Constantine left the Sepulchre and Golgotha as they discovered them. Far more strongly would the rough rock and the unaltered scenes have spoken to the heart, than all the ornaments they lavished upon it, and those which now load and disfigure it! From a mistaken notion of reverence they wished to adapt the ground to the basilica, and not the basilica to the ground; thus laying the foundation of all the doubts and contests that have since arisen. For my own part I am inclined to think that Golgotha was on the west of the Sepulchre, because we still see, at a little distance in that direction, some elevated rock in the Syrian chapel, whence it gradually rises westward up to the Christian bazaar, presenting the same mineral (calcareous) character as the block on Calvary. If it were in this direction, it would not only comply with the data of the Bible, and be more than fifty cubits from the walls, but also be on high ground, so that the execution could be seen from a large part of the city; whereas the present site is too near the wall and is in a low situation, so that even though we allow that the ground may now be somewhat lower than it used to be, it would be visible to a very small portion of the city. As there were no strong natural features to mark the spot, and as this side has frequently been devastated during the sieges of Jerusalem, one place may easily have been mistaken for another in the same neighbourhood, so that the tradition on this point is of little value. Therefore, although I do not positively assert that the present position of Golgotha is not the true one, I think that the evidence of the place itself is not sufficient to render its identity unquestionable.