writers being overlooked or lost amid vague and general description." But notwithstanding, the "poetical characters" of Scripture, which the author says it would be unpardonable to omít, were overlooked till after the concluding chapter was printed, and are only noticed in a "Supplementary Chapter."

All that Mr. Gilfillan says on the subject of poetry is "confusion worse confounded." He has departed from the fixed meaning of the word, not only without reason but against reason. Distinctions which are universally recognized and for the expression of which there are appropriate words in all cultivated languages, may be presumed to have some foundation in nature. Of this kind is the distinction between prose and poety. It is a distinction in the form in which the productions of the mind in accordance with natural laws are expressed. Speech is not an invention of man but an act of nature. So, too, forms of speech which are universally recognized as distinct and are denoted by distinct words, are natural forms; that is, the mind acting under different impulses necessarily expresses itself in different forms, and some of these forms are different in kind. The poetic form is not a modification of the form of prose nor a species of it; it is generically distinct. The poetic form itself may be developed diversely; it may be controlled by accent, by quantity, by alliteration, by parallelism, or by something else, but whatever specific form it may take in any particular language, it is different from the form of prose in that language. The person, who writes in the one or the other is conscious of that distinction, and so is the reader. It is the form alone, which can make a perfect division between prose and poetry. There is then a natural distinction between the two generic forms in which the productions of the mind are expressed; and these are denoted by words corresponding to prose and poetry. The Hebrew language has words to denote these distinctions. It seems hardly proper in treating of Hebrew poetry to disregard distinctions existing in the language and as old as the language itself.

The mind seems to recognize the poetic form as the higher of the two. Hence, it is impelled to adopt this form from the simple desire of excellence, and hence, too, the greatest efforts of the imagination and the intellect are embodied in it. This has led to a second use of the word poetry. We sometimes mean by it the ideal, as when we say of some particular passage, "this 28 poetry." In this case, we have reference not to the poetic form as distinct from prose, but to the most perfect specimens of that form. In the definition of poetry we have in view merely its existence, and seek for that property which will discriminate all poetry, good or bad, from prose; in its ideal, we limit ourselves

to those examples of poetry which have superior excellence. From this latter meaning of the word, has arisen a secondary or figurative meaning. As we find in prose, efforts of the imagination and of the intellect equal perhaps to any in poetry, we apply to these the epithet "poetical," or we may even call them "poetry;" but in that case we do not mean that they are literally poetry; we call them so because they have some of the excellencies of poetry. The sentence, "God said, Let there be light, and there was light," we may call poetical or by a bold figure poetry, but it would be ridiculous to write a book on poetry in this figurative sense of the word. It would take in a large portion of the most important prose works in every language-it would sweep over the fields of oratory, history and philosophy. And yet, this is precisely what Mr. Gilfillan has done. Throughout the volume he has regarded every thought and image which could be wrought into poetry as already poetry. He might at once call everything poetry which can be made use of in a poem; indeed, everything in creation, for there is nothing but can be so used. We have dwelt upon this, not because in the present instance it is a very mischievous error-it has merely led Mr. Gilfillan to write a poor prose poem, but because it is a rhetorical trick of a large class of writers, which needs to be exposed. The artifice is merely to take words denoting anything excellent, and then to use the figurative applications of them to other things as if they were their literal signification. A few such words as "religion," "philosophy," "poetry," "beauty," "infinite," are the stock in trade of several writers of the present day. It is thought to be wonderfully profound to call religion, poetry, or poetry, religion, whereas it is nothing but a mere trick with words.

At the fourth chapter, the author proceeds to treat of the several books of the Scriptures. We do not think it necessary to make any minute criticisms on particular passages. We pass hastily along, with here and there a remark.

The Pentateuch, we are informed, is "steeped throughout in the essence of poetry." But Mr. Gilfillan, even with all his keen scent for the poetical, could not but admit that large portions of the books of Moses are written in the plainest and most unadorned prose. In the account of the flood, which has furnished him with materials for several pages of fine writing and which he has surrounded with "masses of figures," Moses has used-as our author almost complains-but a single metaphor, "the windows of heaven." It was necessary therefore, to discover some menstruum by which the plain speech of Moses could be transmuted into poetry. We admire the skill of the alchemist. "As a nar

rator, Moses makes a word or two do the work of pictures. Nor is this word always an ἔπος πτερόεν—a word rolled together like a double star-but often a plain, unmetaphorical term, which quakes under the thought or scene it describes. The pathos or the grandeur, instead of elevating or kindling his language, levels and sinks it. His language may be called the mere transparent window through which the immeasurable calm'—the blue of immensity looks in." After this, we think no poet need despair. By the way, it has hitherto been considered by scholars, that negóɛ, instead of "rolled together," means right the opposite, being derived ultimately from a verb which is used of a bird expanding its wings. One would suppose "the winged words" of Homer might have been understood by this time, at least that the expression has no reference to the metaphor. Perhaps Mr. Gilfillan was thinking of the swan that floats "double" on" still St. Mary's lake."

