we suppose that each new species is an advance upon that which immediately preceded it, in the same way as the chrysalis is an advance upon the caterpillar, and the butterfly upon the chrysalis; that the different plants and animals, extinct as well as living, have been successively evolved from one another by virtue of an organic law embodied in the constitution of the first individuals of each? That in consequence of this law, after a certain number of generations a hundred or thousand or million it may be the pine turns into the oak, the fish into the frog, the horse into the elephant, the monkey into the man? Shall we explain in this manner the origin of the innumerable organic beings which everywhere surround us, or whose fossil remains are so thickly scattered through the outer portions of our globe?

But even allowing this to be a satisfactory account of the multiplication of orders, genera and species, how shall we suppose the primitive forms to which they are thus traced back, to have originated? In what manner did those first and simple structures which furnished the starting point to this mighty series of developments come into existence? Between the humblest animal or even plant, and the most complex inorganic body, there is a chasm, not so wide or deep perhaps, but as absolutely impassable as that which separates man himself from the brute matter around him; and as well might we suppose the latter with all his wonderful corporeal and spiritual endowments, to have been formed through the mere operation of natural laws, as attribute the former to a like origin. From what source then did these first organic beings, these original progenitors of all the different families. and tribes of such beings, derive their existence?

But passing over this difficulty, we say that the explanation which is given of the subsequent multiplication of genera and species is by no means satisfactory. Nay, it would be hardly possible to conceive of one less so. It is in itself wild and extravagant to the very borders of absurdity. It is moreover in direct violation of the great law of reproduction the law by which throughout the organic world like everywhere produces like-from which not a single departure has been known from the epoch of the earliest observation down to the present time. Nor is the explanation supported by any real analogies. The illustration drawn from the calculating engine, as we have already seen, fails to meet the case. Neither are the metamorphoses which many insects undergo in arriving at their perfect state, at all more in point. Within the envelopes of the caterpillar may already be detected the germs of both the chrysalis and the butterfly. And even in those more remarkable families, such as the aphides and the circaria where the cycle of existence is completed only in many successive VOL. VII. No. 26. 30

generations, several of these generations may be seen inclosed within the same general covering. When animals of different species, instead of individuals of the same species, in different stages of their development, shall be found thus wrapped up within one another; when the embryo of the frog shall be discovered in the fish, of the elephant in the horse, and of the man in the monkey; then, and not till then, can the transformations of insects be adduced in support of the remarkable theory which we are now considering.

Nor is this all. Besides the extravagant character of the supposition, besides its incompatibility with one of the best established laws of nature and its entire want of support from any known facts or even analogies, we say it is, further, not in harmony with discoveries made concerning the extinct races which have peopled our globe. The transformation of the caterpillar into the chrysalis is attended by the disappearance of the caterpillar, and the transformation of the chrysalis into the butterfly is attended by the disappearance of the chrysalis. In the same way, when in accordance with this theory one species, after a certain number of generations, is converted into another, the former of these species should no longer be seen; or in other words, the introduction of every new plant or animal should be accompanied by the disappearance of one of those which had previously existed. Now such is by no means the case. As we ascend from the deeper to the more superficial layers of the earth's crust, new species on the one hand make their appearance while the old still remain; and old species, on the other, cease to occur, without their place being supplied by new ones. There is no such correspondence between the two classes of phenomena as to afford ground for the belief, or leave room for the supposition even, that they are in any manner dependent upon one another. That the same changes in the physical condition of our planet which caused the destruction of the extinct races, prepared the way for their living successors, is undoubtedly true; but beyond this, there are no indications of any connection whatever between them. The theory of the transmutation of species cannot therefore be maintained. It is directly at variance with the universal experience of mankind; and even were it ever so perfectly in accordance with that experience, it fails to account for the facts which it is specially designed to explain.

In what other way, then, may we suppose the different organic races to have originated, without having recourse to the idea of an intelligent and designing Creator? One other, and so far as we can see only one other, can be conceived. It is the existence somewhere in connection with our planet, in air, earth, or water, of a special organism fitted for elaborating the different forms of animal and vegetable life, and send

ing them forth as fast as the earth becomes prepared for their reception. But where is this wonderful organism, this literal womb of nature? Who has ever seen it? If it really exist, why has it not been discovered? Why has the geologist, in all his varied explorations, never fallen upon it? Or if it be situated in the interior of the earth, or in mid air, or mid ocean, how, at each successive birth of nature, do her progeny find their way to the several places which they are destined to occupy? For here, be it remembered, we cannot evoke miracles; all such aid is necessarily excluded by the very supposition upon which we are proceeding. How then, we ask, are the beings formed in this unknown recess of the earth, conveyed to their respective stations upon its surface? The whole idea is grotesque and absurd in the extreme. It is altogether too preposterous for serious consideration. No man in his sober senses can, for a moment, entertain it.

