omnes, Christum Deum, sub legis observatione, credebant," they almost all with their belief in Christ's Divinity united the observances of the law." In the pene omnes he exemplifies the observatio legis, not the credebant Christum Deum; for he is speaking of the abolition of the Mosaic observances by Adrian's exclusion of the Jews from Jerusalem. The Apostles, by the decree of the Council at Jerusalem, had left Christians at liberty to retain the observances of Moses, or not, according to their conscience. Almost all Hebrew Christians, therefore, united the law of Moses with their faith in Christ. Sulpitius calls the belief of Christ's Divinity the Christian faith. "Quod quidem (the exclusion of the Jews from Jerusalem) Christianæ fidei proficiebat; quia tum pene omnes, Christum Deum, sub legis observatione, credebant. Nimirum id Domino ordinante dispositum, ut legis servitus a libertate fidei atque Ecclesiæ tolleretur." He says that the exclusion of the Jews was serviceable to the Christian faith, by the liberty and exemption which the faith and the Church thus acquired from the servitude of the law: for to this time almost all Jewish Christians retained the observances of the law. I have Jaid the greater stress on this passage of Sulpitius, because Bp. Horsley has not made all the use of it which he night have done. My second proof respecting the Church of Elia, the orthodox Hebrew Church now first heard of!! is the honourable testimony borne to her by the seventh Canon of the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, which I will give you in the translation of Isidorus Mercator: "Quoniam mos antiquus obtinuit, et vetusta traditio, ut Æliæ, id est, Hierosolymæ, episcopo honor deferatur, habeat consequenter honorem suum, manente tamen metro politanæ civitati propria dignitate." The metropolitan dignity of the Church of Cæsarea among the Churches of the East (after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus) arose, from a precedence of political rank, not from priority of time, or of spiritual authority, and was precisely like the primitive metropolitan rank of the Church of Rome, in the West, before the subversion of the Roman Empire. I will close this account of the Church of Elia with a list of the thirty-nine Bishops of Jerusalem, and Elia, from James, who was called the Brother of our Lord, to Hermon the last of the Bishops, who preceded the Diocletian persecution, and who, says Eusebius," succeeded to that Apostolical See, which is preserved there even to this day *." Bishops of Jerusalem. Cent. I. 1. Jacobus 2. Simeon Cent. II. 3. Justus 13. Ephres Bishops of Elia. 16. Marcus 17. Cassianus 18. Publius 19. Maximus 20. Julianus 21. Caius 22. Symmachus 25. Capito 37. Hymenæus 38. Zabdas 39. Hermon. Of the grounds of Bp. Horsley's argument for the existence of the or thodox Hebrew Church at Elia, Mr. Belsham gives the following summary: "Of this orthodox Hebrew Church, now first heard of, Dr. Priestley questions the existence, and calls upon the Bishop for his proof: who, finding, to his great disappointment, that the authorities appealed to by Mosheim were nothing to the purpose, proceeds to construct a formal demonstration of his own. This demonstration begins with six profess edly gratuitous propositions, which, however, to do the learned Prelate justice, he frankly acknowledges, of themselves prove nothing. And it concludes with a seventh, upon which the principal stress is laid, but which, as the Bishop in his last Disquisition very fairly owns, proves barely and singly the existence of a body of orthodox Hebrew Christians, existing somewhere in the world in the time of Jerome, 250 years after the reign of Adrian. And this cypher being added to the six preceding cyphers, constitutes what the Bishop is pleased to call the entire proofs of the existence of the orthodox Hebrew Church at Elia in the time of Adrian. This statement, Mr. Urban, may appear somewhat ludicrous; but I pledge myself it is correct." If by correct Mr. Belsham means true, he has here given a pledge that he never can redeem. For out of five assertions contained in this statement, four are positively false, and one incorrect. His first assertion is, that "Bp. Horsley found, to his great disappointment, that the authorities appealed to by Mosheim were nothing to his purpose, and therefore proceeded to construct a formal demonstration of his own." The Bishop, on the contrary, was fully satisfied with Mosheim and his authorities, as is evident from the observation with which he introduces his seven positions: "I will, therefore, briefly state the principles which determine me to abide by Mosheim's account of the transaction in question." 