I

Mr. URBAN,

Teversal, March 6. HAVE sent you a front view, from the North, of Teversal Hall, in the County of Nottingham, as it appeared in 1811; but which has since been taken down.

The House was of stone, and appeared to have been erected at different periods; the middle part was the most ancient, and was probably built by Roger Grenehalghe in the reign of Henry VIII, which the style of the building and coat of arms over the porch seen to confirm.

The grand entrance was through a porch, over which, in 1811, were still remaining the arms of the Grenehalghe family, impaling Babington,) having at the farther eud a massy oaken door, bearing date 1612; and that once opened into a spacious hall, at the North end of which was the gallery. The suite of rooms, though not on an extensive scale, were nevertheless stately, and handsome in their day. The principal ones most deserv ing of observation were, the diningparlour and the drawing-room; the former having its sides embellished to the last with white embossed stucco, representing a variety of rural scenery, the sports of hawking, and the story of Actæon.

The edifice stood on high ground (of which the offices are now inhabited by the principal farmer in the lordship,) and overlooked to the South several extensive and hanging gardens, descending to terraces by different flights of steps, and ornamented at intervals with some venerable yews. The prospect around, though confined, is very picturesque, and presents to the eye a rural and cultivated landscape.

Molyneux family before the reign of James I., by which Monarch the Title of Baronet was conferred on John Molyneux June 29, 1611.

The estate, at the time the view was taken, was the property of Sir Francis Molyneux, knt. and bars. Gentleman-usher of the Black Rods but since his death, it has devolved on Henry Howard Molyneux, esq. M. P. for Gloucester, brother to the heir presumptive of the Dukedom of Norfolk, and nephew to the late Sir Francis Molyneux.

An account of the church of Te versal, with its monuments, was pub lished in your Magazine for February 1810, vol. LXXX. p. 121.

Yours, &c. R. R. RAWLINS.

Mr. URBAN, Essex-street, Dec. 13. R. Priestley, in his inquiries into

1

Dthe doctrine of the primitive Christians concerning the person of Christ, was led to maintain that the early Hebrew Christians were known by the name of Ebionites, that they all agreed in believing the simple hu manity of Christ, and that they only differed upon the question of his mi raculous conception: and, to estab lish these facts, he appealed to the testimony of Origen *. This is the main question upon which the two learned polemics are at issue.

The Bishop peremptorily denies the facts stated by Dr. Priestley, and bold ly challenges the credibility of his evi dence. "I tax," says he, "the ve racity of your witness." Origen might say it, but he could not believe it. He knew the contrary: and "I would not take his testimony upon oath.” The Bishop then proceeds to state, as

* Hist. of Corrup. vol. I. p. 7. Letters to Dr. Horsley, p. 18.

A

20

an ascertained fact, that in the reign of Adrian, after the total destruction of Jerusalem, the majority of orthodox Hebrew Christians returning from Pella, whither they had fled for safety, abandoned at once the rites of Moses, and joined with a church of Gentile Christians for the sake of being admitted to the privileges of the colony of Elia, which had been founded by Adrian near the site of Jerusalem: and from which all Jews were excluded upon pain of death. The Bishop refers to Mosheim as an authority; but does not mention what after wards appears to have been fact, that all the incidents were borrowed from that learned writer upon whose authority the Bishop seems implicitly to

have relied *.

Dr. Priestley, having never in the course of his reading met with any account of this church of orthodox Hebrews at Ælia, and having only consulted Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, instead of his Commentaries, to which the Bishop referred, and not finding there all the circumstances which he had stated, rather too preeipitately charged the Bishop with having alleged facts without sufficient authority, and in plain language, as a falsifier of history aud a defamer of the dead t.

The Bishop, conscious of innocence, repels the charge with indignation and now for the first time acknowledges the extent of his obligation to the German Professor. "If," says the offended Prelate," Dr. Priestley bad consulted Mosheim, he must know that these were Mosheim's assertions before they were mine. He must know, that I have added no circumstance to Mosheim's account but such as every one must add in his own imagination, who admits Mosheim's representation of the fact +."

In the mean time the Bishop, finding the facts disputed which he had alleged with such unhesitating confidence, thought it advisable to consult Mosheim's authority; and, to his great surprize and disappointment, he finds them nothing to the purpose. Sulpitius is silent upon the most material points: Orosius is admitted to be "a feather in the scale:" and Epiphanius

• Horsley's Tracts, p. 173. + Dr. Priestley's Second Letter, p.192. Horsley's Tracts, pp. 408, 409.

was a witness to be brought forward with great caution, and upon his tes timony little stress could be laid §.

Unwilling, however, to abandon a favourite hypothesis, and with the express design of rescuing himself from the imputation" of relating that upon Mosheim's authority which he related upon none," and "to state the principles which determined him to abide by Mosheim's account," the Bishop now brings forward a formal proof of the fact in question: namely, that the Christian Church at Elia was composed chiefly of orthodox Hebrew fugitives, who had returned from Pella, and had discarded the rites of Moses for the sake of participating in the privileges of the Elian colony.

To this end, "I take for granted," says his Lordship," these things." He then assumes six preliminary propositions, which it is quite needless to repeat here, because at the conclusion of them the Bishop very judiciously and candidly adds, “It may seem that my six positions go no further than to account for the disuse of the Mosaic law upon the supposition that the thing took place:" and "that they amount not to a proof that a church of Hebrew Christians not adhering to the rites of Judaism actually existed at Elia." "To complete the proof, therefore," continues the learned Pre late; "I might appeal to Epiphanius's assertion of the return of the Christians of Jerusalem from Pella." But, conscious that this was very tender ground, he adds, "I will derive the proof from a fact which I think more convincing than the testimony of Epiphanius."

This fact is contained in the Bi shop's seventh proposition, "viz. that a body of orthodox Christians of the Hebrews were actually existing in the world much later than in the time of Adrian." And he rests the credit of this proposition upon the mention which occurs in St. Jerome's Com mentary upon Isaiah of Hebrews be lieving in Christ as distinct from the Nazarenes 1." His Lordship contends that in Jerome's style Hebrews be