which they are pretended to be, and shew them for such to pilgrims and travellers, such as Baumgarten, Gemelli, Sandys, &c. as appears from the books and writings of these travellers. Indeed they would be arrant cheats, impostors, and hypocrites, if they did not, since they actually perform the most solemn devotions at those places. But how great (that I may stick to this point) must be the uncertainty of this, when Jerusalem has so often changed masters, and has been so frequently wasted and destroyed? It is particularly recorded of Titus, that he set his soldiers" to demolish the city, with all its uoble structures, fortifications, palaces, towers, walls, and other ornaments, down to the level of the ground, according to Christ's express prediction. He left nothing standing but a piece of the western wall, and the three towers of Hippicos, Phasael, and Mariamne, the former to serve as a rampart to his tenth legion, which he left there, and the three latter to give future ages some idea of the strength of the whole city, and of the skill and valour of its conqueror. His orders were so punctually executed, that, except those few buildings above-mentioned, there were not so much as any remains left that could serve as an index, that that ground had been once inhabited." The Jewish tradition adds, that Titus had caused the plough to be driven over it. Possibly, as is observed by the authors of the Universal History, Tome X. p. 690, this account may be somewhat exaggerated, yet I suppose no city was ever more totally destroyed by an enemy. gard of what was done here by the Emperor Hadrian, Sandys gives us the following account of it: "Threescore and five years after (the destruction by Titus) AÆlius Adrianus inflicting on the rebelling Jews, a wonderful slaughter, subverted those remainders, [Hippicos, Phasael, &c.] and sprinkled salt upon the foundation, where, not long after, he built a city, but less in circuit, taking in Mount Calvary, and a part of Mount Gihon, with a valley between, which lay on the left side, and were excluded in the former city, setting over the gate that openeth towards Bethlehem, the portraiture of a swine, prohibiting the Jews for ever to enter, or so much as to look upon it from a more eminent mountain; and after his own name named it Ælia Capitolinat." According to these relations, the principal houses must all have been destroyed, the very form of the city

In re

See also Calmet's Dict. v. Jerusalem.

+ Sandys' Traveis, p. 121.

was altered*, and there must have been á mighty chasm in the tradition concerning the sacred places, since the Jews, by the last Emperor, were excluded from entering the city, and making, consequently, the proper observations upon the sites of the respective places; a fact which must necessarily render those sites extremely precarious and uncer tain, even though the city was not long after inhabited by the Christians. But all this, notwithstanding, the Fathers will shew you with the utmost assurance and preciseness, according to Sandys, for I propose to confine myself to this author, David's tower, his sepulchre, the Conaculum, the house of Annas, and that of Caiaphas, Christ's sepulchre, the house of Zebedee, house of St. Mark, house of St. Thomas, the place where the Jews would have taken away the body of the Blessed Virgin, the fountain of the Blessed Virgin, the place where the palace of Pilate stood, his arch, the place where they met Simon of Cyrene, where Dives lived, who, by the way, was no real person, where the Pharisee dwelt, and Veronica, another imaginary being.

I suppose, Sir, the above may be sufficient to establish the observation I have made on the credulity of the Papists, but, nevertheless, I desire to add a few more places, ex abundantia, such as, where Abraham would have sacrificed Isaac, the stone of the anointing, the exact place where Christ appeared to Mary Magdalen, where she stood, of his apparition to his mother, where he was scourged, and the pillar distained with blood, where the angels stood, where Christ was imprisoned, where his garments were divided, where he was derided, where he was nailed to the cross, where he was crucified, where the Virgin and St. John stood at the time of the passion, &c. &c. &c. Perhaps, Sir, you may hardly think it possible that a set of men, pretending to some share of sense and learning, should be so weak and preposterous as to believe they had discovered the precise scenes of the above transactions, but the fathers are so indubitably convinced of them, that I assure you, Sir, many years indulgencies are granted to those that visit many of the places from a principle of devotion: and, Sir, if you were inclined to accompany Mr. Sandys to Emmaus, Bethlehem, the mountains of Judea, and the environs of Jérusalem, you will find the like marks of the most sottish credulity extending to many pages; for many of those places, as where St. Peter wept, where the Apostles hid

Sée Sandys above cited, as likewise below in that page; also page 122.

themselves, and where Christ prayed, &c. though they are without the city, cannot possibly be at this day better ascertained than those within. But I shall not trouble you, Mr. Urban, with any thing further on the subject, as the sample here given, will, I presume, be sufficient both for yourself and the bulk of your readers.

1763, Dec.

Yours, &c.

T.Row.

