aforesaid dimensions thereof; yet, for my part, I can apprehend no valid reasons to the contrary, except that the whole constructure being circular in form, the altar shewed rather to have been placed upon the centre of the circle than inclined to the circumference." And Stukeley says, that it is" at present flat on the ground, and squeezed (as it were) into it by the weight of the ruins upon it. It is a kind of blue, coarse marble, such as comes from Derbyshire." King thinks it "has marks of burning upon it still remaining;" while Dr. Smith says, that "this altar will not bear the fire." And he adds, "I tried a fragment of it in a crucible: it soon changed its bluish to an ash colour, and, in a stronger fire, was reduced to powder." Irrespective of this consideration, however, we conceive that it is not an altar-stone; for, first, if it was an altar, even of incense (for an altar of burnt-offering, if we may take the Jewish ritual for our guide, would be without the building), we might expect to see it in the centre, or near the centre, but this is at the upper end of the ellipsis. Secondly, Its form is not that of an altar, its dimensions being sixteen feet long, four broad, and twenty inches thick-if laid on the ground, therefore, it would be too low; if raised, it would be too high, and not spacious enough. Wherefore, we conceive it to be either a pillar, on which some object of adoration was placed-an image of the sun, or sacred fire, as an emblem of it, for instance, or even an object of adoration itself. In favour of the forF 3

mer opinion, its situation before thrown down (so thrown down, probably, on renouncing idolatry), would be just in the right place, leaving room for the Arch-Druid to burn incense before it; or, if the latter, the same: to which may be added, 1. That, as we have proved before, stones were really objects of adoration in Britain; 2. That the stone is different from all the rest. Thus Stukeley represents it as a kind of blue marble; King calls it a long black stone; and Moore, in his "History of Ireland," says, "that it has been lately discovered, on examination, to be black." 3. Other stones that have been objects of adoration have been found to be black. Thus Maurice, in his "Indian Antiquities," observes, "that the idol in the celebrated temple of Juggernaut is black." Gibbon says, "that the Phoenicians of Emesa offered up their vows to a stone that was black, invoking it as a symbol of the sun, by the mystic name Elagabalus."+ And Moore speaks of a curious cavern near Drogheda, in Ireland, where there is a pyramidal obelisk, thought to have been consecrated to the sun. Unless we conceive of it thus, as designed to exhibit an idol on its top, or as being the idol itself, how shall we account for the presence of a stone so different in form, in size, and in quality from all the rest?

* و

Thus from the statements above made of this extraordinary structure, and the remarks concern* Conjecture concerning Stonehenge, p. 69.

+ Gibbon, vol. i. p. 6.

ing it, some judgment, it is presumed, may be formed of what kind of monument it is, or rather has been, that we have under consideration. Our minds are now, therefore, prepared for a general definition of its origin, design, and use. We conceive, then,

That Stonehenge was a place of general assembly of the states and inhabitants of Britain, for the celebration of their public religious festivals, for the inauguration of their kings, and for general councils; that it was built by the direction of the Druidical priesthood as originally Phoenician, under the patronage of the British states; and that the stones were conveyed and the building was constructed by the use of rollers, &c. Moreover, that, besides the area, or court, and the trench, the barrows are connected with it; and that these latter are burying-places of the honoured dead.

Whether this general view of the subject be founded in probability, perhaps, will best appear by an attention to its several particulars, and that in their order.

First. We conceive it was a place of general assembly of the states and inhabitants of Britain, for the celebration of their public religious festivals.

From time immemorial it has been the custom of nations to hold religious festivals at stated seasons. So it was with the ancient nation of Israel. Thrice a year all their males, princes and

priests, elders and people, assembled at the place of sacrifice, and offered their solemn sacrifices, viz. at the feast of unleavened bread, at the feast of weeks, and at the feast of tabernacles; and very much akin to this was the custom of the British Isles to assemble together in the calends of May, at Midsummer in June, and in the beginning of November. As did Israel, so did the Britons combine with these feasts the offering of sacrifices; and hence we call them religious festivals. There they sacrificed to their gods, sung their praises, and made their orations or prayers, as was the custom among the nations of Greece and Rome, and others.

Perhaps we shall not err, if we say, that at Stonehenge there were, on certain occasions, meetings of the inhabitants of the British Isles for the worship of the sun and heavenly bodies.

Various hypotheses have been advanced by the different writers on this subject, from Jeffery of Monmouth down to Sir R. C. Hoare, and very lately a Mr. Brown; but, were we to discuss them all, with the reasons by which they have been supported, or might be opposed, the spirit of inquiry would be completely exhausted; we shall content ourselves, therefore, with observing, that we concur with Dr. Stukeley in considering it as a Druidical temple, and of course a place of general assembly for religious purposes. That it was a Druidical fabric, the authors of the "Universal History" admit; but they differ from Dr. S., by supposing

it to be a sepulchral monument. Their hypothesis, however, appears to be founded upon oversight, for the reason of their dissent from Dr. S. is, that "the patriarchs are no where recorded to have reared anything but bare altars:" and hence they conclude that such a building as this, consisting of circles of stones, could not have its origin from Phoenicia ; whereas, though the patriarchs are not recorded to have raised any thing but altars or pillars, yet their immediate descendants, the Israelites, did; for in the time of Moses and Joshua, they reared circles of stones; one at the foot of Mount Sinai, and another in Gilgal, each of which places is near the Phoenician territory. And then, in supposing that the sepulchral remains found in the barrows supply a reason for concluding that the structure itself is a sepulchral monument, they overlook the idea that a superstitious veneration for the sacred building, inducing the wish of being interred within sight of it, might sufficiently account for the circumstance. Thus the Jews think it a privilege to be buried near Jerusalem, or in the valley of Jehoshaphat; thus, too, the Christian world in general wish to be interred in or near their places of public worship.

We shall now assign the reasons for supposing it to be a place of general assembly, and that for public worship. The name given it by the ancient Britons," Choir Ghaur," is here worthy of notice. The words, according to Dr. Stukeley, signify "Great Church," which may not be far from the