158 
16.), is more explicit than like documents of the 
present age. It is absurd to suppose, with Dr. 
Wilson, that the Shomerim desired to join in 
building a temple for the Jews at Jerusalem ; for 
they have never yet given up the point that Ge- 
rizim, and not Jerusalem, was the dwelling-place 
of Jehovah. The pleaders for Gerizim (Josephus, 
Ant., x1. iii. 4.) were put to death, a different 
honorarium from that of modern pleaders at the 
bar of justice. The rancorous hatred is a fact, 
and its causes are numerous. Dr. Wilson quotes 
the discourse of Jesus with the woman of Samaria 
as opposed to the claims of the Shomerim. But 
this objection is easily explained. Our Saviour, 
who confined his mission exclusively to Israelites, 
visited the Shomerim two days, and allowed his 
disciples to deal with them as Israelites (Matt. x. 
6., John iv. 5.). The woman with whom He con- 
versed urged the same claims (John iv. 9, 12. 20. 
25.) as Salamah ibn Tobiah did to Dr. Wilson 
(Lands of the Bible, ii. 48.). These our Lord did 
not deny, but (John iv, 21.) includes the Shome- 
rim and Jews together as Israelites. The state- 
ment that “salvation was of the Jews” (v. 22.) 
means that the Messiah was to be of the tribe of | 
Judah (Jews). ‘The hour, however, has not yet | 
come when the Israelites neither in Gerizim nor 
at Jerusalem (vy. 21.) shall worship the Father. 
That time may be looked for when the Pope, | 
France, and Austria shall possess Palestine, and 
drive out both the Jews and the remnant of | 
Israel. Jesus rejected the Kiblah of the Shome- 
rim (John iv. 22.), but not their claim as de- 
scendants of Jacob, whose well they possessed. 
It is remarkable that, to this Shomerith, Jesus 
openly declared himself the Messiah (v. 26.) of 
whom she spake, although He had withheld that | 
(See Kuinoel in loco.) | 
declaration to the Jews. 
The Shomerim believe in a day of resurrection 
and judgment, which some of the Jews (the Sad- 
ducees) denied. But setting aside the negative, 
what are the positive proofs of their claims? These 
may be found in the authorities before quoted 
(SN. & Q.” 1* S, viii; 626.), and in Dr. Wilson: 
they comprise genealogy, physiological characters, 
liturgical ceremonies, the possession of ancient 
lands, wells, tombs, architectural remains, coins, 
and traditions; contemporary history, as Jose- 
phus, the New Testament, Epiphanius, Eusebius, 
or Jerome ; a language and literature; but, above 
all, the custody of the Pentateuch, from which they 
derive their name Shomerim, keepers or preservers 
of the Mosaic law. There are persons in Egypt 
and India who claim to be Shomerim and de- 
scendants of Israel. The present Shomerim of 
Sichem are reduced to twenty families. Their 
function appears to be nearly accomplished, — 
that of handing down the text of Moses, from 
which the Alexandrine version in Greek was 
made (Kich., A, 7., ii. § 387.), pure to this remote 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
(2n¢ §. No 8, Fup, 23. °56. 
age, to be fixed in the permanency of modern 
typography, T. J. Bucxton. 
Lichfield. 
ODE ON THE BURIAL OF SIR JOHN MOORE. 
(2°18, i. 54—55.) 
I hope to be able, in a few days, to furnish 
Asupa with the information he desires regarding 
Dr. Millar’s letter in support of Wolfe’s claims to 
the authorship of the well-known ode on the 
death of Sir John Moore. 
In the meantime I have referred to my file of 
Currick’s Morning Post for 1815, and in which I 
believe the ode originally appeared. I found the 
poem after a little delay, and as it may interest 
AsnpBa and other of your readers to see the 
original preamble and signature, I send it. The 
initials are, as you may perceive, “W.C.” Wil- 
liam Cowper was dead at this time, so he may be 
regarded as hors de combat. It is curious that 
| the memoir of Wolfe in Wills’s Zlustrious and Dis- 
tinguished Irishmen, makes no mention of the ode 
on the burial of Sir John Moore, and on which 
his literary celebrity can alone rest. Byron con- 
sidered it the finest ode in the language. My 
opinion is that Wolfe, and no one else, wrote it. 
He may possibly have intended the initials to in- 
dicate ** Wolfe —Clerk,” or, what is much more 
likely, a typographical transposition of the letters 
may have occurred. The signature, however, is 
worthy the notice of all those who dispute Mr. 
Wolfe’s parentage of the ode. 
Woriam Joun Firz-Parrick. 
“ The following lines were written by a Student of Trinity 
College, on reading the affecting account of the Burial of 
Sir John Moore, in the Edinburgh Annual Register. 
“ Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note, 
As his corse to the rampart we hurried ; | 
Not a‘soldier discharged his farewell shot, 
O’er the graye where our hero we buried. 
“ We buried him darkly, at dead of night, 
The sods with our bayonets turning — 
By the struggling moonbeam’s misty light, 
And the lantern dimly burning. 
“No useless coftin enclosed his breast*, 
Nor in sheet nor in shroud we bound him; 
But he lay like a warrior taking his rest, 
With his martial cloak around him. 
“‘ Few and short were the prayers we said, 2 
And we spoke not a word of sorrow ; 
But we steadfastly gaz‘d on the face of the dead, 
And we bitterly thought of the morrow. 
“We thought, as we hollowed his narrow bed, 
And smoothed down his lonely pillow, , 
That the foe and the stranger would tread o’er his 
head 
And we far away on the billow! 
* « Wound” in most editions. 
