the old Roman prieft that then lived abfcondedly in Oxon (for, to him he often retired to receive inftructions as to matters in religion), yet he would feldom or never go to prayers, for which he was often admonifhed by the fub-rector of his house. At length, feeming to be weary of the herefy. of thofe times, he receded without a degree to his patrimony; where also refusing to go to his parifh-church, he was imprifoned about 1572. But, being after fet at liberty. he became more zealous in his religion, defending it againit the Proteftant Minifters, and not only confirmed and ftrengthened many wavering Catholicks therein, but wrote alfo feveral valid reafons for the not going of Catholicks to Proteftant churches; for

which being likely to fuffer, he withdrew, and lived abfcondedly. In 1980, when Campion and Partons, the Jesuits, came into the miffion of England, he retired to London, found them out, and thewed himself exceedingly civil, and exhibited to them liberally; whereupon bringing himself into a Præmunire, and forefecing great danger to come on him and all Catholicks, he went as a voluntary exile into France anno 1582, where he became a zealous folicitor in the caufe of Mary Queen of Scots, with the King of France and Duke of Guife, for her relief, though in vain. After her decollation, and all hopes of the Catholicks fruf trated for the prefent, he left that counts

and the rather becaufe he at that time had

buried his wife, and forthwith went into Spain for fome years, and there he became a zealous agitator in the royal court for the rehief of Catholicks and their religion in EngJand; but his actions, and the labours of many more, being fruftrated by the Spaniards' repulfe in 188, he, under pretence of being weary with the troubles and toils of life, receded to Milan with the Duke of Feria:

whenes, after some continuance there, he went to Rome, where he was initiated in facred orders, took a lodging near to the Engl fh college, and obferved all hours and times of religion, as they in the college did, by the found of their hell; and there compofed certain books, of which that against Machiavel was one. A certain author of lide or no note, named] mes Wadhworth*, tells us, that the fed homias Fitzherbert had been before a peufioner and spy to the King of Span in France; and his fervice being paffed, and his penfion failing him, out of pure nccedity he and his man were conftrained to turn Jetvits or eife tarve; and he, being a-wortig fcholar and great pelitician, was very welcome to that order. But let this report remain with the th, who is characterized by a Proteftand writer to be a refiegado proflyte turncot, of any re

ligion, and every trade, now living (1655) a common hackney to the baseft catchpole bailiffs, &c. while I proceed. In 1613-14 he took upon him the habit of the Society of Jefus, on the feaft of the Purification, initiated therein on the vigil of the Annunciation following, and on the next day he fung his firft mats. Afterwards he prefided the ****** Cætera defiderantur. R. L.

ON THE DIVERSITIES OF SENTIMENT AND FEELING IN DIFFERENT RACES OF MEN.

THO

HOUGH fome few leading principles of right and wrong feem ingrafted in the minds of every people, yet there are very remarkable diverfities of fentiment and feeling, diftinguishing different races of men, as ftrongly almcft as the varieties of their external conformation.

The antient Thracians, or the modern Dalmatians, lamenting the birth of their offspring, and rejoicing at the death of their friends, appear to have inverted the common feelings of Nature: the circumftance is well attefted. Nor is it lefs true, that the fierce Giagas children as foon as born, and to fupply are accustomed to bury moft of their the places of their infant victims by earing up the captive children of their enemies. The American favages abandon their aged parents to a miferable fate; conveying them to a diftant or fo. litary fpot, and leaving them there to perish. There are fome, indeed, who eat their parents, deeming it a mark of high refpe&t to bury the authors of their exiftence in their own bodies. The Ja-. panese are a very extraordinary people: they invariably revenge an injury or affront on themfelves. If greatly nfulted, they rip up their own bodies without a moment's hehtation; and, fhould they expofe themielves to ridicule, they inftantly prefer death to thame. In diftrefs they never fupplicate the Deity, fince they think the prayers of the wretched would disturb the tranquillity of the god; but, in profperous circumInces, they addrefs the gods with the voice of aderation and gratitude.

