Mr. Faber says, "that the six demiurgic days, instead of being nothing more than six natural days, were each a period of very considerable length, may be proved partly by analogy of language, partly by the very necessity of the narrative, partly by ancient tradition, and partly (and that most decisively) by the discoveries, or possibly the rediscoveries, of modern physiologists."

With respect to the analogy of language, Mr. Faber says, that in Scripture, nothing can well be more indefinite than the term which we translate by the English word day. Sometimes it signifies a single revolution of the earth round its axis; sometimes it denotes a revolution of the earth round the sun, or what we call a natural year, &c.

"The question therefore is," says he, "what specific period it describes in the Mosaical history of the creation." If God labored six natural days, and rested on the seventh natural day, the very terms of the statement will imply that he resumed his labors on the eighth natural day, or on the first day of the following natural week. But did he resume his labors on the eighth natural morning? 'Most assuredly he did not, and if he did not resume his labors on the eighth natural morning, then his Sabbath, or day of rest, extended beyond the seventh natural day, therefore a single natural day could not be the measure of the divine Sabbath."

To

"But at what time did the divine Sabbath, thus plainly extending beyond the limits of the seventh day, terminate?" asks our author, and to himself replies, In good truth, its termination has not even yet arrived; for the creative labors of God have never been resumed." show the truth of this, Mr. Faber quotes from the heathen "Institutes of Menu," as follows: "He, whose powers are incomprehensible, having created the universe, was again absorbed in the Supreme Being, changing the time of energy for the time of repose;" and then says, "The time of God's energy was doubtless the period of the creation." We

We are sorry that Mr. Faber is obliged to quote Indian heathenism instead of Scripture to support his doctrines. But leaving this to the reader's own comments, we will pass at once to the author's conclusions on this part of the subject.

From the above data, he says the divine Sabbath has not yet terminated, nor will it terminate, until "the predicted dissolution of the present order of things."

"Thus it appears," says he, "that the divine Sabbath, instead of being limited to a single natural day, is in truth a period commensurate with the duration of the created universe; what that duration will be, no one knows save the Father only." 2 Peter iii. 10, 13. But this we know, that the world has existed about 6000 years. "The divine Sabbath, therefore, is a period of not less duration than six millenaries."

Having come to this odd conclusion, Mr. Faber goes on to show that the analogy of language requires us to "interpret homogeneously the seven days, which constitute the great week of God." Hence, as the Sabbath day was a period of not less than 6000 years, so each of the other days must have been periods of at least 6000 years.

Thus, does the learned Mr. Faber call upon his fellow Christians, whether geologists or not, to believe that He who said, "Let there be light, and light was," "who brought all things out of nothing by the word of His power," occupied at least 36,000 years in creating this little earth, a mere speck, a mote, when compared with his other works, the "hosts of heaven," the universe.

Let us look for a moment at the bearing of this theory. Since "the ways of God are equal," there is every reason to believe, that if time was required in the creation of this earth and the garniture thereof, a proportionate quantity of time was also required in the creation of the other planets of our system, for there is not the least probability, that if the creative power required at least 36,000 years to forin our earth, that the same power could at the same time have been at work in the production of the other planets. Mr. Faber's theory does not allow such a supposition; for no reason can be assigned, why the process of creation occupied so long a period, except the want of power to finish it in a shorter time; and therefore since the entire power of the Creator must have been occupied on our earth; it is plain that no other work could have been accomplished at the same time.

Now since there are twenty-eight planets in our system besides the Earth, if we consider the latter of a medium size, then the time occupied in creating the whole. would be twenty-nine times 36,000 years, without refer

* Three Dispensations, vol. i. 115, 116.

ence to the creation of the sun. But the sun contains 500 times as much matter as all the planets put together, and therefore, according to Mr. Faber's doctrine, we cannot see why it must not have occupied 500 times as long a period for its creation as all the planets.

