true hiftory of Somerled's birth and character of his difputes with the Kings of Scotland and Man-—of his laft great armament and death, was this:His ancestors were perfons of confiderable influence, though greatly inferior to him. He foon began to extend his power- he wrefted half of the ifles out of the hands of Godred, King of Man--he made war on Malcolm, King of Scotland--a battle was fought, but the controverfy was not decided. Malcolm, directed by his natural clemency, or more probably by reafons of ftate, adjusted all his differences with Somerled in an amicable way. After this agreement, the ambitious thane taking advantage of his brother-in-law's unpopular adminiftration, and the inteftine commotions confequent upon it, feized on many of thofe ifles which made a part of the Norwegian dynafty of the ifles. Twe fuccefsful fea-fights eftablished the right which the ftrength of his arms and political intrigues had given him to that acquifition. An increase of power fo great must have made him the object of public jealoufy more than ever. A wife miniftry faw the neceffity of humbling a perfon already too powerful to be a good subject; and no

doubt fome of the nobles of Scotland were willing to facrifice him to their avarice. Somerled faw the danger with which he was threatned, and took every precaution to defeat the machinations of his enemies. He formed the bold defign of rendering himself totally independent of the crown. He had no reason to dread much from the

magnanimity or addrefs of Malcolm; and accordingly having collected a great body of men, not only in Argyle and the ifles, but likewife in Ireland, where he had connections, he made a defcent on Clydefdale. The King's generals took the shortest and most effectual, though an ignominious way of

*Ware's Ant. of Irel. chap. 24.

ending the difpute. They bribed a perfon from whom Somerled could have no fears, and by his means got him affaffinated. The rebels difperled immediately; but the loyalifts were too weak to purfue their fuccefs. They permitted the Highlanders to retire unmolefted, and the fons of Somerled to divide his overgrown estate among themfelves.

Godred, King of the ifles, was obliged to yield a confiderable divifion of his hereditary territories, as related above, and was likewife ftript in a short time of the dominions he had acquired in Ireland. We learn from the annals of that kingdom, that Dermit nan gaul and his fon-in-law, the famous Earl of Pembroke, took Dublin, the capital of the dominions of the Easterlings, in the year 1170*, and that the troops fent from Man to recover it, next year, were totally defeated, and their leaders flain...

Godred died in the year 1187, during the winter feason, and his body was in the following fummer conveyed to I-colm-cille t. It has been obferved already, that this King muft very probably be one of thefe Norwegian Kings, who according to the Scottish hiftorians lie buried in Iona.

Olave, furnamed the Black, the only legitimate fon left by Godred, had been declared heir by his father, and by the pope's legate: but as he was too young to affume the reigns of government, the people of Man made his natural bro ther Reginald King in his ftead. We are told by the hiftorians of Norway, that Reginald was the most famous warrior in the Weftern parts of Eu rope, during his time ‡.It had been the practice of fome famous pirates among the old Normans to live for three years without entering under the roof of a houfe which emmitted any smoke. Reginald had conformed himself to that cuftom, and became of course capable

of

ng hardships of every kind. tly lived upon good terms ing's of England, and studige thofe of Scotland. At of William the Lion he un recover Caithness out of of Harold, Earl of Orkney, dit. After apprehending Olave, and committing him or presuming to ask a more e maintenance than the Es and fterile ifland of d afford him, he delivered e hands of William, to preil war; and the innocent kept in prifon during the monarch +. To be continued.)

's Cenfure af Bifhop WAR

JRTON examined.

f. Voltaire's Questions fur lopedie there is a heavy n the Bishop of Gloucefter; effes himself in these words: on has abused Cicero and ne, as well as his own co- He has the affurance to granted, that Cicero thus imself in his oration for Majeftatem imperii non detantum Deus colatur, i. e. tent with the dignity of the pire to worship one God d! who could have thought ne fyllable like this, either on for Flaccus, or in any of Cicero's works! Some vere alledged against Flacpretorate of Afia Minor. ivately perfecuted by the then swarmed in Rome; ad purchased their enfrant the fame time that PomCraffus, having taken Jefed their petty king Alexfon of Ariftobulus, to be laccus prohibited the curold and filver coin in Jeruafe the Jews altered it, and