To

To what fource can we refer these ftrange diverfities of fentiment and conduct? Shall we fay to cuftom? To no other caufe can they reafonably be attributed. The laws of cuftom, when once established, are as ftrongly coercive as thofe of Nature. Yet, obferving the undifputed dominion of custom, we wonder at the durability of its power: while we trace back its tyranny through ages, we afk with aftonishment when it was first generated on earth? To what mighty revolution are we to afcribe its origin? Though, in the examples I have cited, it is fo directly oppofite to Nature and Reafon that we cannot imagine it exifting at the fame time, yet it feems almoft coeval with both.

There are fome who have afferted, that God created different fpecies of men in the beginning, impreffing on them different external forms, and infufing into them different principles of action. Thefe diftin&tions, it feems, they have ever fince retained; and, with this idea, the Naturalift takes his comparative view of the European, the African, or the American.

But, as this hypothefis contradicts the Mofaic Hiftory, the more modeft enquirer, conceding the defcent of the whole human race from Adam, hath referred this wonderful dive fity in the bodily and mental conftitutions to the difperfion at the tower of Babel; when, with the varieties of language, might have originated the varieties of figure, colour, fenfation, fentiment.

Adopting either of thefe fuppofitions, we must attribute the hoftile oppofition of moral principles to an immediate act of Providence. To this I can by no means accede. Grant it, however, for a moment. As thefe moral differences are contradictory, they cannot all be The Deity, therefore, impreffed a train of irrefiftible falfehoods on fome races of men, Can fallehood come from the God of Truth?

true.

In every communication of God with man, the principles of natural religion (according to the more prevailing conception of it) have been appealed to as felf-evident truths, originally allowed and embraced by all. With thefe first principles, with thefe indubitable truths, the Revelations of God univerially confit. The different trains of fentiment, therefore, that influence the conduct of thofe who are faid to be diftin& races of men, could never have proceeded from God,

Thefe furprising differences then, however permanent, extenfive, or powerful, are furely deviations from that ftandard of immutable morality which was at first fet up in the view of all mankind.

In the fame manner, thofe varieties of figure, fhape, or colour, diftinguishing the nations that have loft fight of the genuine morality, are deviations from the original prototypes of human beauty, difplayed in the perfons of our firft parents.

There have been doubts refpe&ting the form or complexion of our hit parents, and confequently refpecting their proper or regular defcendants; fince one race of men or another must have greatly degenerated.

But the mental degeneracy (which is evidently not ours) will determine, I conceive, the question about the bodily; they are both equally unaccountable. The one, however, may be as cafily fuppofed as the other.

The most aftonishing circumftance is, that even they, who have departed the fartheft from the true image of man, have been fixed to the very fame point of diverfity for ages.

In cafes of degeneracy, it is not ufual to fee the line drawn beyond which the degenerated cannot go. Notwithstanding this, the African, for inftance, was defcribed, in very remote times, as poffelling the fame peculiarities which at this moment diftinguish him,

On this puzzling fubje&t we may ftart a thousand difficulties without one fatisfactory folution.

As to moral diftinctions, we may ask, why a benevolent God permits half the human fpecies to be thus gre fly deluded from generation to generation? But, we may ask with equal propriety, whether it be confiftent with the divine attribute of goodness (to fay nothing of truth) to fuffer the greater part of mankind to be impofed on by the falfe religions that obtain in the world?

Such enquiries, however, ought not to be purfucd, fince we hall never be competent judges of the matter till we are let into the myfteries of Providence,

For the prefent, we may depend on one indifputable fact, that all the races of men, however widely they may dif fer in other refpects, concur in the be lief and the worship of a fuperintendiag God. Whatever may be their diffentions as to other truths, in this fundamental article they univerfally and harmoniously agree.

P.

Mr.

times.

