4 , Letter from Mr. Palmer, concerning Ray. 
our atrival, they fuffered no Chriftian to 
approach.it, and rather chofe to protect it 
by a guard, than to repair the broken 
deors, which, in the ftate we found them, 
couid be neither clofed or moved upon 
their hinges. 
«In the middle of the area of this 
mofque, inclofed in a {mall o&agon tem- 
ple, remains a hollow veffel of Egyptian 
itone.”” 
Then, having dwelt upon its beauty, 
and conjectured it to have been a firco- 
phagus of ancient Egypt, he repeats Son- 
nini’s obfervation: ‘¢ It would have re- 
quired a month to have copied it mi- 
nutely.”” (Denon, Voy. ed. Par. p. 
32. 33). : 
The laft fentence, Sir, was falling from 
my pen, when I received the information 
that Mr. Clarke, who has deferved well 
of the world for his refearches, is now 
employed in adducimg proofs that the far- 
cophagus of the Mufeum really was the 
tomb of Alexander! Authorities from 
him I fhould_certainly receive with plea- 
‘fure; but, exclufive of that deficiency of 
intelligence fo much to be lamented in the 
claflic writers, there are other obftacles 
which require more talent than I poflefs 
to reconcile. 
Let it be remembered, that the claffic 
writers afford us no intelligence either as 
to the deftruétion of the glafs coffin, or 
the removal of Alexander’s reliques to a 
marble one; that about the prefent Sarco- 
phagus, there is nothing Greek to corro- 
borate the notion; that Alexander's was 
not the only tomb remarkable for grah- 
deur within the walls of Alexandria ; that 
the Maufoleum where the body jay, like- 
wife contained the Ptolemies, who were 
probably inclofed within Sarcophagi not 
very diffimijar either in form or appear- 
ance from that of Alexander; that the 
tomb of Alexander was originally within 
the palace of the kines, far diflant from 
the mofque of St. Athanafius; and, lafily, 
that the prefent Sarcophagus is covered 
with hieroglyphics, fome of which bear a 
particular relation to the myfteries of Ifis, 
and feem to place it, in pointfof antiquity, 
much hicher than the time of Alexander. 
Such, Sir, is the refult of my inquiries 
with regard to the fuppofed tomb of 
Alexander; I fliall now prefent your readers 
with two extracts from the Itinerarium of 
Furer, already mentioned, who relates, 
that, when he vifited Alexandria about the 
middie of the fixteenth century, a ciftern 
was fhewn, in one of the mofques, in which 
Athenafius, who filled the archiepifecpal 
throne of Egypt from the year 326.to.373, 
[Feb. 1, 
was concealed from perfecution. He is 
{peaking of the temples within the city 
occupied by the Chriftians. 
‘* Extra urbem, vero unum, duntaxat 
§. Georgii, prope parvum Caftellum ad 
portum novum, quo loco olim Athanafium 
in cilterna ab inidiis et perfecutionibus 
Imperatoris Valentis fervatum memo- 
Tapeh De Gui 2 
The other extraét may poffibly account 
for the injury which both this and other 
Sarcophagi, from Egypt, of the fame kind, 
appear to have fuitained internally from 
lime. He is mentioning the inhabitants 
of Alexandria. “* Balneorum ufus apud 
illos frequens admodum eft, quorum plu- 
rima babent, pulchra juxta atque com- 
soda, qua maximam partem € marmore 
extrucia iunt, in quibus lavantes unguento 
utuntur peculiari, ex auripigmento, calce » 
viva ef aqua mixto; ad abfumendes cor- 
poris pilos.”’ 
In hope of ,obfervations on my letter 
from forhe one of your readers, more in- 
tclligent than I pretend to be, 
I am, Sir, 
Your humble fervant, > 
' CEpipus. 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SiR, 
WAS fomewhat furprized at the far. 
I caffical manner in which a correfpon- 
cent im your laft Number refleéts upon 
Dr. Calamy and myfelt, for including the 
celebrated Mr. Joho Ray among the Non- 
conformilts. Surely he could not have 
read either the Deétor’s work or mine. 
Dr. Calamy fays that Mr, Ray quitted 
his feilowfhip m Trinity College, Cam- 
bridge, in*1662, becaufe he could not 
comply with the act of Uniformity; and 
he refers to the Complete Hiftory of Eng- 
land, where it is exprefsly faid that it was 
on Auguft 24, of that year. Now I afk, 
For what reafon did he quit his fiation 
and emclumcnt at that time, if if was not 
becaufe he could not conform to the terms 
which the A& required? and if he did 
not, and could not conform, he was pro- 
perly a Nonconformilt ; unlefs it appeared 
that he altered his m'nd, and contormed 
afterwards, which is not pretended. But 
Dr. Calamy mentions, (on the authority 
of an intimate friend of Mr. Ray, from 
whom he himfelf received ir) what were 
his parucwar objeciions againit ae 
the declaration which the Uniformity A 
required ; and he relates what Mr. Ray 
atterwards told Abp. Tiilotfon, ** That, 
though he ufed the Common Prayer asa 
form, he could not declare his-unfeigned 
affent 
