Nor moral Excellence, nor social Bliss, Nor Law were his; nor Property, nor Swain To turn the Furrow, nor mechanic Hand Harden'd to Toil, nor Servant prompt, nor Trade Mother severe of infinite Delights!" Servant prompt is in the edition 1730, Sailor bold, an instance of the author's minute attention to the phraseology of his poem. Such are the materials for comparing the first and later editions of Summer which are offered to any of your readers who have leisure and inclination for such pursuits. To borrow the language of a critic on the Seasons, whom I before quoted, they will, I think, " easily perceive that most of the changes which the poem has undergone are happy improvements," that "the disposition of the parts has been altered for the better," and that "it has been improved in symmetry and grace, without losing any part of its original dignity and vigour." I am not aware that Thomson's great attention to the revision of the Seasons has been noticed by any of his biographers, except Dr. Johnson, who says, These poems, with which I was acquainted at their first appearance, I have since found altered and enlarged by subsequent revisals, as the author supposed his judgment to grow more exact, and as books or conversation extended his knowledge and opened his prospects." Yet, though improved in general," he doubts "whether they have not lost part of what Temple calls their race ; a word which applied to wines, in their primitive sense, means the flavour of the soil." Waller has somewhere said, that "Poets lose half the praise they would have got, Were it but known what they discreetly blot." None but the noblest passions to inspire, Not one immoral, one corrupted thought, One line, which, dying, he might wish to blot." SIR, VERMICULUS. Cheetwood, near Manchester, July 19, 1822. AVING frequently found your pages devoted to the consideration of the inconveniences which attach to Unitarians in the solemnization of Marriage, on account of their being obliged to conform to the cere mony instituted by the Established Church on that occasion, I have presumed to address you upon that subject,-not indeed for the purpose of pointing out any farther objections to it, but to impress upon Unitarians in general, the propriety of adopting a method which I conceive would be the means of exciting more attention to the subject, and would have a favourable tendency in promoting the alteration which the Society for protecting the Civil Rights of Unitarians are endeavouring to obtain. It has been often said, that Unitarians in general are indifferent as to this matter, because they have hitherto (with a few exceptions) submitted in silence to that ceremony; and I must confess that the charge is apparently too well founded. I therefore conceive it to be the duty of all Unitarians, entering into the marriage state, solemnly to protest against the performance of a ceremony which inculcates doctrines directly opposed to the principles of Unitarianism. By thus publicly and firmly expressing their dissent to such a violation of their religious opinions, the Legisla ture will perceive the propriety and necessity of some alteration in the existing laws relating to Marriage. considerable portion of English subSurely, the consideration that thus a jects are compelled to submit to so great a degradation as that of openly admitting a doctrine the truth of which they deny, ought to have great weight with Parliament; but whilst so much indifference is manifested in silently submitting to such a proceeding, it is but reasonable for their opponents to infer, that to them it is a matter of but little importance. Therefore, when instances of individuals so protesting for, conscience' Protest against the Marriage Service. sake do occur, I think it is highly proper that they should be made known for the encouragement of others, and as an inducement to them to act in a similar manner. An instance of this kind having lately occurred where a friend of mine entered his protest against the Marriage cere mony, I have obtained from him his permission to transmit a copy thereof for insertion in your valuable publication, as also of a letter he previously wrote to the clergyman officiating, to gether with a brief statement of the interview that in consequence took place between them. Copy of the Letter. Manchester, SIR, June 14, 1822. As it is my intention, under the permission of Divine Providence, to enter into the Marriage state, in the course of this month, and as I am informed it will be your duty to perform the service on that occasion, I take this opportunity to request of you, that, in the solemnization of that event, such expressions may be omitted in the ceremony which at all inculcate a belief in or worship of the Trinity. Upon similar occasions, I am informed, such omissions have been made by ministers of the Established Church, when they have been requested by the parties concerned; as, indeed, expressions may be substituted that would not be offensive either to you as a Trinitarian, or to me as a Unitarian. I really cannot see the necessity of your rigo. rously adhering to certain words which may be omitted without injury to you, and with advantage to myself; nor am I aware that, by the laws of this country, Unitarians are compelled publicly to profess