And thus it is with all the different modes of explaining the origin and development of life in our world, independently of an intelligent Author. It is only in the shape of vague generalities that such explanations seem plausible. The moment they are made to assume any definite and precise form, their verisimilitude vanishes. We then detect in each, as it passes before us, some element of absurdity which causes the mind to reject it. There is but one adequate hypothesis — one which will, at the same time explain and harmonize all the facts of the universe, and satisfy the requirements of our intellectual and moral natures that of an eternal, self-existent, all-wise and omnipotent Creator. To this, everything around and everything within us points; in this, the great problem of material and spiritual existences, with all their diversities of form and endowment, finds a simple and satisfactory solution. God has made the world, and his attributes are written upon every portion of it. Wherever we turn our eyes, we behold the evidences of his wisdom and his power-the proofs of his handiwork. The little and the great, the minute and the comprehensive; the tiny insect, sporting in the sunbeam, and the mighty orb of day, enthroned in the centre of our system, and dispensing light and heat to its uttermost borders, alike tell of him. The physical arrangements of our planet, its oceans and its continents, its mountains and its valleys, its rain and its sunshine, the alternation of day and night, the vicissitude of the seasons, all of these, together with the ever-varied and yet ever-adapted forms of life, to whose support they continually minister, speak the same language. These complex frames of ours, so elaborately and so curiously wrought; each organ, limb, and member, with all the wonderful provisions of structure and properties by which they are fitted for their several offices, utter the same voice: a voice

which is not only echoed and reëchoed by all external nature, but finds a still deeper response in every faculty and power of the soul - nay, in that consciousness of derived being which lies behind these powers and faculties that voice is God.

ARTICLE VI.

TRANSLATION AND EXPOSITION OF THE SECOND PSALM.

By Prof. C. E. Stowe, D. D., Cincinnati.

I. MESSIANIC APPLICATION OF THE PSALM.

1) Testimony of the New Testament. Acts 4: 24-27. The whole company of the apostles ascribe this psalm to David, quote the first two verses, and affirm that they are a prophecy of the Messiah. Acts 13: 33. The apostle Paul, in a discourse at Antioch quotes the 7th verse as a proof of the resurrection of Christ. Heb. 1:5. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews quotes the 7th verse to prove that Christ had a nature superior to the angels; and again, Heb. 5: 5, the same author cites this verse to prove that the Messiah was appointed to his work by God.

The idea of accommodation, in this application of these passages, is out of the question, for the sacred writers do not adduce them as mere illustrations, but as direct proofs; and if the psalm were not originally intended to predict the Messiah, the passages quoted are nothing to their purpose. This is sufficient to prove the Messianic character of the psalm, with those who acknowledge the divine authority of the New Testament. Just before our Lord's ascension to heaven, he pointed out to his disciples those passages of the Old Testament, and particularly of the Psalms, which referred directly to himself (Luke 24: 27, 28, 44, 46); and immediately after his ascension we find them applying this psalm to him, undoubtedly on his own authority.

2) Jewish testimony. The older Hebrews always regarded this psalm as a prophecy of the Messiah, and never thought of giving it any other application, till they were brought into difficulty by the use which Christians made of it to prove the messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth. This is frankly acknowledged by one of the most eminent of their commentators, Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, in the following remarkable passage: "Our rabbis have always interpreted this psalm of the king

Messiah; but according to the literal sense, and that it may resist the heretics (that is, the Christians), it is expedient that we interpret it of David himself." David Kimchi also makes a similar acknowledgment: "There are those (says he) who interpret this psalm of Gog and Magog, and the anointed king is the Messiah; and so our rabbis, of blessed memory, understood it; and the psalm, explained in this manner, is very perspicuous. But it seems more probable that David composed it respecting himself, and so we interpret it."

3) Internal evidence. The internal evidence for the messianic application of this psalm, and against its application to David or Solomon or any Israelitish king, is perfectly conclusive, and was so acknowledged by Eichhorn (Biblioth. der Bibl. Lit. I. 534). Rosenmüller, in the first edition of his Commentary, applied it to Solomon; but in the subsequent editions he abandons this ground, and proves very clearly that it must be applied to the Messiah and to him only. Still he contends that it is an ideal Messiah, and not the historical Christ of the New Testament who is here spoken of; for the Messiah of this psalm is represented (vs. 9 and 12) as much too severe and cruel for the Christ of the New Testament. Any one who reads the New Testament will see at once the groundlessness of this objection. The coming of Christ to execute judgment on his enemies is, in the New Testament, represented in the same manner, and often in language even more terrific. As, for example, by the apostle Paul (2 Thess. 1: 7-11) when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power, etc. With this agree perfectly the representations which Christ gives of himself in Matthew xxiv. and xxv. See also Rev. 2: 29. 12:5. 19:15, where the very language of this psalm itself is used in reference to the historical Christ of the New Testament. The same idea is given of Christ, also, in the other prophecies of the Old Testament concerning him. Comp. Num. 24: 17-19. Isa. 11: 4. Ps. 92: 4. 110: 6, and other parallel passages.

We will indicate a few of the internal marks of the applicability of this psalm to the Messiah and the Messiah only.

Ver. 7th, the subject of this psalm is declared to be the Son of God in the highest sense, in the sense of partaking of the nature of God, which is applicable to no earthly king whatever. So the text is explained in the New Testament. Heb. 1: 5.

Vs. 8 and 9. The dominion of this king is to be coëxtensive with the earth itself, which applies to no earthly monarch. In the other