2. Mr. Belsham's second assertion is, that six of the Bishop's "positions were professedly gratuitous." An historical fact cannot be called a gratuitous position. The three first positions are taken for granted, as historical facts; that there was a Church of Hebrew Christians at Jerusalem and Pella from the first introduction of Christianity to the time of Adrian; and afterwards at Elia; and that the Church of Elia consisted of Hebrews, who renounced the observances of the Mosaic rites." For the two first facts, Eusebius's list of 39 Bishops before quoted is a sufficient voucher. For the third, the Bishop quotes Epiphanius and Orosius. The fourth, fifth, and sixth positions are appendages to the third, and are probable reasons accounting for the renunciation of the Mosaic rites. 3. Mr. Belsham's next assertion is, that Bp. Horsley frankly acknowledges that his six positions, of themselves, prove nothing. So far from acknowledging that they proved nothing, he says, in the words before quoted, that they determined him to abide by Mosheim's account of the transaction. They prove the existence and orthodoxy of a Church of Hebrew Christians, retaining the Mosaic ordinances, 66 to the time of Adrian, and renouncing them in consequence of his decree, and of the privileges annexed to his new colony at Elia. To complete therefore the proof" by evidence of the existence of an orthodox Hebrew Church to a later period, the Bishop added his seventh position. 4. This seventh position is that upon which Mr. Belsham says "the principal stress is laid." The Bishop expressly says (p. 490.) that the prin cipal stress is not laid upon it. He particularly reminds the reader that his proof of the existence of an orthodox Jewish Church at Jerusalem rests only in part upon it: "The learned reader will be pleased to recollect that my proof of the existence of such a Church rests in part only on Jerome's evidence. The entire proof rests on seven positions." Of the seventh position Mr. Belsham says that "the Bishop in his last Disquisition very fairly owns it proves barely and singly the existence of a body of orthodox Hebrew Christians, existing somewhere in the world in the time of Jerome, 250 years after the reign of Adrian." This is very unfairly and incorrectly stated. The force of the seventh position is in its connexion with the six preceding. Its object is, with them, to prove that this orthodox Church existed, not somewhere in the world, but at Elia. St. Jerome's testimony does not, of itself, prove the existence of the Hebrew Christian Church in the time of Adrian; it is not a part of that evidence; but it is a proof of the existence of that Church to a much later period. Epiphanius and Orosius testify for its existence at Elia in the time of Adrian; Celsus and Origen (in his corrected judgment) respectively answer for the latter half of the third Century; Eusebius for the whole of the three first Centuries, and the beginning of the fourth; and Jerome for the latter part of the fourth. Celsus, Origen, and Jerome speak, indefinitely and generally, of Hebrew Christians. And where should we seek to verify their testimony, but at Jerusalem, the primitive seat of Hebrew Christianity, where this Apostolical Church was subsisting not only in the third and fourth Centuries, but has continued, through all the revolutions of the Country, to this day. To To the orthodoxy of this Church in Adrian's time, Sulpitius bears witness in the words before quoted: Christum Deum credebant. But Eusebius's inestimable document of the succession of the Bishops of JerusaJem and Elia for more than three Centuries (collected by himself from tables of succession and written records, in the Library at Jerusalem), with his testimony to the orthodoxy and Apostolical character of this Church from its first institution to his time, comprehends all other evidence, and effectually disproves the assertion of Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham, that the great body of Hebrew Chris tians, in the two first Centuries, were unbelievers in the Divinity of Christ. If you confine your attention to this substantial fact, the orthodoxy of the primitive Christian Church in Pulestine, under both its appellations of Jerusalem and Elia, as attested by Eusebius, and, before him, by the Bishops of Elia, Cæsarea, and others, in their Letter to Paul of Samosata (see the Postscript), you will easily perceive the error of Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham, and will find no difficulty in disentangling the subject from the dispute about the continuance or discontinuance of the Mosaic ordinances; and about the three sorts of Nazarenes, and three of Ebionites, which they have either ignorantly or artfully confounded. You will perceive also, that if Unitarianism had been the faith of the Primitive Church, as Dr. Priestley says, or the doctrine of the Gospel, as Dr. Carpenter as serts, then it would follow, that the belief of the Trinity, and Christ's Divinity, must have been condemned as Heresies. But you know the reverse of this to be true. If Mr. Belsham could produce an instance of any believer in the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ being called a Heretick; or any professed unbeliever in these doc trines not being called a Heretick; there would be some pretence for saying that Unitarianism was the faith of the Primitive Church. From the specimen which Mr. Belsham has given of his