their belief in that doctrine which forms the main ground of their dissent from the Established Church. If my information relative to the Marriage Act be correct, the object of it is not to prescribe a set form of words which shall imply a belief in any particular doctrine, but was enacted for the purpose of having the contract of the parties publicly registered by the minister, so as to prevent illegal or improper Marriages, which object I conceive will be sufficiently answered by performing the ceremony in the way I wish, without compelling me to give either my tacit or verbal assent to a doctrine in which I do not believe. I sincerely trust that you will give the matter a serious and candid consideration; as it is not only to me, but also to the lady with whom I intend to be united, a matter of most serious importance, 487 Should you wish any further information upon the subject, I am willing to wait upon you to afford any explanation in my power. If, however, upon such consideration, you should feel unable, or not inclined to allow me the indulgence I request, and if I am compelled to submit to the form of service as it is laid down in the Book of Common Prayer, or otherwise forego the advantages of matrimony, it is my intention to enter my solemn protest against those parts of the ceremony of which I disapprove, and which at all inculcate the belief and worship of the Trinity. Because, as a Unitarian, I be lieve such a doctrine to have no foundation in the Scriptures, and to be unsanctioned by their authority; and so believing, I should shew myself greatly wanting in a proper regard to religious independence and principles, silently to acquiesce in those parts of a service to which I cannot give the assent of my understanding, and of which my couscience disapproves. Your early answer will confer an obligation on Yours respectfully, In consequence of the above letter, the gentleman to whom it was addressed waited upon my friend in a few days afterwards, when a conversation ensued between them upon the subject. On being asked if he could comply with the request which the letter contained, he replied, that, as a minister of the Established Church, he could not conscientiously make any alteration in the ceremony as imposed by the Church; for that, by the oath taken by him at his ordination, he was compelled strictly to adhere to those forms which the Church had enjoined, otherwise he should be a perjured man. He disclaimed all bigotry, and expressed himself in terms of approbation of the course Mr. E. had pursued, and said it was that which all conscientious Dissenters from the doctrine of the Trinity ought to adopt. On Mr. E. learning the determination of the minister, he informed him that he should, in consequence of his refusal, be compelled, before the ceremony commenced, to deliver a protest against those objectionable parts of the service, which appeared to him diametrically opposed to the truths of the gospel. Mr. E., however, expresses himself as being highly pleased with the liberality displayed by Mr. Fielding throughout the conversation, and is desirous to add his testimony to the respectful and gentlemanly deportment which characterized his conduct on the occasion. The following is a copy of the Pro test: To the Rev. Mr. Fielding. You having expressed your utter inabi lity conscientiously to comply with our request, by omitting or altering any part of the matrimonial service ordained by the Established Church, as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, we feel it necessary, to the relief of our consciences, to protest against the doctrines which it contains. We regret that in a country peculiarly distinguished for religious toleration, a service should be insisted upon by the Established Church which, in order to enter the Marriage state, must be submitted to by those persons who disbelieve its doctrines, and which is therefore attended with a violation of their religious principles and the dictates of conscience. Surely a ceremony involving in it such painful consequences, calls aloud for reformation. As Unitarian Christians, we therefore most solemnly protest against the service: Because we are thereby called upon, not only tacitly to acquiesce, but to profess a belief in the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, which is a dogma (as we believe) totally unfounded upon the Scriptures, unwarranted by reason, and expressly contradicted by both natu ral and revealed religion. Because we are compelled to submit to the performance of a service which is in direct opposition to those views of Christianity which we have derived from the gospel of Jesus Christ, unshackled by the creeds of fallible men, or the decisions of venal councils. Because we conceive, that if such a ce remony were submitted to by us in silence, it would be a dereliction from our duty as worshipers of one God the Fa ther, and as faithful disciples of his Son Jesus Christ. Because we conceive, that in the performance of so important and solemn a service as that of matrimony, every expression ought to be omitted which im poses a violence upon the consciences of the parties concerned, (Signed) PETER ECKERSLEY. ELIZABETH PENDLETON. The protest originally went further in objecting to the introductory part of the