pending doom must come out upon the wall, visible to the dullest eye.

Here lay in no small degree the secret of Payson's peculiar power as a preacher; the definiteness and reality which his vivid imagination imparted to whatever truth he would present, and the strong light in which it enabled him to place the realities of the invisible and spiritual world before his hearers. The most effective pulpit orators of the present day are, almost without exception, men largely gifted with this power.

But why refer to other examples, when the discourses of him who spoke as never man spake afford the richest illustration of our theme? How full of imagination those discourses; how rich and varied the imagery; his very words are pictures; he speaks to the eye of the hearer; he utters the most profound truths, but, clothed in the forms of sensible representation, they become, like himself, incarnate. He teaches not so much by argument as by metaphor and illustration. His sermons are parables; and a parable is a little poem. If called upon to specify the one distinctive feature of our Saviour's discourses, I should name this - the predominance of the ideal element. When he would inculcate the lesson of reliance on Divine Providence, he reminds us of the lilies which toil not, neither do they spin; and of the sparrows that alight not without our Heavenly Father's notice. When he would teach us of how little moment are the distinctions of earthly rank and condition, he shows us the rich man in his palace, and the beggar lying at the gate; then presently that beggar in Abraham's bosom, and that rich man calling in vain for a drop of water to cool his tongue. When he would teach us to be doers of the word, and not hearers only, he builds a house upon the sand, and the rains descend, the winds blow, and the floods beat upon that house, and it falls, and great is the fall of it. In his vivid presentation the future suffering of the ungodly takes shape and realization under the figure of the worm that dieth not, and the fire that is not quenched. To express the lesson of

unreserved consecration he does not say, my disciples must make my service paramount to all other considerations, but he that cometh after me, and hateth not father and mother and sister and brother, yea, and his own life also, cannot be my disciple. So vivid and intense become even the most. abstract and universal truths when brought under the burning glass of his fervid imagination. It toucheth the mountains, and they smoke.

He who in this most pragmatic, unbelieving age, would seize the truths of the invisible and spiritual world, and make them stand forth as realities to the apprehension of men, has need in no small degree of this same faculty which characterizes so remarkably the discourses of the Great Teacher, and which imparts to them at once so much of beauty and of power.

What was said of the theologian is even more true of the preacher, who is the theologian in the pulpit; he has need to be many men in one. He has occasion for qualities and powers the most diverse; he must discard no one of the faculties which God and nature have given him; he needs them all. Least of all, perhaps, can he afford to dispense with that of which I have been speaking. He must draw his illustrations from all surrounding objects, and each passing event must be made tributary to his purpose. From nature, from art, from science, from the living world as it surges around him, from the heavens above, and from the earth beneath, and from the waters under the earth, must he seize and press into his service whatever can illustrate, whatever can enforce or adorn. As the fabled Orpheus, by the sweet touches of his lyre, drew the wild beasts of the forest, and even inanimate objects, around him at his pleasure, so must the christian orator, by the power of his imagination, be able to command the presence and the service of things animate and inanimate, visible and invisible, in the onward march and progress of his thought. Not rocks and trees and wild beasts alone, but angelic and spiritual forms must come at his call, -beings that "walk the earth unseen, both when we awake

and when we sleep." As the prophet of Israel touched the eyes of his servant, and showed him the mountains round about him filled with angelic warriors and chariots of fire, so must he who speaks for God to this unbelieving world be able to draw aside at times the thin veil that hides the invisible, and show his astonished hearers the dread realities that lie so near to every one of us. As in the contest of Greek and Trojan story, over the embattled hosts upon the plain, the gods themselves were fighting for and against the mortal combatants below, so must the dull worshipper of mammon and of sense, as he comes to the house of God, be made to see that the very air above him and around him is full of armed warriors in fierce contest over a prostrate soul, and that soul his own!

ARTICLE V.

THE TOPOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM.

BY REV. SAMUEL WOLCOTT, D.D., CLEVELAND, OHIO.

