animals were created on the fifth and sixth days, or only on the second and third day after the creation of the plants, these animals must have perished with hunger, if the days were only solar days. Now, to this I reply, that, even assuming Mr. Faber's interpretation of the above passage to be right, there is nothing monstrous in imagining that, in a period of hourly miracle, a period when order, light, and beauty sprung in an instant out of chaos and darkness, the plants also may have started into instant maturity. Mr. Faber himself supposes the animals to have come into existence prepared to eat. Is there then any thing preposterous in imagining the plants to have been created in a state of fitness to be eaten? And the fact is, that the passage from Scripture, contrary to the interpretation of Mr. Faber (which is that of the greatest of all theorists and innovators, Bishop Warburton), appears to mean that the plants and herbs were created mature; that "before they were in the earth," and before they had passed through the progress of growing, the Creator produced them ready for the use of the animals for which they were destined. And if so, the difficulty is solved, and may be at once dismissed. analogy of language." He contends that the word "day" must be employed on all the days of creation in the same sense; and that, because the Divine Being is said to have "rested on the seventh day," and he still rests, therefore the seventh day is not yet completed, nor will be completed as long as He continues to rest; and that, consequently, this "day," and of course all the rest of the "days," are not "solar" but indefinite "days." Now, surely, sir, the unsoundness of this argument is obvious. Had it indeed been said in Scripture that the Divine Being rested only during the Sabbath-day, it would have been just to infer, that as He still rests, the Sabbath is not complete. But the language of Scripture appears only to indicate that, on the seventh day he began to rest, or rather (for the word "rest introduces a perplexity into the argument) that, having completed the work of creation in six days, on the seventh He ceased from those particular labours. Did it occur to Mr. Faber that one consequence of this strange hypothesis, as thus defended, would be, that there is no such thing as a Sabbath-day, or rather that every day is a Sabbath. How ill would this consequence agree with the language of Scripture! God is said to have "blessed the seventh day, and to have sanctified it,” or set it apart from the rest of the days; an expression which must mean, according to this new philosophy, that Godset apart all the days from the rest of the days,"-a position surely much in the spirit of the celebrated treatise, "de omnibus rebus, et quibusdam aliis." 2. The second argument of Mr. Faber is founded on these words of Moses: "God created every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew." From this Mr. Faber infers that all the plants and herbs were created in their elementary form of seeds and roots; and that therefore, as the graminivorous 3. The third argument is derived from the concurrent testimony of the Hindu Cosmogonies, and the doctrines of the ancient Persians and Etruscans. I am not acquainted with the sources from which Mr. Faber obtains the testimony of the ancient Persians and Etruscans; but with regard to the Institutes o. Menu, I can confidently affirm that the accounts of the creation derived from the Hindu Cosmogonists transcend in absurdity and extravagance every other statement of every other volume which it has been the calamity of any reader to encounter. Far from thinking, with Mr. Faber, that an opinion of our own derived any authority from the concurrent opi nion of these Institutes, I should, in propounding a new theory on the subject, think it almost a sine qua non anxiously to inform the public that it was to be found in no hea. then cosmogony, and, above all, that it had no connexion whatever with the ravings of Hinduism. 4. The fourth argument of Mr. Faber may be abridged as follows: Moses tells us, that pairs of each animal were shut up in the ark: it is therefore plain that no class of animals perished in the Flood. But certain classes of animals are now extinct; therefore these animals must have perished before the Flood: and as we hear of no such catastrophe in the six days of creation, therefore these days must have been periods of vast, though to us unknown, duration. To me this argument is most illogical and unsound. Admit the fact that the world may have been destroyed before the six days, and only recreated at that time, in what manner is the length of the six days affected by the statement? But why is it necessary to conclude that the destruction preceded the Flood? Why should it not have succeeded it? That certain classes are now extinct, I admit. That they were not extinguished at the moment of the Flood, I admit. But these admissions do not fix the term of the extinction; which may have occurred in any one moment "before" or "after" the Flood. Such, sir, are the plain observations I have to offer on this new theory; and if your readers agree with me, they will continue, as Luther says, "dicere spadam spadam" -to think a day a day-to distinguish the Sabbath from the ordinary days of the week-and to expect only one eternal and unchangeable Sabbath, "the rest that remaineth for the people of God." HERGA. I think many formidable objections to the Rev. Mr. Faber's theory of the creation may be drawn from the holy Scriptures. First. It is written, "God, having rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had created and made, blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." Now, we know that the day sanctified was a natural day; nor is there any thing in the Scripture to lead us to suppose that it was not of the same duration as each of the six days of creation that preceded it: and because he rested on this day from his creative work, I cannot see that it is unavoidably implied that he resumed his labours