correctness in reviewing one single fragment of the Controversy between Bp. Horsley and Dr. Priestley, you may judge with what fidelity he has reviewed the whole. Of Mr. Belsham's Postscript, which ought to have been the chief subject of his Letter, I will give you an account in my next Address. Abergwilly Palace, T. ST. DAVID'S. Feb. 24, 1915. [The Bishop's P. S. in our next.] Mr. URBAN, IN April 9. N answer to your Correspondent Mr. Gwilt, it is only necessary to state, that as far as reason, observation, and an almost endless variety of sketches made from antient doorways, can guide me, I always found the architraves, sweeping cornices, &c. on their external part; and this warranted my presuming to say, that my view (vol. LXXXIV..p.529) is the interior remains of the great Hall, as said architraves, &c. are on the Eastern side, not visible in the view, as the aspect there drawn is to the West. I have seen a copy of Mr. Gwilt's drawing of the roof of what he would have us believe belonged to the great Hall, and which he maintains is similar to the roof of Eltham Palace. This I deny; as, setting aside its principle of open-work, the detail is wholly different; the first calculated for an inferior arrangement, the latter for a noble and Royal presence. It is rather singular, that, although I have been, at various periods, close to the Eastern side of the circular window for inspection and imitation, the "fragments of stained glass" should have escaped my notice, as I am rather exact in picking out such relicks; however, granting that the glass was "painted upon the East side," this is by no means decisive, as such glass might, at some subsequent repair, have been by ignorant glaziers turned the wrong side outwards. Hol lar's view of this questionable subject gives no positive instruction, as it may be taken for any building but the one before us (that is, as far as the ruins go). J. CARTER. he has advanced relative to the situa tion of the Hall of Winchester Palace. However it may appear to Mr. Gwilt that my observations are founded in "error," yet I presume he will allow that for his own he has little better authority than conjecture. I shall not venture to "assert" that the Hall was either on the East or West side of the circular window; but I will certainly again repeat, that the Western portion bears evidently the strongest marks of that apartment in every particular which distinguishes it from any other in such establishments. Of the supposed Hall, only the South and West walls remain, as stated; not a stone either of the East or North is to be traced: the site of the former is mere supposition, the latter is evident. To pass over the inconsistency of having the dininghall 118 feet in length, which would make it appear to have occupied nearly half the site of the whole Palace*, we shall consider the Rooft, which your Correspondent says was on the East side of the window. This I cannot contradict. the roof was entirely modern, consisting only of plain rafters, tiled in the usual manner. Nor would I venture to state this, had not our view of the window been obstructed by several beams crossing it in various directions to support the roof. As Mr. G. admits that a portion Eastward was taken down, it is, I presume, not impossible that the West end might have shared a similar fate, and thus have eluded our observation. But it appears strange that any should have existed, while only the South wall remained for its support. Were the builders of the warehouses so careful of the antient vestige, that they accommodated their walls to sustain it? And does it seem likely that their care extended so far as to support it, while they destroyed the old wall to erect one of brick? In short, we may ask, why was it destroyed at all, if they had any inclination to preserve the roof? The case is very dif ferent Westward of the window; 12 feet of the wall adjoining the gable was left perfect its whole height, with one large window in it, and the foun In 1807, Mr. Carter and myself, and_dation between that and the Western several other friends, made our second survey of St. Mary Overey's Church, and Winchester Palace; and this beau tiful circular window formed the chief object of our inquiry. After some difficulty, we got access to the warehouse in which it was concealed, and found it much obstructed by packages, &c. which reached nearly to the roof. I can assert it was the East side of the window we were near, as I have now before me a section of the mouldings, which upon comparison exactly agree now it is exposed; the sides are so materially different (in the architrave), and the disposition so unlike, that no mistake is possible to have arisen, and I can without hesitation say, that extremity. From this it is evident the wall was never completely demolished, though certainly repaired, and in many places rebuilt; and before the fire in 1814, the whole line of wall was a picturesque variety of brick and stone. Here we could feel no apprehension for the roof;a par tial disturbance of the wall could not endanger the whole