« 上一頁繼續 »
March 17. which I should be glad to see acHE celebrity of your Magazine, counted for. lo Buxtorf's 15th chap: induces me to send you a few remarks. bath, (edit. 1661.) appears the fol. I have long bought a caodid and ac- lowing, among other munitions : çuraie account of the doinestic, as
" Nullæ animum vestrum curæ excruwell as of the Synagogue, ceremonies cient,
[dificent." of the modern Jews, a great desi Quamvis araneæ in loculis vestris 'nideratum. Many respectable scholars This is rendered in Dr. A.'s 16th chapmay be daily met with, who, although ter, upon the same subject, by, “ Let well versed in the Antiquities of
no care trouble you, though spiders Greece and Rome, are very ignorant be in your houses.” I have sought, of existing, and far more interesting but in vain, for a sight of the rule in customs. If reading, and soine koow. Hebrew. The Lalin has a certain ledge of the Hebrew language, were Rabbinical quaintoess. the only requisites for such a treatise,
Yours, &c. M. T. MENEVENSIS. some, perhaps, might be found adequate to it, even "in this sequester’d spot;" but the Compiler ought to re
Mr. URBAN, London, Feb. 15.
N confer with some well-informed Jew,
is the following remarkable who has lately einbraced Christianity. communication : A mere ritual of tbe Jewish. Ceremo. pies is' contained in the late David
No. 28. Part of a Letter written to the
Publisher by Christopher Wren, esq. Levi's work; and the very learned
giving an account that King Henry VII. Buxtorf published his “
had formerly the title of “ DEFENDER Judaica" more than two centuries
OF THE Faith." ago; but it has been often reinarked,
1736-7, Wroxall, that he wrote in so acrimonious a
March 4th. spirit, as if be intended to irritate, * * * “ Among some memorials of rather than conciliate, the Jewish my grandfather's, which bappen at this People. Scaliger is reported to have time to lie before me, is one of particular said, “ Mirum quomodo Buxtorfius note, which, I imagine, may suit your anetur à Judæis : in illa tanien Sy- curiosity to see. nagoga Judaica illos valde perstrin
" That King Henry VII, had formerly git :" but, perhaps, peither of these the title of Defender of the Faith,' apgreat men would have been less loved pears by the Register of the Order of the by his opponents, had be used less Garter, in the black book [sic dict. à
tegmine] (now in my hands hy office), virulence. I have lately met with a cops,
which, having shewed to King Charles I.
he received with great joy; nothing though a mutilated one, of Dr. L.
more pleasing him then that the Right Addison's“Presept State of the Jews;'
of that Title was fixed in the Crown long but this was confined to the state of before the Pope's pretended donation. that people in Barbary, where Dr. A. “ To all which, I make attestation to was Chaplain to our Garrison at Tan. all posterity, aútoypa Qã hoc meo. Ita testor gier, before the fort was demolished
Chr. Wren, à memoria et secretis honoand abandoned by the English ; and
ratissimi ordinis.' “I am, Sir, as the Dedication bears, the date of
Your most obedient servant, . 1674-5 (in about two years, I believe,
CHR. WREN." after the birth of his illustrious son.
I have examined different Histories Joseph A.), a more modern and more of England, such as Hume, &c.; but universal account of the Jews would have not succeeded in finding any be very acceptable.
tbing of the kind mentioned. As I am not quoting, Mr. Urban,
It is generally understood that K. from
Henry VIII. (A. D. 1521.) received “ Books penes me,
the title of “Defender of the Faith" Which nobody but myseit can see,”
from Pope Leo X. for defending the -some of your Readers may be sur Papal Chair against Luther. I should prized at ihe great similarity between be much obliged to soine of your the Doctor's work, and that of Buxtorf Correspondents, if they could give me above-mentioned. There is in one any information on the subject. passage as remarkable a variation,
A Second Address, by the Bishop of St. David's, to Persons calling thems
selves Unitarians; continued from p. 135. Your you have now before you ample faith of this mother Church of Chris
proof of Mr. Belsham's misre. tendom can be proved to have been presentations of the character and the orthodox faith, both before the principles of the Established Clergy.; destruction of Jerusalem by Adrian in wbich misrepresentations there is and after, the great body of Hebrew an inflainmatory malignity, which I Christians could not have been unbe. ascribe, in a great degree, to the io- lievers in the Divinity of Christ, whe, fluence of the revolutionary period in ther they retained the ordinances of which they were published. They Moses or not. For evidence of this appear to have been trains intended orthodoxy I will not refer you back to communicate with those deep-laid to Bp. Horsley's Tracts; but I will operations, which his great MASTER give you two proofs, which he has had been long preparing at Birmiog. not made use of. “At that time,” ham, in tbe true spirit of French Phi- says Eusebius, that is, under the Emlanthropy, for the universal good of peror Alexander, “flourished many his country. That period, thank God, Ecclesiasticks of great learning, whose is passed.