service, as being (to a mind correctly formed) offensive to the feelBut as the minister ings of delicacy. intimated his intention of omitting that part of the service, the protest against it would be unnecessary, and was therefore by his wish expunged. F. BOARDMAN. On the Book of Genesis. From Professor Eichhorn's Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament, Vol. II. § 416, a. The Book of Genesis was compiled from Ancient Scriptural Records. Took of Genesis carry us back to the very cradle of the whole human race, and refer to events which occurred partly several thousand, and partly several hundred years prior to the time of Moses, of which, therefore, (admitting him to be the author of this book,) Moses cannot speak as an eye-witness, but merely as`an historian. Whence, then, may it be asked, did he gather the materials for his work? Was he favoured with an immediate revelation from the Deity? Is his narrative grounded on the records of antiquity, or is it an invention of his own brain? Ought the critic and historian to condemn him as an artful impostor; or to applaud him as a writer of the most unbounded veracity? Are his relations nothing but a series of amusing tales invented to portray the childhood of mankind in fascinating colours, for the success of which he trusted to the ignorance of his contemporaries? Or are they such as exhibit, in undeniable characters, the stamp of authenticity and truth? HE accounts contained in the The book of Genesis no where contains even the most distant allusion to support the assertion that its contents are the immediate revelations of the Deity. Hence, as no peremptory auroc sa exists to silence inquiry, every one is Eichhorn's Account of the Book of Genesis. authorized to examine it, and to decide upon it for himself. This maxim has already to a certain extent been acted upon, and a variety of circumstances have led to the conelusion, that the book of Genesis may be a human production; or, in other words, that it may have originated in human sources, and been handed down from generation to generation by means of oral traditions or scriptural records. And truly, could it even be proved that it were grounded on the former alone, still would I hail it as an important document, and its source should be ever sacred to me: for if we feel inclined, once for all, to admit the longevity of the patriarchs, (which, however, it must be owned, is liable to serious objections,) it must also be allowed, that in the earliest periods of the world the pure stream of historical information could not easily, or to any great extent, be adulterated by the accession of turbid waters. And as Lamech may have been contemporary with Adam, and Shem with Lamech; again, as Lamech may have seen Abraham, and the latter have been seen by Jacob; further, as many of the contemporaries of Moses may have personally known Jacob,-it follows, first, that oral tradition, originating in the earliest ages of mankind, could not have passed through the mouths of many different persons, and was therefore less liable to change or perversion; and, secondly, that more recent traditions extending downwards to the days of Moses, could not have been circulated for any great length of time without being scripturally recorded, and without their genuineness having been determined by actual refence to the party with whom they originated, or to some other credible authority. But, although the credibility of the narratives contained in the book of Genesis, would in no wise be diminished by their having been compiled from oral traditions at the time of Moses, the general character, and, if I may use the expression, the very genius of the book itself does not warrant its being ascribed to such a source. On the contrary, every thing in it seems clearly to prove the use of scriptural records, and what is more, even speaks for its being a compilation of fragments from separate and VOL. XVII. 3 R 489 distinct documents. Nor has this observation escaped the notice of various writers distinguished by their critical acumen; but either their predilection for a certain system prevented them from pursuing the advantages to be derived from it, or the gleam of truth which dawned upon them was too weak and too quickly lost again in the clouds by which it was surrounded, to admit of their tracing the discovery which they had made throughout the whole book.* Astruc, a celebrated physician, at length effected what no critic by profession had previously ventured to do, and actually divided the whole book of Genesis into distinct fragments. In my turn, I have also made a similar attempt, but to * Writers on this subject are-Vitringa, Observ. Sacc. Lib. i. C. iii. pp. 29, seq.; Clericus, de Scriptore Pentateuchi, §11; R. Simon, Histoire Critique du V. T. Lib. . C. vii.; Fleury, Mœurs des Israëlites, p. 6; Le François, Preuves de la Religion Chrétienne, T. I. P. ii. C. iii. Art. 1. Detached ideas on this subject may be also found in Jo. And. Sixt., Dissert, de Origine Histor. Creationis, quam Moses dedit, Altorf, 1782, 4to. (Astruc) Conjectures sur les Mémoires Originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s'est servi pour com1753, 8vo. Jerusalem follows him (but le Livre de la Genèse, à Bruxelles, poser briefly) in his Letters on the