an English silver coin, equal to twelve pence, or the twentieth part of a pound.

Freherus derives the Saxon *feelling*, whence our shilling, from a corruption of *filigera*; proving the derivation by several texts of law, and, among others, by the 26th law, *De annuis legatis*. Skinner deduces it from the Saxon *feild* "shield," by reason of the escutcheon of arms thereon.

Bishop Hooper derives it from the Arabic *shaba*, signifying a weight; but others, with greater probability, deduce it from the Latin *solidus*, which signified in that language a quarter of an ounce, or the 48th part of a Roman pound. In confirmation of this etymology it is alleged, that the shilling kept its original signification, and bore the same proportion to the Saxon pound as siliquae did to the Roman and the Greek, being exactly the 48th part of the Saxon pound; a discovery which we owe to Mr Lambarde.

However, the Saxon laws reckon the pound in the round number at 50 shillings, but they really coined out of it only 48; the value of the shilling was five pence; but it was reduced to fourpence above a century before the conquest; for several of the Saxon laws, made in Athelstan's reign, oblige us to take this estimate. Thus it continued to the Norman times, as one of the Conqueror's laws sufficiently affirms; and it seems to have been the common coin by which the English payments were adjusted. After the conquest, the French *solidus* of twopence, which was in use among the Normans, was called by the English name of shilling; and the Saxon shilling of fourpence took a Norman name, and was called the *groat*, or great coin, because it was the largest English coin then known in England.

It has been the opinion of the bishops Fleetwood and Gibbon, and of the antiquaries in general, that, though the method of reckoning by pounds, marks, and shillings, as well as by pence and farthings, had been in constant use even from the Saxon times, long before the Norman conquest, there never was such a coin in England as either a pound or a mark, nor any shilling, till the year 1504 or 1505, when a few silver shillings or twelve-pences were coined, which have long since been solely confined to the cabinets of collectors.

Mr Clarke combats this opinion, alleging that some coins mentioned by Mr Folkes, under Edward I., were probably Saxon shillings newly minted, and that archbishop Aelfric expressly says, that the Saxons had three names for their money, viz. mancuses, shillings, and pennies. He also urges the different value of the Saxon shilling at different times, and its uniform proportion to the pound, as an argument that their shilling was a coin; and the testimony of the Saxon gospels, in which the word we have translated *pieces of silver* is rendered *shillings*, which, he says, they would hardly have done, if there had been no such coin as a shilling then in use. Accordingly the Saxons expressed their shilling in Latin by *siliqua* and *argentus*. He further adds, that the Saxon shilling was never expressed by *solidus* till after the Norman settlements in England; and howsoever it altered during the long period that elapsed from the conquest to the time of Henry VIII., it was the most constant denomination of money in all payments, though it was then only a species of account, or the twentieth part of the pound Sterling; and when it was again revived as a coin, it lessened gradually as the pound Sterling lessened, from the 28th of Edward III. to the 43d of Elizabeth.

In the year 1560 there was a peculiar sort of shilling struck in Ireland, of the value of ninepence English, which passed in Ireland for twopence. The motto on the reverse was, *posui Deum adjutorium meum*. Eighty-two of these shillings, according to Malynes, went to the pound; they therefore weighed 20 grains, one-fourth each, which is somewhat heavier in proportion than the English shilling of that time, 62 whereof went to the pound, each weighing 92 grains seven-eighths; and the Irish shilling being valued at the Tower at ninepence English, that is, one-fourth part less than the English shilling, it should therefore proportionally weigh one fourth part less, and its full weight be somewhat more than 62 grains; but some of them found at this time, though much worn, weighed 69 grains. In the year 1598, five different pieces of money of this kind were struck in England for the service of the kingdom of Ireland. These were shillings to be current in Ireland at twopence each; half shillings to be current at sixpence, and quarter shillings at threepence. Pennies and halfpennies were also struck of the same kind, and sent over for the payment of the army in Ireland. The money thus coined was of a very base mixture of copper and silver; and two years after there were more pieces of the same kind struck for the same service, which were still worse; the former being three ounces of silver to nine ounces of copper; and the latter only two ounces eighteen pennyweights to nine ounces two pennyweights of the alloy.