To Brihtric, king of Weffex, fucceeded Egbert, the illuftrious English monarch, commonly ftyled Egbert the Great, who first reduced the feveral kingdoms of the heptarchy, to fpeak generally, under one head. He afcended the throne of Weffex in the year 800, was chofen monarch a. $19, and finished his conquefts about the year 827 or 828. The name of this prince is verv differently written on his coins, Hecbearht, Ecgbearht, Ecgbearht, Eccberht, Ecgbeorht, and Ecgberht; an argument that our orthography was by no means well fettled at this time. The latt example is taken from a coin in the Cotton library, which may be defcribed thus ECGBERht, R. a human figure ftanding between two croffes. R. EDTBERETV, and in the middle a small crofs.

When I confider the name on the reverfe, and recollect that it is the fame that occurs on the penny ufually adjudged by our connoiffeurs to Edbert, king of Northumberland, I cannot help imagining that coin belong to our Egbert too. Edbert afcended the throne of Northumberland anno 737; and whereas Mr. Speed allors a penny, with the infeription EGT BEREETVS, and a dragon on the reverfe, to Ethelbert king of Kent, the firft Chriftia king of the Saxon race, our later antiquaries eafily difcovered that the name approached nearer to Eadbert king of Northumberland, and accordingly they complimented him with it; fo Mr. Walker, Mr. Thorefby, Sir Andrew Fountaine, and the digefter of the Earl of Pembroke's collection.

This was formerly one of the Cotton coins, but is now milling; however, there was another extant in Mr. Thorefby's Mateum, third is at prefent ja Lord Pembroke's 2, a third in Mr. John White's, and a afth I have "myf. to that the lois is not inseparable. But am prone to releve, that the

penny belongs to neither of thefe princes, but to Egbert, the Weft Saxon. My reafons are, first, that I have never obferved the king's name on the coins to be Latin 3; fecondly, that EGTBEREDTVI, or rather EGT BEREhTVI (for fo I hazard to correct Speed's reading by Lord Pembroke's coin, by mine, and the reverfe of Egbert's penny in the Cotton library as abovementioned; the tail of the S too is very plain in my piece 4) recedes too far from Eadbert, as this king's name is invariably written by the ancients, and as the etymology of it requires 5. And I take it to be a very different name, viz. Otbert, the former part of which compound, of or obt, fignifies terror, and occurs in Otic 7, Othwin, Othulf 9, Otfrid 10, &c. and probably might otherwise be written more fully and more antiquely EOT, and before a vowel EOD. 3dly, that the mintmaster's name always appears upon the regal coins in one place or other 21, but it will be abfent from this penny, unless the word Eotberehtus reprefents it; which, therefore, I take to, be the minter's, and not the king's name. Whereupon it may be neceffary to ob ferve that there are coins in being, as in the prefent cafe, which prefent us with the name of the minter alone, without that of the perfon for whom he wrought 12. If this affertion can be admitted, as I think in all reafon it ought, it will prove, fourthly, very clearly and ftrongly, that the coin muft appertain to Egbert, the Weft Saxon monarch, fince it appears fo plainly from the coin already produced from the Cotton collection, that this prince actually had a workman of that name. The weight too con

3 The cafe is different in the prelatical coins..

4 These angular S's feem to be taken from the Runic,

5 Chron. Sax. ubique; and Gibfon, ad idem, pp. 51, 52.

6 Hickes's Thefaur. parti. p. 131.
7 Fountaine, tab. V. Eadmund, No. 13,
& Ibid. tab. IX. Off, No. 11.

9 Chron. Sax. an. DCCCCXI. IC De quo Hickefius Gram, Theotifc. p. 5. 11 I know but of one exception, and there the name is cafually omitted; fee Mr. Pegge's Differtation on the famous coin of king Ælfred, with his head.

12 See Series of Anglo-Saxon Remains, No. II. and the obfervations, in the Ellay on Metropolitical Coins, concerning a coin of Uther Pendragon fpires;

fpires; for, though Mr. Thorefby's piece weighs but 13 grains, mine, which is very fair, amounts to 164, which is but one grain fhort of the undoubted Egbert in the Cotton library.

