of it, I believe, that has ever appeared; and his conjectures carry with them as much weight and conviction as we can expect, considering the very remote antiquity of the fabric, and the rudeness of the times when it was erected. The Doctor is of opinion, that the stones were brought from those called the Grey-Weathers, on Marlborough Downs; that it was built by the Druids, before the arrival of the Romans in Britain; and that it was once perfect and complete, many of the stones having been since broken to pieces, and carried away for other uses.

But some people, thinking the stones much too large for land-carriage, have endeavoured to account for their present appearance, by supposing them to be made on the spot, of a kind of cement. This opinion is adopted by Benjamin Martin, in his Natural History of England, Vol. I. p. 101, and seqq. who likewise dissents from the Doctor in some other particulars. His words are as follow: "As to the original of Stone-henge, it does not appear, from all that he has said, that it was certainly a finished temple at first, or ever built by the Druids; and we think he has not so much as made it probable that the stones which compose it are natural or not factitious." But, as Dr. Stukeley's conjectures appear to me well founded, I beg leave to subjoin a few remarks in defence of them, against B. Martin's objections, which I shall consider separately. And,

First, I shall endeavour to prove, that the temple was once in a perfect state, which opinion B. Martin attempts to refute. He says, that "he cannot see any reason to suppose that this temple was ever complete or finished, because it is confessed, that a great number of stones, and many of the largest size, are now wanting, and no where to be found, which must be supposed to have been there used when the temple was completed. The prodigious labour, time, and expense, employed in demolishing such a structure, to answer no end at the same time, make it more than probable that it was never once completed; but, what is still a greater proof of this, is, that those stones which are now wanting, must still have been in being, and would have been seen or found at no great distance from the place."--Indeed, if no end was answered by demolishing this noble work, it is highly probable we should have seen it in a much more perfect state than we do at present; but I think his argument will prove of little weight, when we consider, that they might be broken to pieces, and used for building, which is no more to be wondered at than that men should dig stones out of quarries for the same purpose. This very well accounts for

their being no where to be found; and, considering that Stone-henge has stood for many hundred years liable to such treatment, the labour, time, and expense employed therein, cannot be thought so much as to overthrow my supposition. Another circumstance that pleads strongly in favour of Dr. Stukeley is, that Stone-henge appears to have been long used for a temple; the many tumuli placed round it, and the remains of sacrifices said to be found there, are strong proofs of this; and it is the greatest absurdity to believe that such veneration and regard would have been ever paid to an unfinished pile.

In the next place, B. Martin thinks it does not appear that the Druids were the founders of this temple. It is true, we can in this particular go no farther than mere conjecture, not having any certain account of its building left us; but the Druids have, in my opinion, a much better claim to the honour of the work, than any other people that are thought to have any pretensions to it. That it is of equal antiquity with most other edifices of the same kind in this island cannot be doubted, and, as some of them are crossed and mangled by the Roman ways*, it is evident they were erected before the arrival of the Romans, at which time the Druids presided over the worship and religious ceremonies of the Britons; and, as Stone-henge is allowed to have been a temple, they may with great reason be thought the founders of it. I think it is plain, from what has been just said, that the Romans can have no claim to it, notwithstanding this was the opinion of the celebrated Inigo Jones; but though he had undoubtedly great merit as an architect, yet I cannot allow that his abilities as an antiquary were equal; at least, his conjectures on Stone-henge are far from being probable, as it is incredible, that a people so famous as the Romans for the beauty and elegance of their buildings, both at home and abroad, should ever construct a work so very rude and void of all ornaments as Stone-henge has always been.

I come now to consider what is offered by B. Martin in support of his notion, that the stones of Stone-henge are factitious. This was, doubtless, invented as the only resource of those who think it impossible for such ponderous bodies to be moved from one place to another by human art. The folly of such an opinion will appear, when we reflect, that, in an old wall surrounding the famous temple

* Beauties of Nature and Art, vol. II. p. 151.

at Balbec, there are stones of much larger dimensions than any of those at Stone-henge; for we are told, that one of them is sixty-three feet in length, and two others sixty a piece, each of them being twelve feet deep, and of the same breadth, and these prodigious stones are also raised up into the wall many feet from the ground*: and that they are natural, cannot be doubted; their being three separate pieces is a sufficient proof of this, as they lie contiguous to each other. I could bring other examples from authentic history, both ancient and modern, to prove what amazing weights may be managed by human art, the methods of doing which were not unknown to the Druids, if we allow Stone-henge to be their work; since I think enough has been alleged to convince any body that the stones of Stone-henge may be natural. Besides, if they were factitious, how could the imposts be made of a different piece from the uprights? would not all the pieces have been united into one block of stone? It may be said, that the imposts were formed into their shape on the ground, and then lifted up into their places; but those who plead for the stones being artificial, are such as think it impossible to lift such heavy bodies to the height of 18 or 20 feet. Admitting, then, that these stones are natural, it is very probable that they were brought from Marlborough Downs; for though it is objected that there are now none among the Grey-Weathers equal to the smaller ones of Stone-henge, yet this by no means proves that there were not some much larger before the building of that temple,, but instead thereof, it makes the contrary opinion very plausible, and that the materials of Stone-henge actually came from thence; which I doubt not will appear very practicable, as they might employ a vast number of hands in a work of so public a nature, and perhaps were months, if not years, in performing the task of bringing each of them so far.

