1846.] Course of the Second Wall. ן 459 place to "a magnificent church in honour of St. John the Baptist, and, near by, various apartments and vast buildings," testifying to the wealth and power of an aspiring order of lordly knights. The site of all these "vast buildings," including the church of St. Mary de Latina and other edifices with their courts and precincts, was the tract on the south of the Holy Sepulchre, and west of the street of the Bazar. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, while the Christians had possession of the Holy City and afterwards, the streets of Jerusalem appear to have been the same as at the present day. The chief market-place of the city was on the site and in the streets now occupied by the modern bazar; and the street running from it north to the Damascus gate, was likewise in part covered and appropriated to tradesmen.2 A comparison of the preceding historical facts affords the fol lowing results and inferences: 1. That as early as the fourth century, and ever since, the market-place (ayoga, forum) of the Holy City occupied the site of the present bazar and the street leading north to the Damascus gate. 2. That the eastern or outer court of the original Basilica of Constantine, and probably likewise that of the Basilica of the seventh and ninth centuries, extended eastward to the said street, or to an open place upon it; and had there gates, and also splendid Propylaea. 3. That therefore the remains of granite columns now seen along said street, and any portions of apparently old wall connected with them, (all of which are directly opposite the site of the said Basilica,) cannot possibly be of an earlier date than the fourth century; much less can they have belonged to an ancient city-wall of the time of Josephus. Had they perhaps, in some way, a connection with the Propylaea of Constantine or of Modestus ? 4. That, considering the "vast buildings" and the "magnificent" churches and chapels, and monasteries with their courts, which occupied the tract on the south of the sepulchre, it is against all 1 Vertot, Hist. of the Knights of Malta, etc. I. p. 20. Lond. 1728. fol.—St. John Eleemon, the patron saint of the order, became early confounded with John the Baptist. 2 See the very interesting extracts from a description of Jerusalem in the thirteenth century, first published in BEUGNOT Assises de Jerusalem, Paris 1843. fol. Tom. II. p. 531 sq. Cited also at length in Schultz, App. p. 107 sq. See likewise extracts from documents of the twelfth century, Schultz, p. 117. probability that any remains of a wall, and much less of a city gateway, from the time of Josephus, should yet be found there; and therefore the "pier of a gateway" described in this region as ancient, may, with far more probability, be regarded as having formed an entrance to some one of the courts or halls connected with these splendid edifices.1 One other point requires perhaps a few words. The German author adduces further the reputed ancient tomb of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, within the church of the Sepulchre, as evidence to show that this spot, and of course the site of the church, must have been outside of the ancient second wall; inasmuch as there could have been no sepulchre within the lower city.2 This tomb is a small low vault or chamber in the very wall of the western part of the rotunda; and is entered by a narrow passage leading south from the alcove or recess behind the altar of the Syrians. The eastern side of the chamber, as described by this writer, is formed by the masonry of the wall itself; while the western and southern sides, according to him, are of solid rock. In the southern side, two niches, as for dead bodies, have been cut in longitudinally; while another receptacle for a body is sunk in the rock which forms the floor of the chamber. This latter the writer in question regards as not older than the times of the crusades ;3 but the other niches he holds to be of high antiquity. Now it is obvious from the plans of the church given by Quaresmius and others,4 that this chamber in the wall stands in architectural connection with the western alcove of the rotunda; and cannot therefore, at the utmost, be of an earlier date than the eleventh century, when the Khalif Hakem caused the former church to be razed to the very foundations.5 Nor do we find a tomb of Joseph or Nicodemus ever mentioned, until near the close of the sixteenth century by Zuallart, and then by 1 So late as the fourteenth century, travellers speak of this hospital as still a palace, ornamented with many columns, and able to accommodate a thousand pilgrims; so Sir John Maundeville, Travels, p. 81; Rudolf of Suchem, in Reissh, des h. Landes, p. 845.-The author of the Holy City' alludes further to another gateway, on the precincts north of the hospital, "whose fragments [still] exhibit a variety of rich and exquisite ornament;" H. City, p. 229. * Schultz, p. 96, 97. Lord Nugent brings forward the same statements and argument, referring also to the personal authority of the Prussian consul; Lands Class. and Sac. 11. p. 47. 3 So too Lord Nugent; ibid. 4 Quaresm. II. p. 576. See too the Plan of the church, H. City, p. 250. 5 Bibl. Res. II. p. 46. 1846.] Schott's Theory of Eloquence. 