Letters have come down to us, and Having given abundant proof of may be easily met with. For they Mr. Belsham's inaccuracy in his repre are extant in the Library of the city sentations of persons and characters, of Ælia, which was built by Alexander, I will now give you a specimen of his Bishop of tbat Church *" Alexan, ioaccuracy in matters of fact. He der, as Eusebius informs us, was prosays, in his answer to my former Ad- moted to that See for his eminent dress, “the most material pojot at faith in Christ t. He was the 35th issue between Bp. Horsley and Dr. Bishop of Jerusalem, being the 20th Priestley was not a question of scho- Bishop after the name of the city was larship and criticism, but concerniog changed from Jerusalem to Ælia. a plain matter of fact. The fact as The first fifteen Bishops, whose names serted by Dr. Priestley is, that the Eusebius enumerates, were all of the great body of Hebrew Christians, in eircumcision; and the period during the two first centuries, were believers which they presided over that Church, in the simple humanity of Christ. Bp. is specially denominated the primitive Horsley denies the fact, and contends Church of Jerusalem. Of the orthos for the existence of an orthodox He- doxy of the primitive Hebrew Church, brew Church at Ælia. Of this or Eusebius bears this explicit testimony: thodox Hebrew Church, now first “ From written records (syyga@a) heard of, Dr. Priestley questions the I have learnt, that to the siege of existence.”
Jerusalem, in the time of Adrian, In this passage Mr. Belsham says, fifteen Bishops presided over that that" the most material point at issue Church in contioued succession, and was not a question of scholarship that all of these were of Hebrew oriand criticism, but a plain matter of gin, and that they held and professed fact.” A point at issue may be a
thegenuine knowledge of Christ,
yywowy plain matter of fact ; but, if the fact be disputed, the point cannot be set.
του Χριστου γνησιως καταδεξασθαι." tled (if it be a matter of antient his. Of the orthodoxy of the Bishops of tory) without scholarship and criti. Jerusalem, expressed by the term eism; and not to know this is, of it. ginoows, there could have been no self, an indisputable proof of Mr. doubt, from other passages of his Belsbam's want both of criticisin and History, even if Sulpitius Severus bad scholarship. If Dr. Priestley and Mr. pot still more expressly said of the Belsham had not been very deficient general body of these Hebrew Chrisin both, they could not have ques- tians in the time of Adrian, that they tioned the orthodoxy of the Church believed Christ to be God: tum pene of Jerusalem, either before or after the building of Ælia. The Church * Euseb. Eccles. Hist. L. vi. c. 20. of Jerusalem comprehended the great + Ibid. c. 8. body of Hebrew Christians. If the Ibid, L, iv. c. 5. GENT. MAG. April, 1815.
omnes, Christụm Deum, sub legis ob I will close this account of the servatione, credebant, “ they almost Church of Ælia with a list of the all with their belief in Christ's Din thirty-nine Bishops of Jerusalem, and vinity united the observances of the Ælia, from James, who was called law.” In tbe pene omnes he exem the Brother of our Lord, to Hermon plifies the observatio legis, not the the last of the Bishops, who preceded credebant Christum Deum ; for he is the Diocletian persecution, and who, speaking of the abolition of the Mo- says Eusebius, " succeeded to that saic observances by Adrian's exclusion Apostolical See, which is preserved of the Jews from Jerusalem. The there even to this day *." Apostles, by the decree of the Council
Bishops of Jerusalem. at Jerusalein, had left Christians at
Cent. I. 19. Maximus liberty to retain the observances of
20. Julianus Moses, or not, according to their con
21. Caius science. · Almost all Hebrew Chris.
Cent. II. 22. Symmachus tians, therefore, united the law of 3. Justus
23. Caius alter Moses with their faith in Christ. Sul 4. Zacheus
24. Julianus altet pitius calls the belief of Christ's Di 5. Tobias
25. Capito vinity the Christian faith. “ Quod 6. Benjamin 26. Maximus quidem (the exclusion of the Jews
27. Antoninus from Jerusalem) Christianæ fidei pro
28. Valens ficiebat; quia tum pene omnes, Chris
9. Philippus 29. Dolichianus
30. Narcissus tum Deum, sub legis observatione,
31. Dius credebant. Nimirum id Domino ordi
32. Germanio nante dispositum, ut legis servitus a
33. Gordius libertate fidei atque Ecclesiæ tolle
34. Narcissus retur.” He says that the exclusion
Cent. Ill. of the Jews was serviceable to the
35. Alexander Christian faith, by the liberty and Bishops of Ælia.
36. Mazabanes exemption which the faith and the 16. Marcus
37. Hymenæus Church thus acquired from the servi 17. Cassianus 38. Zabdas tude of the law : for to this time al 18. Publius
39. Hermon. most all Jewish Christians retained
of the grounds of Bp. Horsley's the observances of the law. I have
argument for tbe existence of the orJaid the greater stress on this passage thodox Hebrew Church at Ælia, Mr. of Sulpitius, because Bp. Horsley has Belsham gives the following sumnot made all the use of it which be
mary : "Of this orthodox Hebrew might have done.