In the book of Job, the author finds a style which gives him less trouble than that of Moses, and he declares that the latter in comparison with the former is "like one severe feather compared to the outspread wing of an eagle." Job, it may be remarked, is "the Landseer of ancient poetry and something more." "That great painter seems, every one knows, to become the animal he is painting. So Job with the war horse swallows the ground with fierceness and rage; with behemoth moves his tail like a cedar; with the eagle smells the slain afar off and screams with shrill and far-heard joy." But Job could do some things that Landseer can not do. For we are told, "it may be questioned whether Landseer could or durst go down after Jonah into the whale or exchange souls with the mammoth or megatherium"-which it is implied Job would venture upon. But perhaps, Landseer may be pardoned for not exchanging souls at least with the megatherium, since he may never have fallen in with a perfect specimen of that fossil.

But we can not pursue the footsteps of our author further. We are weary of hunting through figures for thoughts which elude the grasp, or if arrested, prove to be nothing but old familiar truths. There is scarcely a definite proposition in the volume. We are not aware that there is a single new interpretation-a single explanation of any difficulty-or a single important thought added to what was before well known. There is nothing but figures-figures

"Water-water, every where."

We have also another reason for not prosecuting farther the examination of this book. When the author comes to speak of

New Testament poetry, he introduces the subject in a way that is too painfully offensive even to be criticised. "We pass to speak of the Poetry of the Gospels and of that transcendent Poet who died on Calvary;" and he thinks the chapter on the subject would more properly be designated, as "The Poetry of Jesus," than the "Poetry of the Gospels."

Mr. Gilfillan in writing this volume has sought among other objects to win men of genius to embrace the moral truths of Revelation by first leading them to look at the Bible as a work of genius; or as he otherwise expresses it, "to insinuate the lesson of eternal truth by that of infinite beauty." But in prosecuting this design, he has committed two very grave errors. He has spoken of men of genius too much as inspired men, and of inspired men too much as men of genius. We do not mean that he does not recognize the inspiration of the Scriptures and the distinctions arising from that fact, but that his habitual language seems to place men of genius all but in the class of inspired men. He speaks, for instance, of "the prophetic men among us as displaying rather the mood than the insight of prophecyrather a yearning after, than a feeling of the stoop of the descending God," and a like view is presented throughout the work. Now, if a writer, by a figurative use of language, chooses to speak of men of genius as inspired or prophetic, we do not object, but habitually to use this language as if in a literal sense and this in a manner so as to leave the impression that they are really prophets, really inspired, is a mischievous abuse of words. On the other hand, he has exaggerated the native talents of the writers of the Bible taken as a class. He has represented them to be men of preeminent genius beyond any that ever lived, so that if they had not been inspired they might have produced a Biblea poem-which should far transcend all other human productions. We do not hesitate to say that this is a false representation of the case. It cannot be said with truth, that Matthew, or Mark, or Luke, or Peter, or James, for example, were men of genius. There are some other writers of the Bible who do not seem to have had any natural superiority over other men. Nor will the representation have the effect intended. No man of talent will be misled by such exaggerations, while it will only flatter the vanity of those who aspire to be "the prophetic men of the age.

Mr. Gilfillan appears to have been led into this view of the subject partly by his idolatry of genius and partly by his admiration of splendid writing. But it is unfortunate when any cause which is generally supported in any community is taken up by a popular writer-the temptation is so strong to make it a theme

for mere fine writing, since there will be little disposition to criticise with severity. How much has been written on the Reformation that will not stand the test of an historical scrutiny! How often has the American Revolution been made an exercise for empty declamation, in which the effort of the mind has been not to say what was just and true, but to search out something brilliant and rhetorical! The character of the Bible has saved it from being often treated in this way, but when it is done, it is offensive to all right feelings in the highest degree. We do not suppose that Mr. Gilfillan was conscious of any such attempt, but his whole work has made upon us that impression. In this case, too, the disgust is increased by the manner in which the author brings the writers of the Bible into comparison with uninspired writers. Who can be expected to endure a writer that can speak of Amos " as the Robert Burns of the prophets," and of Peter "as the Oliver Goldsmith of the New Testament?" It is from no desire to say anything harsh, but because it is the actual feeling we had in reading the book, that we pronounce it the poorest book, written by a man of talents, we ever read, not even excepting "Hervey's Meditations."

ART. IV. THE RESULTS OF MODERN MISSIONS, PERMANENT.

John Foster on Missions: with an Essay on the Skepticism of the Church. By JOSEPH P. THOMPSON, Pastor of the Broadway Tabernacle Church. New York: Edward H. Fletcher, 1851.

THIS work reproduces in a popular form two important publications. One is the noble discourse of John Foster on the Glory of the Age, or the Spirit of Missions, delivered thirty-three years ago, before the Baptist Missionary Society: the other is an essay on the Skepticism of the Church respecting the work of missions, by the Rev. Mr. Thompson, which appeared some years since in the Biblical Repository. The former has a kind of martial tone about it; as we read, we seem to hear the tread of embattled and bannered hosts, as with voices of victory, they press on to the conquest of the world. There is a beauty in its expression, and a strength in its reasoning, and a grandeur in its comprehensive view of the great work of missions, fitted to stir the soul, and to stimulate the faith of the militant Church. The latter, the pre