461 Sandys and Quaresmius. Eye-witnesses moreover differ in their testimony. In the year 1844, a friend, whose name has already been frequently mentioned, examined the tomb in reference to this very theory; and the impression left upon his mind was, that the whole chamber, niches and all, is built up with masonry within the wall; and that if any part is earlier than the times of the crusades, it is the receptacle sunk in the floor. The entire silence of the English author in respect to this reputed tomb, is likewise under the circumstances a strong testimony against any claims of high antiquity. We may here close the discussion respecting the course of the ancient second wall. The foregoing historical considerations relieve the subject from the dust which has been cast upon it; and leave the explicit language of Josephus, and the other circumstances above adduced, to bear their testimony in its full strength, without danger of contradiction or need of modification. In a second article, I propose to consider the evidence relating to the following points, viz. the southern part of the temple-area and the ancient bridge which led from it to Zion; the position and extent of the fortress Antonia; the situation of the fountain Gihon; the earlier gate of St. Stephen, and the tradition connected with it; as also some miscellaneous topics of minor importance. ARTICLE II. SCHOTT'S TREATISE ON THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF SERMONS. By Edwards A. Park, Professor at Andover. [A BRIEF notice of the writings of Henry Augustus Schott was given in the Bib. Sac. Vol. 2. pp. 12, 13. The notice was introductory to an abstract of the first volume of Schott's Theorie der Beredsamkeit. The second volume of that work is condensed into the following Article. The title of the second volume is, The Theory of Rhetorical Invention, with especial reference to 1 Zuallart, Anvers 1626, p. 150. Sandys' Trav. p. 127. Quaresm. II. p. 568. All these writers speak of it only as the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea; so that Nicodemus has come in for a share only at a still later period. Discourses from the Pulpit. Among the reasons for publishing an abstract of this treatise are the following: It exhibits in a good degree the spirit, the guiding principles of the German pulpit; and the preachers of every land are profited by an acquaintance with the homiletic literature of other nations. It is a celebrated volume, and we naturally feel some measure of interest in any work, whatever may be its intrinsic worth, which has exerted a perceptible influence upon a large and learned community. It is in itself a valuable treatise. It suggests many accurate distinctions of words and ideas which are frequently confounded. It affords proof that German scholars can write with sound judgment and without visionary hypotheses. It exhibits a pleasing degree of honest and sober piety, of purity of intention, of freedom from rhetorical artifice, and from the extravagances both of rationalism and fanaticism.] 1. Use of the term, Invention, in Sacred Rhetoric. The ancient rhetoricians gave to the term Invention, inventio, Evoεois, a more limited meaning than is assigned to it in modern treatises on homiletics. It included the selection of arguments, of illustrations and of appeals, by which the address of the orator might be made effective, but it did not include the selection of the subject of the address. It was according to Cicero, (De Inventione L. i. c. 7.) excogitatio rerum verarum aut verisimilium, quae causam probabilem reddant. Comp. Auctor ad Herennium L. 1. c. 2. 3, and Cicero, Partitiones Oratoriae, c. 2. But in modern homiletics, the term Invention includes the choice of the subject, as well as of the proofs, modes of explanation and of appeal by which the subject is enforced. There is indeed, in some cases, a restriction of the preacher to one prescribed text for each sermon of the year, but this text may allow him to write on either of several themes; and in other cases, there is given him a free choice, not only of his theme, but also of the text which suggests it. In treating of Invention, therefore, with special reference to sacred oratory, it is important to consider, first, the general classes and the character of the subjects which are proper for the pulpit; and secondly the various kinds of explanation, argument, motive and appeal which are useful in the treatment of these subjects. 1846.] Fitness of the Subject to the Preacher. 2. The General Character of the Subjects of Sermons. 463 The theme of a discourse should be such as will call forth the activity of the whole soul. It should appeal not to the intellect only, nor the imagination only, nor the affections only, but to all these faculties and susceptibilities combined, and also to the will, which is always the ultimate principle to which the orator addresses himself. Hence it is a rule, that the theme of a discourse should be practical in its character. The ancient rhetoricians prescribed this rule for the judicial, demonstrative and panegyrical orations. When rhetoric had declined from its original dignity, the term eloquence was applied to those addresses which were designed for mere parade or for the play of wit. At the present day, also, we sometimes hear the term, scholastic or academical orations, appended to essays whose only object is to inform the intellect. But this is an improper use of the words, eloquence, and orations. The very nature of eloquence has been shown to involve an appeal to the will. The nature of religion, also, emphatically demands that a religious address should have a practical character. The design of public worship and of the services in the sanctuary, requires that the preacher aim to affect the voluntary conduct of his audience. The history of the pulpit evinces that such was the design of the earlier preachers. The pulpit should aim to affect men as free moral agents; not merely as beings capable of choice, but also as beings capable of choosing the right, the good. The subject of a discourse should be such, therefore, as is fitted to make men labor for the perfect development of every human virtue. It should be such as will excite all the virtuous susceptibilities of the preacher. He must therefore be fully.acquainted with it in its various relations. He must feel a deep interest in it. He must firmly believe and must have practically experienced the truth and importance of what he utters. This must not only be the fact, but also the known fact. If he pretend to have a warmer interest in his subject than he actually does possess, his hypocrisy will soon be detected; and if he be known or supposed to preach insincerely, his hearers will not sympathize with him, and therefore he will not persuade them, he will not be eloquent. Hence results the importance of the rule, that the preacher be penetrated with an earnest love to the truth and warm philanthropy. Thus we learn the full 1 See Bib. Sac. Vol. II. Art. II. § 2. 3. |