38 
the Review article, viz.: that ‘Creation from nothing cannot be a mir- 
acle.” 
1. The “Reply” seeks shelter under the distinction between creation 
ex nihilo “originating” a course of nature; and the same act “during”’ 
a course of nature. Instead, however, of overlooking this distinction, it 
was precisely upon the Doctor’s own ground of creation ‘‘originating,” 
ete., that the first argument to prove his “‘self-contradiction” was based. 
(Pamphlet, p. 10.) Nor does the ‘‘Reply” yet save the Doctor from 
logical suicide, or vindicate the coherency of his argument. Again, s0 
far from attempting to ‘involve him in self-contradiction, because he ad- 
mitted” the miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus to be a “creation e2° 
nihilo as regards his animal life,” it is frankly confessed that the discov- 
ery was never made that the Doctor held that view till the information 
was furnished in the “Reply.” It was thought that the Professor taught 
as the Confession of Faith certainly does, that 1, death (in this sense) 
was the separation of the soul from the body; that the soul was then 
made perfect’ in holiness, and passed immediately into glory, and that 
the body rested in the grave till the resurrection ; and 2, that resurrec- 
tion consisted in the reunion of the soul and body. But that the Pro- 
fessor held that there isin man a third distinct entity, viz.: “animal 
life,” and that 1, death consisted in the annihilation of this animal life ; 
and that 2, resurrection consisted in the exnihilation of it, is a matter 
which has been learned for the first time in the ‘Reply.’ True the 
Doctor may claim that this theory is related to the teaching of our Stan- 
dards in the category of ‘“‘non-contradiction,”’ and that therefore his 
teaching is in ‘‘harmony” with the Confession; granted; but if so, why 
should he refuse to observe toward others the Golden Rule? If, how- 
ever, in harmony with the creed of the Church, can it be in harmony 
with the Scriptures? ‘And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; 
and I pray God your whole spirit (pneuma) and soul (psukee) and body 
(soma) be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus 
Christ.” 1 Thess. v. 23. It seems, then, that the “Reply” teaches that 
the “soul” (psukee—“animal life”) of Lazarus was annihilated at his 
death and exnihilated at his resurrection. Does he then believe that, 
“at their death,” the souls of believers are annihilated ; the spirits 
(same as “soul” in Con. Faith) “do immediately pass into glory,” having 
been made “perfect in holiness ;” and that their bodies are given to cor- 
ruption? Does he believe that in the general resurrection the body is 
“resurrected ;” the spirit is “reunited” to the body; and the soul “ex- 
nihilated”’ If so, then whilst it may be true that the Doctor's private 
