assumes to exist and to run through all the ranks of living beings.

The validity of Darwin's theory stands or falls with the success or failure in verifying these deductions. If we now inquire how far the author has been able to establish his theory by a successful verification of the deductions legitimately drawn from it, we find that his appeal to facts encounters more difficulties requiring explanation than coincidences with anticipated results. Instead of the movement of verification being for his theory a triumphant march from conquest to conquest in the field of fact and analogy, it is rather a succession of encounters with almost insuperable difficulties, and of gigantic efforts to smooth them away. Hence this part of the author's discussion is largely made up of efforts to answer objections, and of ingenious searches for loopholes of escape from the pressure of obstinate facts. He finds more to do in trying to show that the facts which he encounters are not subversive of his theory, than in proving them confirmatory of it. Thus the attempt to estimate the weight of his arguments will have to deal rather with the validity of his answers to objections than with direct proofs in confirmation of the theory. In applying to his reasonings the appropriate tests of validity, it will not be necessary to follow strictly the order of the foregoing deductions, or that adopted by the author.

In the first place, if we take a general survey of the field of fact and analogy, which Darwin lays open to our view, we see changes going on, little by little, which seemingly fall in with the theory in question. Observing this progress of change, we can not say what degree of transformation might not be reached in the lapse of ages. If we take a nearer view, and follow out the history of a few cases of marked deviation from the parent type, we find ourselves still more inclined to give a respectful hearing to arguments in support of the theory. After witnessing the results of selective breeding in the case of pigeons, dogs and some other domestic animals, witnessing the production of varieties more widely differing from each other in external appearance than do many distinct wild spe

cies, it does not seem a violent assumption to suppose that the wild species, so nearly alike in external characteristics, may have originated by natural selection from a common parent stock. Nor is it strange that those who have followed the author's facts and reasonings with ready belief thus far, should resist the attempt to shake their conviction by an appeal to the test of interbreeding between the allied groups; yet, for reasons already stated, the application of this test seems to throw the preponderance of probability against the theory.

It being generally admitted, that there is no satisfactory proof of the actual origination of a species by selective breeding or by natural selection, the question turns on the bearing of the facts adduced on the probability of such origination of species. Let us turn again to the facts, and try to extract, if possible, their real meaning.

The author notices the fact of the unrestricted fecundity of the crosses of all the varieties of domestic pigeons, even of those which are the most diverse in external form and character; and he labors strenuously to break the force with which this fact bears against his theory. He also alludes to the diverse and almost anomalous character of the mongrel offspring of these crosses, some of the young copying with minute accuracy the ancestral type of the wild rock-pigeon, some resembling one or the other of the immediate parents, and others, again, more or less unlike any existing varieties, but probably not inaccurate copies of the intermediate grades of variation between the parent stock and the latest and most diverging varieties.

Darwin seems not to have noticed the peculiar significance of the facts relating to the diverse character of the mongrel offspring of the different varieties of pigeons. To me these facts seem to prove the persistent identity of the type of the species through all the gradations of change to which it is subject, that those varieties which diverge most widely from the parent species, still carry along with them a vital constitutional oneness with the original stock, and with the long line of ancestry, by which they have descended from it. The vital

tendencies, in which this oneness consists, may slumber long, but it is doubtful if they ever completely die out. So long as diverging varieties are bred strictly, each within its own line of descent, the hereditary force, accumulated by oft-repeated impulses in the same direction, is measurably certain to bring out in the offspring, perceptibly accurate copies of the immediate parents. But when two of these, strong currents are made to cross each other, there seems to be a sudden uprising of latent vital tendencies, a re-awakening of long slumbering forces, bringing to the surface, not only the original type of the species, but a multitude of kindred forms, which may have appeared and vanished in the long line of descent.

It seems to me that this view of the facts is reasonable and just, and that it throws the balance of probability on the side of the doctrine of the stability of species, this stability being secured within by the mysterious tendency, in all the varying forms, to treasure up and preserve in their very life-blood, all the characteristics of the variable type, and being guarded without from the intrusion of allied species by the barrier of sterility.