The Dutch, Flemish, and Germans, have likewise their shilling, called *schelin*, *schilling*, *scalin*, &c. but these not being of the same weight or fineness with the English shilling, are not current at the same value. The English shilling is worth about 23 French fols; those of Holland and Germany about 11 fols and an half; those of Flanders about nine. The Dutch shillings are also called *fols de gros*, because equal to twelve gros. The Danes have copper shillings worth about one-fourth of a farthing Sterling.

SHILOH is a term famous among interpreters and commentators upon Scripture. It is found (Gen. xlix. 10.) to denote the Messiah. The patriarch Jacob foretells his coming in these words; "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." The Hebrew text reads, "וְאֵין נָשֶׁה שִׁלֹה כִּי יִגָּאֶה הַגָּאֵר." All Christian commentators agree, that this word ought to be understood of the Messiah, or Jesus Christ; but all are not agreed about about its literal and grammatical signification. St Jerome, who translates it by *qui mittendus est*, manifestly reads *Shiloach* "sent," instead of Shiloh. The Septuagint have it (as if they had read *προσελθεῖν* instead of *προσελθεῖν*), i.e., "Until the coming of him to whom it is referred;" or, "Till we see arrive that which is referred for him."

It must be owned, that the signification of the Hebrew word *Shiloh* is not well known. Some translate, "the sceptre shall not depart from Judah, till he comes to whom it belongs;" or, "till the coming of the peace-maker;" or, "the pacific;" or, "of prosperity," *niv prosperitas* sgl. *Shiloh* signifies, "to be in peace, to be in prosperity;" others, "till the birth of him who shall be born of a woman that shall conceive without the knowledge of a man," *niv* or *niv fecundina, fluxur*; otherwise, "the sceptre shall not depart from Judah, till its end, its ruin; till the downfall of the kingdom of the Jews," *niv* or *niv it has ceased, it has finished*.

Some Rabbins have taken the name *Siloh* or *Shiloh*, as if it signified the city of this name in Palestine: "The sceptre shall not be taken away from Judah till it comes to Shiloh; till it shall be taken from him to be given to Saul at Shiloh." But in what part of Scripture is it said, that Saul was acknowledged as king or consecrated at Shiloh? If we would understand it of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, the matter is still as uncertain. The Scripture mentions no assembly at Shiloh that admitted him as king. A more modern author derives *Shiloh* from *niv*, *fatigare*, which sometimes signifies to be weary, to suffer; "till his labours, his sufferings, his passion, shall happen."

But not to amuse ourselves about seeking out the grammatical signification of Shiloh, it is sufficient for us to show, that the ancient Jews are in this matter agreed with the Christians: they acknowledge, that this word stands for the Messiah the King. It is thus that the paraphraists Onkelos and Jonathan, that the ancient Hebrew commentators upon Genesis, and that the Talmudists themselves, explain it. If Jesus Christ and his apostles did not make use of this passage to prove the coming of the Messiah, it was because then the completion of this prophecy was not sufficiently manifest. The sceptre still continued among the Jews; they had still kings of their own nation in the persons of the Herods; but soon after the sceptre was entirely taken away from them, and has never been restored to them since.

The conceited Jews seek in vain to put forced meanings upon this prophecy of Jacob's saying, for example, that the sceptre intimates the dominion of strangers, to which they have been in subjection, or the hope of seeing one day the sceptre or supreme power settled again among themselves. It is easy to perceive, that all this is contrived to deliver themselves out of perplexity. In vain likewise they take refuge in certain princes of the captivity, whom they pretend to have subsisted beyond the Euphrates, exercising an authority over their nation little differing from absolute, and being of the race of David. This pretended succession of princes is perfectly chimerical; and though at certain times they could show a luccection, it continued but a short time, and their authority was too obscure, and too much limited, to be the object of a prophecy so remarkable as this was.