But, left it fhould feem ftrange to any gentleman, that the king's name thould be omitted on his coins, I defire to add to what was remarked above, that, by the dragon on this coin, it was fufficiently made known at the time by whofe authority it was ftamped. I fhail illuftrate this by an example or two. In Sir Andrew Fountaine, Tab. VI. Eadmund, No 25, the obverfe is, SC EAD. MVND RE, R VVINIFR MONETAI, in which cafe though the abbat be not mentioned, yet every one could tell whence the penny was iffued, namely, that it was minted by the abbat of St. Edmundsbury. So tab IX. Numifmata inceria, No. 6. The infcription on the obverfe is LVNING MONETA, on the R DOROBERNIA CIVITAS only, and yet it was known every where by the effigies, at the time when the penny was first made, that it was ftrucken by the then fitting archbishop of Canterbury. Wherefore, if our dragon fhews the piece to be coined in Weffex, no matter where, it would with great certainty be taken and efteemed to be the current money of the king then and there reigning, to wit, of Egbeit the Great. And the dragon, the figure depicted on it, afcertains it fufficiently to that province, by reafon that the - Weft Saxon monarchs ufed the dragon for their enign or banner. In proof of which, as likewife for the antiquity of the device, I beg leave to cite a few of our old writers.

Jeffrey of Monmouth, after giving us an account of the poifoning of Ambrofius Aurelianus at Winchester, adds, "Hæc dum Guyntonia agerentur apparuit ftella miræ magnitudinis et clarita tis uno radio contenta: ad radium vero erat globus igneus in fimilitudinem draconis extenfus: et ex ore illius procedebant duo radii quorum unus longitudinem fuam u'tra Gallicanum clima videbatur extendere; alter vero verfus Hybernicum mare vergens in feptem minores radios terminabatur." Every one was frightened with this strange appearance in the heavens, and Uther, the brother of Ambrofius, amongst the reft; who, leading an army then into Wales, confulted, the wife concerning the import and fignification of it, but efpecially Merlin; who, being brought into

his prefence, was commanded to declare the meaning of the phænomenon. Merlin anfwered, in his prophetical way, that the comet and the dragon fig. nified Uther, te enim dus iftud fignificat et igneus draco fu fidere. Uther, after he had afcended the throne on his brother's death, "reminifcens expofitionis quam Merlinus de fupradicto fidere fecerat, juffit fabricari dues dracones ex auro, ad draconis fimilitudinem quem ad ftellæ radium infpexerat. Qui ut mira arte fabricati fuerunt, obtulit unum in ecclefia primæ fedis Guyntoniæ, alterum vero fibi ad ferendum in pralia detinuit. Ab illo ergo die vocatus fuit Uther Pendragon, quod Britannica lingua caput draconis appellamus. Idcirco hanc appellationem recepit, quia Merlinus eum in regem per draconem prophetaverit1."

Matthew, the monk of Westminster, related this from Jeffrey in much the fame words, and then fubjoins, "unde ufque hodie mos inolebit regibus terra bujus, quod pro vexillo draconem in bellicis expeditionibus ante fe ftatuerint deferendum." You ar are at liberty, Sır. to believe as much or as little of this as you please; perhaps you may find reafon to fufpend your affent both as to the fignification, and the ground or occafion, of this famous furname of King Uther 3, as likewife as to the time when the dragon first began to be used in the banners of this ifland 4; but the autho rity of thefe writers will be valid notwithflanding; for, the banner hung up in Winchester church, and the practice of the Weft Saxons in fighting under the dragon as their enfign. And, to prevent any one's fufpecting the words of Florilegus, regibus bujus terræ, of antiquity, imagining they may be reftrained to the British, and not extend to the Saxon monarchs, Hoveden and Matthew will afford us irrefragable proof of the Saxons marshalling themfelves under this banner. For, whereas the latter fays, "thelbaldus vero [rex Mercia] præcedente Æthelhuno cum vexillo ejus, in quo erat aureus