on the eighth day. I simply understand, that, having completed his work in six days, on the seventh he ceased from working. Again: on the supposition that each of the six days of creation extended to a period of six thousand years, Adam, who was created on the sixth day, and lived only nine hundred and thirty years, probably did not, as well as many of his posterity, live to see a single Sabbath. Is it likely that the Creator left man without that sacred institution for several thousand years? With regard to the Mosaical narrative, where it is said, "God created every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew;" I certainly understand from this, that he created the plants and herbs perfect and instantaneously-" he spake and it was done"-before he placed them in the earth, and at once they flourished and grew in the succession of the plants and herbs they yielded: so that there was no necessity for any miracle of germination to produce food for the non-carnivorous animals (I suppose there were no carnivorous ones at that time) created on the fifth and sixth days. As the strata of fossilizations of animals whose genera are now extinct cannot be accounted for by the Deluge, Mr. Faber concludes they must have been produced by some great revolution that took place before the creation of man on the sixth day but is not this introducing death into the world before sin existed? Whereas we are instructed by the Divinc word, that it was "by sin death work of creation, six were devoted entered into the world." མ. Permit me, sir, to suggest, through the medium of your Christian publication, a few observations to Mr. Faber, on the subject of his Mosaic Cosmogony. I would at present allude only to that part of it which was quoted in your Number for last July. to the completion of his design; and on the seventh his rest began, all was finished, and that day was devoted to rest from the work of creation. Who shall say that the creative powers of the Deity have rested ever since the origin of this world? Who shall say that God has sent forth no new worlds, peopled like ours, in the wide extent of the universe? Most Christians, I think, will with me dislike the introduction of Hindoostanee records and traditions on a sacred subject. Does it not set a dangerous example? Does it not open a door to the objections of the infidel? You cannot, he would say, be satisfied with your own Scriptures, but must explain them by references to the traditions of the very Brahmins you affect to despise. Mr. Faber begins by stating, that a day in Scripture language frequently means a much longer period of time than a natural day. That this is sometimes the case, no one acquainted with the sacred writings would deny; though even here I do not believe all that Mr. Faber endeavours by his quotations to prove. For instance, he says, "Sometimes a day denotes a whole millenary;" quoting Psalm xc. 4, "for a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday, seeing that is passed as a watch in the night." Here, by supposing a day to be equal to a thousand years, we lose all the beauty of the passage. It is a fine poetical image, designed to convey to our minds the omniscience of the Deity, who could review the transactions of a thousand years with as much ease as those of yesterday. The very opposition of the passage is between a day and a thousand years. Mr. Faber might equally quote the conclusion of the verse, to prove that a day sometimes means the same as a watch in the night. Mr. Faber, in his second division, quotes Bishop Warburton, to prove that vegetation was not in a perfect state when created. I cannot here agree with him. The expression, "God created every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew," surely means no more than that the earth bare them not spontaneously; that they were the works of his hand. But, even allowing that all plants were placed in the earth in the seed, might they not, without an absolute miracle, have sprung up in two days? We know the astonishing rapidity of vegetation in Northern countries 'when once their spring begins; and the progress of vegetation in Eden would, from many causes, be even more rapid than this. The climate would be milder and more genial, the earth more luxuriant, its strength never having been drawn forth. But, even supposing that some extraordinary exertion of the Divine power was necessary to produce this effect, it is not greater than what would have been requisite to prevent any bad effects arising from the unlimited vegetation of twelve thousand years, during which no beast Mr. Faber next argues, that, as the days of Divine labour are all spoken of as equal in length, if we can establish the length of one, we may deduce the duration of all the others. He adds; "If God laboured six natural days, and rested on the seventh natural day, the very turn of the statement will unavoidably imply that he resumed his labours on the eighth natural day." That God rested on the seventh day, is no proof to my mind that he again resumed his labour. Of the seven days he had given up to the was living to eat the fruits of the earth. Supposing Mr. Faber's idea correct, what propriety could there be in the declaration that "the evening and the morning were the first day?" He could hardly substitute, "made the first period of six thousand years." Again, I would ask, Where can be the cogency of the reasoning of the Fourth Command? "Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it." Surely, by the analogy of language, all the days mentioned here must be of equal length. If so, the question is answered at once; for the seventh day of the Lord's rest is here placed as equivalent to the Sabbath which is enforced upon man. Again, he hallowed it ; he hallowed the Sabbath-day, because he rested on it: but it can hardly be said of Mr. Faber's Sabbath, that it is hallowed. W. A. S. REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. Matins and Vespers; with Hymns, and occasional Devotional Pieces. By JOHN BOWRING. 1823. 