commerce fuffered by it. What was fraudulently conveyed, he afterwards feized. This coin, fays Cicero, is ftill in the treasury, and Flaccus has con ducted himself as difinterestedly as Pompey. Cicero afterwards, in his peculiar ironical way, proceeds thus "Every country has its religion; we have ours. While Jerufalem was yet free, and the Jews lived in peace, thofe Jews held in abomination the splendor of the Roman empire, the dignity of the Roman name, and the inftitutions of our ancestors. That nation has now shown by its arms what ideas it ought to entertain of the Roman Empire. It has flown by its valour how dear it is to the gods! All this it has proved by being conquered, difperfed, enflaved!" In short, neither Cicero, nor any other Roman writer, ever let fall an expreffion in the leaft importing, that to ac knowledge one God only was inconfift ent with the dignity of the Roman em pire. The Roman Jupiter, the Zeus of the Greeks and the Jehovah of the Phoenicians, were always confidered as the fupreme divinity; and this is a truth which cannot be too generally cultivated,"

Thus far the French author. With his bold affertion, that each of these nations worfhipped the fupreme divinity under a different name, I do not at prefent meddle. But on whofe fide lies truth? Hath Dr Warburton traduced Cicero, in imputing to him the words: above recited, which denote, that to worship one God only was inconfiftent with the dignity of the Roman Empire? Or hath Mr Voltaire calumniated Warburton, a yet living writer, of high ftation in the English church, and of diftinguished fame in the literary world, while he accufes him of falfe quotation, and affirms, that neither in the oration for Flaccus, nor in any other of the Roman orator's works, does a paffage of fuch a nature occur?

As it cannot be denied, that the

learned

learned Bishop afcribes the words alledged to Cicero*, the truth about the matter feems to ftand thus: the precife words, which Dr Warburton produces, as in Cicero's oration for Flaccus, are neither to be found there nor in any of his other works, fo far as I have been able to discover. If they are, I fhall think myself much obliged to his lordfhip, or any of his admirers, for pointing out the particular place where they are to be met with; for I have long fearched for them in vain. Yet let not Voltaire and his friends triumph too much. Though the Bishop, I confefs, appears to me to have erred about the exact words, quoting perhaps from memory, after the example of the ancient fathers, when he ought to have been more accurate, and to have look ed into his author, he has, I think, given a pretty juft and fair reprefentation of Cicero's fentiment in the oration for Flaccus; whereas Mr Voltaire hath, in my apprehenfion, exceedingly mifftated it, and endeavoured to pass upon the world an account of it fhamefully wrong; for the great Roman †, after he hath spoken of the Jewish affairs, and added, Every ftate hath its religion, we have ours,” subjoins, ftantibus Hierofolymis pacatifque Judæis ta men iftorum religio farcorum a splendore hujus imperii,gravitate nominis nof. tri, majorum inftitutis abhorrebat. Now, was it right in Voltaire to.tranflate these words, as he hath done,

"While Jerufalem was yet free, and the Jews lived in peace, thofe Jews held in abomination the fplendor of the Roman Empire, the dignity of the Roman name, and the inftitutions of our ancestors?" Far from it. For this I may appeal to every one almost who hath paffed through a grammar-school. Cicero's clear and evident meaning is, that the religion of the Jewish facra,or their scheme of worship and devotion, was not fuitable to the splendor of the Roman Empire, or worthy of this and the other circumftances which he there ennumerates. In what refpect, however, was the religion of the Jews unfuitable and incongruous to the gran deur of the Romans, and the inftitution of their ancestors? In none, so far as I can Judge, fo much as in their worship of one God without the use of any material or corporeal image, and in their confinement of his moft folemn worship to one place. For the Jews likewife had their priests, their facrifices, their altars, their lustrations, their feftivals, their musical inftruments, and much pomp and pageantry of religious rites and ceremonies, as well as the Romans. The Bishop then hath given his true meaning, though he mnft be allowed to have fallen into a mistake about his words. This account I offer as fome apology for the Bishop of Gloucefter, though altogether unconnected with him, and unknown to him, against the foul and atrocious

*