timber-frame; it certainly did not hang in the air while another was rebuilding. I cannot account for the weather cornice on the West side (supposing that to have been within); nor can my opponent for a similar cornice, surrounding not only the window on the East, but likewise the doorways below. *The proportion of the Hall to the rest of the building may be seen at Lam beth; Haddon Hall, Derbyshire; Hampton Court; Bolton Hall, Yorkshire; and many others. + I am at a loss to conceive upon what grounds Mr. G. supposes the roof to be of higher antiquity than that in the remains of the Royal Palace at Eltham, I can enumerate nearly thirty timber roofs which I have seen and drawn in various parts of the Kingdom, none of which are later than the reign of Henry VIH.; and that at Winchester Palace certainly is the most modern. Perhaps some of the earliest timber-work in existence will be found at that truly curious and little known, though extensive vestige of Samlesbury Hall, Lancashire, about the time of Edward III.; then follow Mitton and Bolton Halls, Yorkshire; Westminster Hall; &c. &c. in each of these are peculiar characters to denote their age, which were to be found in the roof under consideration. The ornaments precisely correspond with those in the South Porch, and in the Cloisters of Chester Cathedral. The The idea of the Western division having formed the menial offices, is truly whimsical, and almost unworthy of observation. Will it be admitted for a moment that the kitchen, buttery, and pantry, were closely attached to the Hall? And does it seem probable that their dimensions would be nearly equal, and their design certainly surpass, that of the largest and most conspicuous apartment in the Palace? And farther, would such offices be placed in the most conspicuous situation, on the terrace, while the state apartments were situated in the back-ground, gloomy and unnoticed? Certainly not; such a building would be made to hide its utility if so situated, and have good windows to carry on the design; yet this will not account for the lights being larger than those of the (supposed) Hall. Under such circumstances they would be sufficiently inferior to prevent the kitchen being mistaken for the Hall. There is no difficulty in explaining what appears from old prints to be a continuation of the path or street from the landing stairs. What is now a modern brick archway on the South side, I apprehend was always an entrance doorway, but only on this side; if it had not been, how was the supposed Hall, or Kitchen and connecting offices, to be approached? Surely not from the terrace, where select company alone recreated at particular times! are distinguished, that you will insert the accompanying vindication of his conduct. The paper which inclose is the narrative of the business written by the Rev. Mr. O'Brien himself, and was sent to this Country for the purpose of being inserted in the Times Newspaper, in which the article first appeared; but as it has found its way into your Magazine, I hope no further appeal is necessary to induce you to acquiesce in giving insertion to the antidote. J. C. Sir, Cork, Feb. 2. A Paragraph having been inserted in The Times of Jan. 13, in which my conduct, on a former occasion, is grossly misrepresented; I trust you will not refuse me an opportunity of correcting, through the same medium, the mis-statements of that letter, and of thus removing from the public mind the unfavourable impressions which the misrepresentation is calculated to make. Your Correspondent is not, I am ready to allow, the fabricator of the calumny which he now exhibits to public view: he, like the superficial author of The Stranger in Ireland, has only raked it from the mire of refuted slander. It appeared nine or ten years since, in The Dublin Journal, from whence it was then copied into some of the contemporary London Newspapers. On the first appearance of this atrocious statement, I addressed the publick, and refuted the calumny of which it was replete. My defence appeared in The Cork Mercantile Chronicle; it was copied from that paper into, not only those of also into the London Courier, the MornDublin, Waterford, and Limerick, but ing Chronicle, &c. &c. and now, after a lapse of nine or ten years, the calumny is revived, with all the fascination of novelty, whilst its refutation is studiously withheld. In the article to which I advert, I am accused of having excommunicated one of my flock, for not having contributed towards building of a Chapel, or Roman Catholic house of worship. I am charged with having exacted, in an arbitrary way, unreasonable contributions from a supposed injured parishioner; and it is added, that these facts have been proved in a Court of Justice, by two unwilling witnesses. Now, Sir, I unhesitatingly pronounce, in the face of this Country in which the case was tried, and without fear of contradiction on the part of the honourable Judge, or of the respectable Jury, who tried it, that these charges are atrociously calumnious. I have, at this moment, the minutes of that trial before |
