JERUSALEM. 31 
not true : there are no remains whatsoever of chap. 
any antient known sepulchre, that, with the most v 
attentive and scrupulous examination, we could 
possibly discover. The sides consist of thick 
slabs of that beautiful breccia, vulgarly called 
Verde-antique marble; and over the entrance, 
which is rugged and broken, owing to the 
pieces carried off as relics, the substance is 
of the same nature4. All that can therefore 
now be affirmed with any shadow of reason, 
is this; that, if Helena had reason to believe 
she could identify the spot where the sepulchre 
was, she took especial care to remove every 
trace of it, in order to introduce the fanciful and 
modern work which now remains. The place 
may be the same pointed out to her ; but not 
(3) These objections are not new; they were urged long ago ; and 
Quaresmius undertook to answer them. The Reader may be amused 
by the style in which he opens his refutation. " Audivi nonnullos 
nehulones Occidentales hareticos detrahentes Us qucE dicuntur de jam 
memorato sacralissimo Domini nostri Jesu Christi Sepuldiro, et nullius 
momenti ratiunculin negantes illnd veri esse in quo positiitn fuit corpus 
Jesu," Hi-c. Sfc. (Fid. cap. 14. lib. v. Elucid. T. S.) This chapter is 
entitled " Objectiones nonnull.t. quibus impugnatur Veritas 
SANCTissiMi Sepulchri." In the next (cAop. XV.) he undertakes to 
refute the objections made by Gulielmus de Baldensel; and these arc 
precisely the same now urged by the author. " Monumentum Christi," 
says G. de Baldensel, " erat ercisum in petrd viva, &c. illud verb ex 
petris pluribus est composititm, de novo conglulinato cwmenlo." Quares- 
mius says, this objection applied only to tlie external covering of the 
Sepulchre ; but this is not true. 