LVI. On the Custom of taking Persons to Feasts without Invitations.

MR. URBAN,

PLUTARCH, in his Symposiacs, Book VII. treats of the origin of the custom of guests taking other persons with them to a feast who were not invited to it. He says this custom took its rise from Socrates, who, being invited to an entertainment by Agatho, persuaded Aristodemus, who was not invited, to go with him. It happened that, Socrates stopping by the way, Aristodemus came in before him, whence he obtained the name of umbra or shade, because he came before the person who invited him, as a shadow goes before the body that follows it. Plutarch then proceeds to lay down some rules for the regulation of this custom. He tells us that he who invites others to go with him to a feast, should not invite many, lest he should seem desirous to treat his friends at the expence of another person. He says also, that he should take the acquaintance of his host with him, and if he cannot do that, he should endeavour to suit the persons he takes with him to the genius and disposition of his friend. He then goes on to prescribe some rules to be observed by those who are invited in this manner. He says that if a great man, who is delighted with pomp and much attendance, invite a person to a feast at another person's table, the person invited must immediately refuse. If a friend or acquaintance ask, we must not easily assent, unless when he appears to have occasion for some discourse that cannot be deferred, or is returned from à journey, or is going abroad, or when he either takes only a few more, or us only along with him, or when he designs to introduce us to some worthy person; for if they be bad men, the more they seek to engage us, the more we should resist them. It is also absurd, says he, to go to an unknown person, unless

he be one of excellent virtues, with whom you may begin an acquaintance by this means. We ought, likewise, to go in this manner to those whom we will permit to bring others to us in the same way. We ought, says Plutarch, by no means to go to generals, or rich and powerful men in this manner, lest we should appear impudent, unpolite, or ambitious. This custom of taking persons who are not invited, to entertainments, prevailed also amongst the Romans, as appears from Horace, Lib. II. Sat. VIII.

1763, Dec.

Quos Mæcenas adduxerat umbras.
I am, Sir, &c.

LVII. Account of the Cross in Cheapside, and its Demolition.

MR. URBAN,

THERE has lately fallen into my hands a little print or representation of an incident that is now but little known, or rather is totally forgotten by almost all our historians; and yet deserves in my opinion to be recorded, as it shews the spirit and temper of the times in which it happened; the apprehensions the people in general were under from the terrors of popery; and the zeal they shewed in the demolition of the last remains of that idolatry in this great metropolis.

The incident here alluded to is the pulling down the old cross in Cheapside, erected, as Strype says, in 1290, by Edward I. at the last resting place of the remains of his deceased queen, in its progress from Herdeby, where she died, to Westminster-abbey, where she was interred. This cross was on this occasion adorned with the queen's image and arms, and afterwards_enriched with the statues of saints, martyrs, and popes. In process of time it became still more considerable and useful, and conduits were added to it for supplying the city with water, which was brought in leaden pipes from a spring at three miles distance; and a public granary was erected over them to provide against the scarcity of corn, that the city should not be distressed for want of bread.

This cross, according to Strype, if I understand him right, is wholly different from the late conduit that was removed from Cheapside, being situated in quite a different part of

VOL. I.

Ꭱ

the street; and the silence of our historians on its demolition, seems to be the more inexcusable, as it appears to have been an object of public attention in more reigns than one.

In that of Henry VI. letters patent were issued for rebuilding and enlarging it, conferring a pre-eminence upon it as the grand aqueduct from whence all other aqueducts were to be supplied for the use of the city; and the public granary was also included in that patent, in order to provide against the calamities of famine, to which all populous cities in the then low state of agriculture, were at certain periods liable to be exposed. The water that supplied the aqueduct was brought in leaden pipes from the pond between Highgate and Hampstead; and the corn that supplied the granary was bought up at the public expence in years of plenty, and reserved to years of dearth, when it was retailed out at an equal price to rich and poor, that neither might have reason to complain of the arts of engrossers, or the exorbi tant profits of ordinary retailers.

The common utility by this means increased the common respect. This cross being the great object of public convenience, became, in consequence, the chief object of the magistrates' attention. All men's eyes were directed to the great fountain from whence issued the two grand articles for the support of life, water and bread. In 1484, the citizens of London raised a subscription to repair and beautify it, and it was then considered as the greatest ornament of the great metropolis. In 1522 it was new gilt with gold, on the arrival of the Emperor Charles V. At the coronation of Edward VI. it received a new polish; and before the coronation of Queen Mary, all the decorations that could flatter Popish idolatry were bestowed upon it. At the public entry of King Philip of Spain, it was again re-touched, and magnificently ornamented; but soon after the accession of Queen Elizabeth to the throne, it began to be disregarded. In 1581, the lower images, to which the superstition of Popish times inclined idolatrous people to pay divine honours, were defaced and broken down; the image of the Blessed Virgin was at that time deprived of her infant son; the arms that held him in her lap were broken; and her body mangled in a rude and heretical manner. The rage of party generally breaks forth into extremes. In the room of the beautiful statue of the Blessed Virgin, a frightful figure of Diana took place, with a kind of rude machinery to force water from her naked breast, which, however, sometimes ran, but oftener appeared dry.

Before the year 1599 the timbers that supported the