Church, now first heard of, Dr. PriestMy second proof respecting the ley questions the existence, and calls Church of Ælia, the orthodox Hebrew
upon the Bishop for his proof: who, Church now first heard of!! is the finding, to his great disappointment, honourable testimony borne to her that ihe authorities appealed to by by the seventh Canon of the Council Mosheim were nothing to the purpose, of Nice, A. D. 325, which I will give proceeds to construct a formal deyou in the translation of Isidorus. monstration of his own. This deMercator : “ Quoniam mos antiquus monstration begins with six professobtinuit, et vetusta traditio, ut Æliæ, edly gratuitous propositions, which, id est, Hierosolymæ, episcopo honor however, to do the learned Prelate deferatur, habeat consequenter ho. justice, he frankly acknowledges, of norem suum, manente tamen metro. themselves prove nothing. And it politanæ civitati propria dignitate.” concludes with a seventh, upon which The metropolitan dignity of the the principal stress is laid, but which, Church of Cæsarea amongtheChurches as the Bishop in his last Disquisition of the East (after the destruction of very fairly owns, proves barely and Jerusalem by Tillis) arose, from a singly the existence of a body of orprec'dence of political rank, not from thodox Hebrew Christians, existing priority of lime, or of spiritual autho somewhere in the world in the time rity, and was precisely like the pri- of Jerome, 250 years after the reign mitive metropolitan rank of the of Adrian. And this cypher being Church of Rome, in the West, before the subversion of the Roman * Euseb. Eccles. Hist, A. D. 300 Empire.
L, vii, c. 3%.
added to the six preceding cyphers, to the time of Adrian, and renouncing constitutes wbat the Bishop is pleased them io consequence of his decree, to call the entire proofs of the exist, and of the privileges annexed to his ence of the orthodox Hebrew Church new colong at Ælia. To “complete at Ælia in the time of Adrian. This therefore the proof” by evidence of statement, Mr. Urban, may appear the existence of an orthodox Hebrew somewhat ludicrous; but I PLEDGE Church to a later period, the Bishop myself it is correct.”
added his seventh position. If by correct Mr. Belsham means 4. This seventh position is that true, he has here given a pledge that upon which Mr. Belsham says he never can redeem. For out of principal stress is laid.” The Bishop five assertions contained in this state- expressly says (p. 490.) that the prin, ment, four are positively false, and cipal stress is not laid upon it. He one incorrect. His first assertion is, particularly reminds the reader that that “ Bp. Horsley found, to bis great his proof of the existence of an ordisappointment, that the authorities thodox Jewish Church at Jerusalem appealed to by Mosheim were nothing rests only in part upon it: “ The to his purpose, and therefore pro- learved reader will be pleased to receeded to construct a formal demon- collect that my proof of the existence stration of his own.” The Bishop, of such a Church rests in part only on on the contrary, was fully satisfied Jerome's evideoce. The entire proof with Mosheim and his authorities, as rests on seven positions.” is evident from the observation with Of the seventh position Mr. Bel. which he introduces his seven posi- sham says that “the Bishop in his last tions : “ I will, therefore, briefly state Disquisition very fairly owns it proves the principles which determine me to barely and singly the exisfence of a abide by Mosheim's account of the body of orthodox Bebrew Christians, transaction in question.”
existing somewhere in the world in 2. Mr. Belsham's second assertion the time of Jerome, 250 years after is, that six of the Bishop's “positions the reign of Adrian.” This is very were professedly gratuitous.” An unfairly and incorrectly stated. The historical fact cannot be called a gra- force of the seventh position is in its tuitous position. The three first po- connexion with the six preceding. sitions are taken for granted, as his. Its object is, with them, to prove that torical facts; that there was a Church this orthodox Church existed, not of Hebrew Christians at Jerusalem somewhere in the world, but at Ælia. and Pella from the first introduction St. Jerome's testimony does not, of of Christianity to the time of Adrian; itself, prove the existence of the Heand afterwards at Ælia'; and that the brew Christian Church in the tiine of Church of Ælia consisted of Hebrews, Adrian; it is not a part of that eviwho renounced the observances of dence; but it is a proof of the exist; the Mosaic rites.” For the two first ence of that Church to a much later facts, Eusebius's list of 39 Bishops be. period. Epiphanius and Orosius tesfore quoted is a sufficient voucher. tify for its existence at Ælia in the For the third, the Bishop quotes Epi- time of Adrian ; Celsus and Origen (in phanius and Orosius. The fourth, his corrected judgment) respectively fifth, and sixth positions are appen answer for the latter half of ihe third dages to the third, and are probable Century; Eusebius for the whole of reasons accountiog for the reuuucia- the three first Centuries, and the betion of the Mosaic rites.