I hope the above is sufficient to vindicate the sentiments of the learned antiquary before-mentioned: I shall therefore conclude by adding, that his many opportunities of examining Stone-henge, and his great abilities in searching into antiquity, render his authority very respectable; and as his conjectures on the present subject are plausible, so it is likely we shall never see any hypothesis better grounded than that he has favoured us with.

1774, May.

* Beauties of Nature and Art, vol. X. p. 112,

LXXVIII. Auncient Ordre for hallowinge of the Crampe Rings, &c.

[From a MS. belonging to the late Mr. Anstis, now to the Duke of Northumberland.]

FIRSTE, the kinge to come to the chappell or clossett, withe the lords and noblemen waytinge upon him, without any sword borne before hime as that day, and ther to tarrie in his travers until the bishope and the deane have brought in the crucifixe out of the vestrie, and layd it upon the cushion before the highe alter. And then the usher to lay a carpet for the kinge to creepe to the crosse upon and that done, ther shall be a forme sett upon the carpett before the crucifixe, and a cushion laid upon it for the kinge to kneale upon. And the master of the jewell house ther to be ready with the crampe rings in a bason of silver, and the kinge to kneele upon the cushion before the forme. And then the clerke of the closett be redie with the booke concerninge the halowinge of the crampe rings, and the aumer muste kneele on the right hand of the kinge, holdinge the sayd booke. When that is done, the kinge shall rise and go to the alter, wheare a gent. usher shall be redie with a cushion for the kinge to kneele upon and then the greatest lords that shall be ther, to take the bason with the rings, and beare them after the king to offer. And this done, the queene shall come down out of her clossett or traverse into the chappell, with ladyes and gentlewomen waitinge upon her, and creepe to crosse, and then goe agayne to her clossett or traverse. And then the ladyes to creep to the crosse likewise, and the lords and noble, men likewise."

Dr. Percy, who has printed this curious extract at the end of his notes on Northumberland Household-book, observes, that our ancient kings, even in the dark times of superstition, do not seem to have affected to cure the king's evil; at least this MS. gives no hint of any such power. This miraculous gift was left to be claimed by the Stuarts; our ancient Plantagenets were humbly content to cure the cramp. The doctor adds, that, in 1536, when the convocation under Henry the VIII. abolished some of the old superstitious practices, this of creeping to the crosse, on Good Friday, &c. was ordered to be retained as a laudable and edifying custom. See Herbert's Life of Henry VIII. It appears, in the Northumberland Household-book, to have been observed in the earl's family, the value of the offerings then made by himself, his lady, and his sons, being there severally ascertained.

There is also specified a candle to be offered by each of the above persons on St. Blase's day; on which the learned editor observes, that "the anniversary of St. Blasius is the 3d of February, when it is still the custom, in many parts of England, to light up fires on the hills on St. Blase's night; a custom anciently taken up, perhaps for no better reason than the jingling resemblance of his name to the word

blaze."

1774, June.

D. H.

LXXIX. Ancient Baptisteries, Lavatories, &c.
MR. URBAN,

THE sensible and lively author of the book entitled, "A Walk in and about the City of Canterbury," has, at p. 105, given a new name to the circular building, vulgarly called Bell Jesus, situated near the north door of that cathedral; but, when Mr. Gostling ventured to be sponsor upon this occasion, I am suspicious he might not recollect, that few old baptisteries are to be traced in the churches and chapels formerly belonging to the monasteries in this kingdom. Archbishop Edmund, in his Constitutions, published about the year 1236, directed a stone font to be provided for every baptismal church: which Lyndwood interprets to be a church having the people (i e. the laity) connected with it; "for," adds this eminent civilian, "in a collegiate or conventual church, which has not the people, there ought to be no font*." Keysler, in his Travels, vol. ii. p. 44, 45, has given a particular description of the baptistery at Florence, mentioned by Mr. G. in which this traveller informs

* Baptisterium habeatur in qualibet ecclesia baptismali (a) lapideum, &c. (a) Baptismali] Sive cathedrali, sive parochiali; tali nempe quæ habet populum: nam in ecclesiâ collegiatâ, vel conventuali, quæ non habet populum, non debet esse baptisterium, &c.

The writer was from the first doubtful whether there might not be an instance or two to the contrary of what he has here advanced, and, since he finished his letter, he has discovered, that a bishop of Coventry granted to the abbey of Haghmon, in Shropshire, an officer, whose province it was to baptize as well Jews as infants, and who was to discharge parochial duty for the servants and domestics in that monastery. But the reverend author of the Preface to Tanner's Notit. Monast. p. 29, mentions this to be a very different sacristan from what usually belonged to other religious houses. It may also be remarked, that Haghmon-abbey was a fraternity of regular Austin canous and not Benedictines, the monks of which stricter order were settled in all our ca. thedral priories, Carlisle.excepted.