The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-06 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR—In your critique on Dr. Buckland's work, in
The Sun of May 16, you remarked that " Either the
whole constitution of the human race was changed after
beinf, created male and female, when man was punished
by death, or the whole laws of the earth were changed,—
which the authors of the received history of the creation
do net assert."
It is evident that there were two authors who wrote
the account of the history of the Creation ; but it is
quite as manifest that there are two histories, made by
two different persons, and written in two styles of ex-
pression. . . _

The first story or history begins with the first verse
of the first chapter, and ends at the end of the third
verse of the second chapter, for the ad vertical conjunc-
tion—thus, with which the second chapter begins (as
the reader will see) connects itself to the last verses of
the first chapter, and those three verses belong to and
make the conclusion of the story or hi-story.
The second story begins at the fourth verse of the
second chapter. These two stories have been confused
into one, by cutting off the last three verses of the first
story, and throwing them to the second chapter ; but it
is evident that those stories have been written by two
different persons, for throughout the whole of the first
story the word God is invariably used without any epi-
thet or additional word conjoined with it, and is re-
peated no less than thirty-five times, viz., In the be-
ginning God created the heavens ; and God said, Let
there be light ; and God saw that it was good, &c.
But immediately from the beginning of the fourth
verse of the second chapter, where the second story
begins, the style of expression is always the Lord God,
and this style of expression or phraseology is invariably
used throughout the second history of the creation.
In the one story it is always God, and never the Lord
God.

In the other it is always the Lord God, and never
God.

This difference of style so often repeated, and
so uniformly continued, shows that those chapters,
containing two different accounts, were written by two
different persons. Besides, it is manifest from the con-
tradictory matter which they contain that they cannot
be the work of one person. It is impossible, unless
the writer was a lunatic, without memory, that one and
the same person would say, as is said in the first story,
"So God created man, male and female created he
them ;" it is, I say, preposterous, that the same person
who said this could afterwards say, as is said in the se-
cond story (v. s)—" And there was not a man to till
the ground," and then proceeds at the 7th verse to give
another account of making a man for the first time, and
afterwards of making a woman out of his rib.
According to the first story, " God said, Beheld, I

have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon
the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which
is the fruit of a tree yielding seed ; to you it shall be
for meat."

According to the second story—" The Lord God
planted a tree in the midst of a garden, and forbad
man to eat thereof."

Again, the same person could not say, " that the
heavens and the earth were finished, and all
the host of them ; and on the seventh day God ended
all his work which he had made ;" and immediately
after set the Creator to work again, to plant a garden,
to make a man and woman,&c., as is done in the second
chapter.
According to the first story, the world and " all
which it inherits" were made in six days ; according to
the second, the world was made in one day.—(C. v.,
v. 2.)
-

According to the first story, the two sexes, male and
female, were made at the same time ; according to the
second, the man was made first, and the woman after-

wards.

According_ to the first story there was no name given
them to the first man and woman ; but they have names
given them in the second ; accordinz to the first story
they were to have dominion over all the earth, accord-
ing to the second their dominion was limited to a garden ;
according to the first story everything was good, there
was no forbidden tree, but in the second story there is
the tale •r the talking serpent,and its tete-a-tete with Eve,
and the doleful adventure, called the Fall of Man, and
how he was turned out of this fine garden, and how the
garden was afterwards locked up, and guarded by a
flaming sword (if any one can tell what a flaming
sword is).
These things have no connexion with the first story,
in which there is no mention of any particular countries,
but the second story appears to have been written many
years later, after countries and places had acquired
names, as he mentions Havilah, Ethiopia, Assyria, the
Euphrates, the Land of Nod, &c.

That there are two different stories or histories of the
creation, is as visible to the eye, when unattended
with :prejudice, as that there are two chapters, and
that they have been written by two different persons,
nobody knows when, nor by whom ; and as our tithe-
eaters tell us, that it is a thing of great consequence
to believe rightly in these matters, and I, being
a man in search after a religion, should feel
much obliged to some of your learned cor-
respondents if they will have the goodnes
to tell me which of the two stories (if either) it is ne-
cessary to believe ; for at present I am inclined to
think there is some truth in the words which I heard
Hone tell Lord Ellenborough in Guildhall, begin-
ning,—

" All the Books of Moses,
Are nothing but supposes."
I am, Sir,
Your Constant Reader,
RUSTICUS

Andover.

[At a time when the nation is, in a manner tortured
by the inordinate pretensions of the Priesthood, we may
be excused for inserting a paper which is in strict ac-
cordance with the criticism of some of the best German
scholars, and which awakens some doubt of the accuracy
of the Priests,]

PENNY POSTAGE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR,—If you think the following hints on the subject of a
reduced postage deserving of consideration you will oblige
me by giving them early insertion.
I would substitute for the envelope a small stamp, which
might be sold by the dozen, gross, or thousand, like so
many wafers, in a box—they should be gummed at the
back, as is now in common practice for labels, &c., and
would therefore only require wetting with the tongue to
be applied ; they might be used either with or without a
wafer or wax ; they would be destroyed in the act of
opening the letter (unless previously removed by water or
steam, for which the Post-office would easily supply a
remedy).
The prominent advantages of this plan are " extreme
cheapness." and a large amount of revenue in advance.
But in giving the public the privilege of a Universal
Penny Postage I would not prevent the extravagant from
paying more if they chose. I would, therefore, suggest a
twopenny, and perhaps even a threepenny envelope of
proportionate pretensions, and trust to the vanity of our
species for their extensive consumption.
If we pay twopence or threepence for what can be ob-
tained every whit as " useful" for a penny, the additional
tax is self imposed, and cannot be complained of.
But suppose the Crown adopts only the stamped penny
envelope, will the Stamp- Office refuse to stamp the elegant
and embossed quires which will pour into it from the sta-
tioners, and for which they will afterwards charge two-
pence or threepence, gathering that harvest from the weak-
ness of human nature which I would transfer to the coffers
of the Treasury ?—I am, Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
Liverpool, May 29 ISAAC PALEY.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR--In the report of the proceedings in the Common
Council, or Thursday, in your paper, and in two or three
others, I am made to say, " that the Whigs had treated
the Corporation of London most unjustly and contemp-
tuously." I said no such thing, nor anything like it, except
in the way of quotation from the speakers on the other
side, who had, as I conceived, without reason, mixed up
he police question with the discussion on the address.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
SAMUEL BAYLIS.

June 1, 1839.

BLOOMSEURY.—We understand a special meet-
ing of the members of the Jockey Club will take place on
Saturday, when it is anticipated their decision will be so
far sttisfactory that the interference of the gentlemen of
the long robe will be unnecessary.