12mo. pp. 255. 6s. IN our last Number, in our review of "May you like it," we endeavoured to arrive at a mutual understanding with our good friends, the religious novelists, respecting our alleged want of courtesy in not devoting a larger portion of our review department to this very popular and prolific species of authorship. We shall now indulge ourselves with a few lines of explication, in reference to a similar alleged delinquency on our part towards the worthy brotherhood of religious poets. Our apology, how ever, needs be but brief: and it is not that the presses of this kingdom are not reasonably fertile, both in good poetry and in religious poetry; but that, by a perversion of talent which it grieves us to contemplate, the good poetry too frequently is not religious, and the religious too frequently is not good. We cannot consent to load our pages with extracts from indifferent poetry, merely because it is honourably distinguished by what, morally considered, is its highest praise, a laudable intention; much less can we think, generally speaking, of introducing fascinating lines culled from a book of poisons, at the risk that the sweet, and perhaps in itself unexceptionable, bait, should be the means of tempting the young and thoughtless to have recourse to the whole magazine of allurements, the bad as well as the good. In short, we stand as follows: With the Byrons, the Moores, and some other popular favourites, we cannot conscientiously hold communion; for, though we might produce from such works as "The Loves of the Angels," or the execrable "Don Juan" itself, detached passages, the sentiments of which would not stain, while the poetry would greatly adorn, our pages, we think the only right line for Christian critics, with regard to all such publications, is either a virtuous abstinence and silence, or an occasionally pointed and uncompromising reprehension. With a Scott, a Southey, and a few more of kindred class, though not professedly religious poets, we might have more numerous points of contact, at least so far as not to shrink from extracting from their writings what was beautiful to the imagination and innoxious to the mind, though it might not form a part of a poem decidedly in the style which Christian observers would most we refer. We feel no hesitation in approve. With those who have neither religion nor poetry in their rhymes, our account is so easily settled that we shall not trouble our readers with the balance-sheet: we surely need offer no apology for neglecting stanzas of this very uninviting character. But to the numerous inditers of virtuous and religious thoughts in well-meant, though not highly poetical, lines, we most sincerely offer a tribute of affection and respect, which talent alone, however brilliant, would not extort from us. We would even go further, to the length of saying that their productions may be considered very interesting, and be found very instructive, in some circles in which the object of their poems, more than the execution, is regarded. But, as caterers for the public, we cannot, in duty, wholly forego other claims, which, though but mental and literary, are not undeserving of being consulted, especially in this reading and polished age. It may It may be, and is, a virtue to be willing to sacrifice taste to improvement, as, for instance, in the case of being called upon to listen to a well-meant but feeble sermon; but all men do not possess this virtue, and, if they did, there is no injunction of the Decalogue which commands the voluntary exercise of it in reading reams of dull poems. Even, however, if our account were only with those who could and would forgive, perhaps applaud, a monthly halfsheet of indifferent moral or religious poetry, original or extracted, we should hesitate to venture upon this exercise of their courtesy ; but as all readers are not of this description, as many are directly the reverse of this description, and, by a mournful obliquity of feeling, can relish religious sentiment only when it comes to them decked in colours which attract their taste or fancy, it would be as injudicious as it is unclassical, to deluge the land with the publication, or re-publication, of the kind of versification to which penning these remarks, as each poet will do himself the justice to suppose his own works not included in the description; and, amidst our many thousands of living authors, there is no danger of becoming personal-which we are very far from meaning to be-in our allusions. In really sacred poetry of a high character for genius, poetry correct in doctrine as well as elevated in sentiment, there is a charm which cannot perhaps be found in any other species of writing. But, unhappily, how great is the dearth of this inestimable article! How few Cowpers can our own, or any other, language boast? Scattered up and down the literature of the country, there are innumerable individual specimens of the kind of poetry we are eulogizing; but as for volumes of such a stamp, they are, "like angel visits, few and far between." It is attributing very high praise to the "Matins and Vespers now vibrating on our ear, that they have considerable claims to occupy a conspicuous niche in the temple of sacred poesy; a temple meet for the worship (our readers will soon perceive that we have meaning in the remark) of "the holy and undivided Trinity in Unity," the style of dedication given to so many of our national ecclesiastical structures. These claims rest upon a frequent display-or rather the presence, without the display of a tenderness and pathos, an elegant simplicity and devotional feeling which win upon the heart, and sometimes touch it as with strains from unearthly worlds. There is no drama, no tale, no controversy in these poems; they are truly "Matins and Vespers." They charm by their modesty and sensibility, and by a deep veneration of, and an ardent expression of gratitude towards, our Almighty Creator, Preserver, and Benefactor. Many of the pictures in them of the love and compassion of God to |