According to this doctrine, then, it must have taken nearly five hundred millions of years for Him who said, "Let the dry land appear," and it was so, to have created and made this our solar system. What time then must

have been occupied by the same creative power in the formation of those myriads of worlds which the vault of the heavens contain, for "He made the stars also." But enough of this. And now if Mr. Faber's theory does not fairly lead to such conclusions, then the folly of drawing them must fall on the writer of this book, and not on himself

But whether our present conclusions are true or false, we will call upon any man, even on our author himself, to reconcile another bearing of his theory with itself, or in other words to show how it is possible that a definite portion of time should be perpetually increasing in length. Thus, Mr. Faber says, that the length of the Sabbath is the length of all the other days, and that God having rested from his abors 6000 years at the present time, therefore each day of creation is now, or was, 6000 years long. But he goes on to inform us that the said Sabbath has not yet terminated, nor will it terminate until the predicted dissolution of the present order of things; or in the language of Menu, "the time of repose has not yet changed for the time of energy."

Now since the length of the Sabbath, and all the other days, depend entirely on the length of time which God has rested, or will rest, from his labors, then it plainly follows, that had Mr. Faber written his theory at the expiration of twenty-fours hours after the last creation, the length of the days, according to himself, would have been only twentyfour hours long, for the same reason that he makes them 6000 years long at the time he did write. And so he who lives 6000 years hence, and reads Mr. Faber's theory, will find that according to it, the days of creation were 12,000 years long, and so on, until "the time of repose is changed for the time of energy."

Does any ancient tradition, or any discovery of modern physiologists, warrant a grave and learned author to employ such logic as this?

Again, if the days of creation were 6000 years long, then we must believe that it was 18,000 years after the waters were gathered, and the dry land made to appear, before man was created-that it was 12,000 years after the creation of plants before animals were brought into existence, and that it was 12,000 years after the sea was formed before it brought forth the "moving creature."

But Mr. Faber finds, from the very necessity of the narrative, that a considerable portion of time must have elapsed between the creation of plants, and the creation of animals, otherwise the herbivorous tribes must have perished for want of food.

In this part of his theory, it must be confessed that the author has shown a marvellous degree of sagacity, having discovered this necessity in a passage where less acumen, or less anxiety to support a theory, would certainly have looked for it in vain.

The words of the narrative which afford this necessity, are found in Gen. xi. 5. "God made every plant of the field before it was in the earth; and every herb of the field before it grew." The remaining part of the same verse explains this, "for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." This plainly showing, that although the process of vegetation usually requires rain and tillage, yet in this case it was perfected without either.*

It was plainly, from the words of the text, a miraculous creation of full grown vegetables, without the planting of seeds, and without the process of vegetation.

It appears from this verse, says Dr. Adam Clarke, that God created every thing, not only perfect as respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity; so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth, and this was necessary, that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.

Now although nothing can be more obvious than that the sacred historian intended we should understand by this language, that the first plants did not pass through the gradual process of growth as they afterwards did, but that they were called into existence in full maturity, yet from these very words, Mr. Faber infers that we are un

* Bush on Genesis.

der the necessity of concluding that the whole vegetable kingdom was created in the form of seeds; and because in the ordinary course of nature, these seeds could.not have grown in time to have supplied herbivorous animals with food, which were created two days after; so these days must have been at least 6000 years in length, for otherwise the cattle of the field would have perished for want of food.

Now, independently of what we must consider a total perversion of the meaning of the text, this interpretation is utterly inconsistent with what follows, for it is clear, if we are guided by analogy, (which is one of the corner stones of Mr. Faber's theory,) we must allow that the animals were created in the young state, as well as the plants, and granting this to have been the case, then it is plain that the seeds would have vegetated into herbs, at least as soon as the young animals could have been fitted to partake of such food.

But that the animals were created in full maturity, as well as our first parents, no one can have the least doubt, otherwise who nursed and brought them up, since they had neither fathers nor mothers.

It is unnecessary to follow Mr. Faber in further details. The propriety of his interpretation he has attempted to prove, as already stated,

1. By analogy of language.

2. By the very necessity of the narrative.

3. By ancient tradition, and

4. By the discoveries of modern physiologists.

With respect to the last ground of proof, he quotes Cuvier on the revolutions of the globe, to show. that the earth has undergone great changes since its first creation, and which no one denies. But on this point he advances nothing new, or which in the least degree shows the necessity of his new interpretation. It is therefore needless to follow him through this portion of his argument.

And now, in taking leave of Mr. Faber, we must be allowed to express the astonishment we have felt, that a Christian writer of his reputation should have so far lent himself to the support of a theory, as to have seen in ancient traditions, or the discovery of modern physiologists, a sufficient reason for giving the sacred Scriptures a meaning, which otherwise he does not pretend they could have had. What! a man professing to teach the sacred truths of