IN a former Article (Vol. xxiii. pp. 684-695) we reviewed the theory of the Topography of Jerusalem propounded by James Fergusson, F.R.S., an eminent British architect, and published in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, and gave some reasons for dissenting from it. After the Article had been printed, we met for the first time with a pamphlet of seventy pages, published by Mr. Fergusson subsequent to his Article in the Dictionary, entitled, "Notes on the Site of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, in answer to the Edinburgh Review." In our previous Article, written with a desire to compress the argument, in reply to the points brought forward in the Dictionary, into a brief compass, with as little of a controversial aspect as possible, we find that we passed over some points which did not seem to us essential to a

correct judgment of the question, but on which Mr. Fergusson lays special stress, and which in the pamphlet before us he reiterates and presses into the foreground as conclusive and unanswerable. Without going over ground already traversed, believing that our former argument offers a sure foundation for the convictions of those who accept it, we feel constrained to resume the discussion, and take up every point not already disposed of, and not belonging to his profession as an architect, which Mr. Fergusson deems important. This service we attempt the more readily, because in the judgment of so respectable an authority as Mr. Grove of Sydenham - one of the few biblical scholars who seem to treat his speculations with favor,-"his arguments have never been answered, or even fairly discussed" (Smith's Bib. Dic. Vol. ii. p. 696). There were two references in our previous Article which first demand a brief explanation.

After quoting the point taken by the Edinburgh Review, that Mr. Fergusson failed "to account for the building reared by Abd el-Melek," we remarked, "It may be added that he equally fails to account for the present Church of the Sepulchre" (p. 694). To the issue raised by the reviewer, he replies that he finds the Khalif's building in the Mosque elAksa; and had the fact been in our mind, we should have stated it or omitted the reference. The issue which we raised in the above sentence we shall present again.

Next to the Bible, our most important witness on the Zion question is Josephus. Our citations from this author in our former paper, relative to the successive sieges of Jerusalem, were given without explanation, our object being to show that the royal palace and original citadel were in the upper city and on the western hill, and this appears on the face of the narrative. The Asmonean dynasty, about 165 B.C., while retaining the royal residence in the upper city, erected a fortress or acropolis near the northwest corner of the present Haram area, which Herod subsequently rebuilt, and which from the days of Nehemiah appears to have been a fortified point for the protection of the temple. This fortress figures

in the narrative of the sieges by Pompey and Herod. The former had to subdue it after he had gained possession both of the upper city and palace and of the temple; and it was from this that Antigonus descended when he surrendered to the latter. This later citadel is not to be confounded with (and in our previous paper should have been expressly distinguished from) the ancient tower of David and its successor, the apparent site of which is that of one of the towers built by Herod in the northwest part of Zion. With this explanation we take leave of Josephus.

Mr. Fergusson has not renewed in his Notes the discussion of his theory respecting Mount Zion, and we have no more scripture testimony to examine; but we inadvertently overlooked a verse cited in the Dictionary (Neh. iii. 16), which he pronounces "important." It is as follows: "After him repaired Nehemiah the son of Azbuk, the ruler of the half part of Beth-zur, unto the place over against the sepulchres of David, and to the pool that was made, and unto the house of the mighty." These localities, with many others named in the chapter, can only be fixed conjecturally. On the face of the passage they accord well with the received theory respecting Mount Zion, with which locality Dr. Barclay, after carefully examining the matter on the ground, associates them, and represents the wall here described as running" along the precipitous brow of Zion" (Jerusalem, pp. 126, 155). From this chapter, as from the scripture quotations cited and examined in our previous paper, Mr. Fergusson's theory derives no support. This disposes of the Biblical testimony.

But we cannot take leave of the theory without adverting to the confusion which it has introduced into the Dictionary, -the weak point in this great work through the necessary failure of the attempt to harmonize it with the facts of history and topography. It was the evident intention of the editor that the Article on Jerusalem should be coherent and consistent; and the writers of the historical portions (Messrs. Grove and Wright) have passed over to their fellow contribu