Mosaic Writings and Philosophy. To these may be added, a Dissertation of Schultens, which, however, contains nothing_peculiar or new: Jo. Jac. Schultens, Dissert. qua disquiritur unde Moses res in Libro See the Geneseos descriptas didicerit. same reprinted in Jo. Oelrich's Belgii Litterati Opusculis Historico - Philologico-Theologicis, T. I. pp. 247, et seq. Of all the authors here quoted, none has entered so deeply into the subject as Astruc. Ilgen has since treated upon it very elaborately in his work on the Original State of the Documents belonging to the Archives in the Temple of Jerusalem, 1 vol. Halle, 1798, 8vo., although his excessive minuteness (however laudable in itself) gives him the appearance of wishing to do more than at present it is reader to choose between his work and possible to do. I must leave it to the the present attempt, requesting him, at the same time, to peruse the reviews of the former in the Allgemeine Litteratur Zeitung, (Jena, 1798,) and in Gabler's Theolog. Journal, where he will find much useful information on the subject generally. prevent my being diverted from those views which I had once for all adopted, I considered myself bound to pass over the previous labours of Astruc, and to decline his assistance as my guide. What the results of my investigations are, shall be hereafter detailed, without the smallest claim on my part to any superiority over my predecessors, by affecting to shew wherein Clericus and Simon may have suffered themselves to be misled, or in what particulars Fleury and De François may have been mistaken, and Astruc, Jerusalem and Ilgen may have fallen into error. In the mean time, and as a necessary step to our ulterior proceedings, it may not be amiss to devote a section or two to consider the most ancient modes of preserving history. (Desunt §§ 416, b. et c.) 1. The Book of Genesis contains several separate and distinct Docu ments or Records. Several chapters in Genesis bear the stamp of being distinct, isolated records, the authors of which, as far as we are at present able to judge, had nothing whatever to do with the remainder. That portion of it comprising the second chapter, exclusive of the four first verses, but including the whole of the third chapter, exhibits an instance of such a distinct and isolated document. The first chapter is in no wise connected with the second from the fourth verse, and the superscription itself, (chap. ii. 4,) "This is the origin of heaven and earth," plainly enough separates them. The reader will moreover find, that in the first chapter a very ingenious plan is laid down, which throughout is followed up with no small display of art, and according to which every idea has its appropriate place allotted to it; whereas a perusal of the second chapter will shew, that from the fourth verse the narrative is that of early childhood, characteristic of a noble simplicity, and breathing the language styled Jehovah Elohim. It remains to be asked, if so striking a difference can be the effect of mere chance, or rather if it ought not to be considered as denoting the existence of two distinct works, the productions of different writers ? The second chapter, from the fourth verse, and the whole of the third, breathe the same spirit, and exhibit the same train of thought and ideas; so that in fact the narrative contained in both, appears as intimately connected and suited together as ever two fragments of an antique monument can possibly be supposed to be. They inform us, that "God allotted to the first human pair a beautiful part of Eden for their residence, where they were permitted to partake of all kinds of fruits and herbs; but at the same time cautioned against the produce of a certain tree of a deadly nature: notwithstanding which, they suffered themselves to be persuaded by a serpent to eat of the prohibited fruit, and, in consequence, became subject to death and expulsion from the happy abodes of paradise." Lastly, in no other part of the whole book of Genesis, except in the second and third chapters, is the name Jehovah Elohim applied to God. Such a union of circumstances naturally warrants the inference, that both chapters compose one distinct and separate document connected with the remainder of the book, solely by the subject of which they treat, namely, the earliest history of mankind, and in no wise by the name of their author. The fourteenth chapter, which is introduced into the narrative of Abraham's history, appears equally abrupt and isolated. It has nothing to.do with the fifteenth, and is merely connected with the twelfth and the thirteenth chapters by the circumstance of its referring to an event which occurred subsequent to the separation of Abraham from Lot; whilst its general tone and style shew a marked difference between it and any preceding or subsequent chapters. In it alone God is mentioned as the אל אליון קנה שמים וארץ .of the remotest periods of the world The name Elohim is invariably applied most high God, possessor of heaven to God throughout the first chapter, and earth;" in it alone the Creator of and as far as the fourth verse in the the universe is designated as p second; but from thence to the end, "the possessor of heaven of the third chapter he is as invariably and earth;" and in this chapter only |