ginning of the fourth; and Jerome 3. Mr. Belsham's next assertion is, for the latter part of the fourth. that Bp. Horsley frankly acknowledges Celsus, Origen, and Jerome speak, inthat bis six positions, of themselves, definitely and generally, of Hebrew prove nothing. So far from acknow. Christians. And where should we Jedging that they proved nothing, he seek to verify their testimony, but at says, in the words before quoted, inat Jerusalem, th: primitive seal of Hathey determined him to abide by Mo brew Christianity, where this Apossheim's account of the transaction. tolical Church was subsisting not only They prove the existence and ortho- in the third and fourth Centuries, but doxy of a Church of Hebrew Chris- has continued, through all the revu. tians, retaining the Mosaic ordinances, lutions of the Country, to this day.
To the orthodoxy of this Church subject of his Letter, I will give you in Adrian's time, Sulpitius bears wit an account in my next Address. ness in the words before quoted: Abergwilly Palace, T. Sr. David's. Christum Deum credebant. But Eu.
Feb. 24, 1915. sebius's inestimable document of the
[T'he Bishop's P.S. in our next.] succession of the Bishops of JerusaJem and Ælia for more than three Centuries (collected by himself from
April 9. tables of succession and written re N answer to your Correspondent cords, in the Library at Jerusalem),
it with his testimony to the orthodoxy state, that as far as reason, observaand Apostolical character of this tion, and an alınost endless variety of Church from its first iostitution to his sketches made from antient doortime, comprehends all other evidence, ways, can guide me, I always found and effectually disproves the assertion the architraves, sweeping cornices, of Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham, &c. on their external part; and this that the great body of Hebrew Chris warranted my presuming to say, that tians, in the two first Centuries, were my view(vol.LXXXIV.ii.p.529) is the unbelievers in the Divinity of Christ. interior remains of the great Hall, as If you confine your attention to this said architraves, &c. are on the Eastern substantial fact--the orthodoxy of the side, not visible in the view, as the primitive Christian Church in Puo aspect there drawn is to the West. lestine, under both its appellations of I have seen a copy of Mr. Gwilt's Jerusalem and Ælia, as attested by drawing of the roof of what he would Eusebius, and, before him, by the Bi. have us believe belonged to the great shops of Ælia, Cæsarea, and others, Hall, and which he maintains is simiin their Letter to Paul of Samosata lar to the roof of Eltham Palace. (see the Postscript), you will easily This I deny; as, setting aside its prina perceive the error of Dr. Priestley ciple of open - work, the detail is and Mr. Belsham, and will find no wholly different; the first calculated difficulty in disentangling the subject for an inferior arrangement, the latfrom the dispute about the continu ter for a noble and Royal presence. ance or discontinuance of the Mosaic It is rather singular, that, although ordinances; and about the three sorts I have been, at various periods, close of Nazarenes, and three of Ebionites, to the Eastern side of the circular which they have either ignorantly or window for inspection and imitation, artfully confounded. You will per. the “ fragments of stained glass" ceive also, that if Unitarianism had should have escaped my notice, as I been the faith of the Primitive Church, am rather exact in picking out such as Dr. Priestley says, or the doctrine relicks; however, granting that the of the Gospel, as Dr. Carpenter as glass was“painted upon the East side," serts, then it would follow, that the this is by no means decisive, as such belief of the Trinity, and Christ's Di- glass might, at some subsequent revinity, must have been condemned as pair, have been by ignorant glaziers Heresies. But you know the reverse turned the wrong side outwards. Holof this to be true. If Mr. Belsham lar's view of this questionable subject could produce an instance of any be- gives no positive instruction, as it liever in the Trinity and the Divinity may be taken for any building but the of Christ being called a Heretick ; or one before us (that is, as far as the any professed unbeliever in these doc
J. CARTER. trines not being called a Heretick; there would be some pretence for Mr. URBAN,
April 10. saying that Unitarianism was the SINCE your Correspondent, p. 226, faith of the Primitive Church.
has called upon me for my auFrom the specimen which Mr. Bel- thority in stating thal Wm. Gifford * shamn has given of his correctness in was the founder of Winchester Palace, reviewing one single fragment of the
&c. I may perhaps be allowed to make Controversy between Bp. Horsley and a few remarks upon the conjectures Dr. Priestley, you may judge with what fidelily he has reviewed the
* Magna Britannia, 1724, and Lamwhole. Of Mr. Belsham's Postscript, bert's Survey of London, 1806; Author which ought to have been the chief of Villiers' Essay on the Reformation.