[TO BE CONCLUDED IN OUR NEXT NUMBER.]

ARTICLE III.

MODERN EVANGELISTS AND SPECIAL EFFORTS TO
CONVERT AND SAVE SINNERS.

"And

The grand end of our Lord's mission into our world, and of his institution of the Church with its various ministry, was to convert and save as many as possible of our lost race. he gave some to be Apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; unto the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministration, for the building up of the body of Christ." He thus provided for the fulfillment in all following time of his commission to his disciples just before his ascension, that they should "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature," and

"make disciples of all nations." In the recently issued commentary of Braune on Ephesians, in Lange's series, he says on the passage above quoted: "It is incorrect to affirm that Christ raises up no apostolic men, no prophets, nor evangelists, but only pastors and teachers;" and he indicates who are essentially reproductions of the first three classes. We especially agree with him, as it respects evangelists, and hold that their office was not merely for the time of the Apostlesthat it has not ceased, and never will cease till the world is converted. In so holding, we are confronted by the opinions of some authorities, which we must notice.

Conybeare and Howson tell us that "the term evangelist seems to have been almost synomynous with our word missionary." We reply that, while coinciding in essential aim, there is a breadth of difference between them, which no almost can possibly span. The evangelist was a man, while the missionary is of either sex; the former was a preacher of the gospel, while the latter was, or was not; the former was not sent here or there, located, nor supported by stipulated pay, as missionaries are by churches or organizations; and he sustained no such relation to churches as missionaries, both home and foreign, now do. He went forth, sent, not even by the Apostles, but by the Lord only, as they were, solely to preach and teach the gospel to convert men to Christ; and altogether, the difference between him and modern missionaries, really indicated by the two terms, is well nigh as great as between him and "pastors and teachers." Evangelists were not missionaries at all, in the common acceptation, any more than the Apostles were; so far are these authors, and Neander and others agreeing with them, from being correct on this point; and, if, when the two former say the term evangelist, "is applied to those missionaries who, like Philip and Timothy, traveled from place to place to bear the glad tidings of Christ to unbelieving nations or individuals," and when Neander says, "the term could only denote one whose calling it was to publish the doctrine of salvation to men, and thereby to lay a foundation for the Christian Church," they

design to signify that the office ceased with that of the Apostles, they are inconsistent with themselves, as well as incorrect. For, there certainly has been, and, till the world is converted, will continue to be, the same need for such functionaries, which there was then, to do among unbelieving nations, and to such individuals just what those did in those times; and this will continue to be essentially the function of preaching missionaries among such nations; so that, by these men's own exposition, the office is continued, and must continue till all nations are discipleized. If the evangelists were missionaries, their office did not cease with that of the Apostles; if it did, how can the terms be either entirely or altogether synonymous ?

We proceed to show reasons that this office was designed to continue till the world is converted; and, in order to do this, we must definitely understand its distinctive character. The difference between it and that of the Apostles was, that their commission was given by the living lips of Christ himself, while this was given by a call of the Spirit, as was that of pastors; that the Apostles were sent to be witnesses to men of what they had personally seen and known of, and heard from him, and specially of his resurrection and ascension; that, with preaching, they were to organize and order churches, and to exercise a supreme authority over them; that, to qualify them for this exalted function, they received such special impartation of the Spirit as to bring all things, which they had seen and known of him, and been taught by him, to their remembrance, with a clear spiritual understanding of them; that they were furnished with perfect credentials for their mission, and were infallible in it; and consequently that their office was to cease with them, as, in the nature of the case, they could not possibly have any successors in it in all which their office differed from that of evangelists no less than from that of pastors. The difference between the office of evangelists, and that of the prophets mentioned was, that these had, and as such, only acted under, a peculiar inspiration, which, when given, whether once or often, made them