32 
. that without any mention of his name. As the Pamphlet clearly 
evinces, my object was, not to defend Dr. Woodrow, but the Bible, see- 
ing that precious volume, by Dr. Girardeau’s argument, had been bound 
in the meshes of his sophistries, and handed over to be the sport of the 
Philistines. 
I took especial pains (Pamphlet, p. 12) to say: “Science as such is 
neither Christian nor anti-Christian, neither atheistic, pantheistic, nor 
deistic.” Nature, the basis of all Natural Science, is, as God made it, 
neither atheistic, theistic, nor Christian, but simply and intensely 
natural—‘‘and all very good.” Is nature sin? God forbid; but sin, 
taking occasion by nature, works in us all manner of infidelity. Be- 
cause some farmers are atheists, we would not subdivide the science of 
farming into atheistic and non-atheistic. Two physicians—one an 
atheist, the other a devout Christian—may agree on every essential point 
in the science of medicine, and in the practice of the healing art. Be- 
cause there are on the one hand atheistic and on the other hand Christian 
physicians, no one has ever thought of dividing medical science into 
atheistic and Christian, although the former will seek to give only an 
atheistic explanation of the occult action of medicines, and the other 
only a Christian explanation of the same action. Because one man 
confirms his atheism by atheistic inferences from the facts of science or 
of nature, no more proves science or nature to be atheistic, than it proves 
the Bible to be atheistic, because some men confirm their atheism by 
atheistic inferences from the facts of Scripture. The two physicians 
agree as to the facts; they agree as to the scientific conclusions; but, 
beyond this, one is confirmed in his atheism, and the other in his adoring 
reverence. They both see the heart, the arteries, the veins, and the 
relations between them all, and their several functions; they both make 
the same use of this knowledge in the diagnosis, prognosis, and practice ; 
beyond this, the one sees God in them all, the other sees nothing but 
“organic dust’ and “natural law”—‘“G'od is not in all his thoughts.” 
How illogical it would be to argue: therefore the study of anatomy 
and physiology lead to atheism. Still, it is a sad truth, revealed in 
Scripture and confirmed in nature, man “by wisdom knew not God. 
Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge.” Agnosti- 
cism, therefore, confirms the Scriptures, even as the Scriptures discover 
the root of agnosticism. 
Before proceeding farther in direct line, I shall turn aside for a brief 
moment. 
I wish to point out the at least apparent change in Dr. Girardeau’s 
