39 
creed may “‘not contradict” the Church’s public creed, still, his creed con- 
tradicts the Apostle’s prayer. For the Apostle prays that the “whole 
spirit and sou! and body may be preserved blameless ;” but the Doctor 
teaches that the soul—‘“animal life’—instead of being preserved, is 
“annihilated’’ at death and “‘exnihilated” at resurrection. 
But the Doctor may object to my interpretation of 1 Thess. v. 23. 
Moreover, he may object to my attributing to him the “tripartite” view. 
Again, he may deny the fairness of my inference that the “animal life” 
of Lazarus is a “distinct entity.” But then in my justification, let me 
plead: that which is annihilated must have been an “entity” ; that 
which has been ‘“‘exnihilated” must be an entity. Since, at his death, 
Lazarus's “animal life” was annihilated, and at his resurrection it was 
“exnihilated,” it must be an “entity”; and since, according to my pre- 
vious supposition, the Doctor held the body of Lazarus, as also the spirit 
of Lazarus, to be cutities, and “distinct” from the animal life of Laza- 
rus, it would seem that I was correct in attributing to him the view that 
Lazarus’s animal life was a third “distinct entity; but if so, then it 
was a fair inference—my attributing to him the “tripartite” view. But 
it is always one’s privilege to repudiate the holding of that which may 
be logically inferred from his positions. If, therefore, the Doctor does 
not hold that the animal life of Lazarus wasa ‘“‘third entity distinct” from 
his body and from his soul; let us inquire, with which one of these two 
entities—his “body”? or his ‘soul’ ?—does the Doctor identify the 
“animal life’ ? Or does he identify it with both his “body” and his 
‘soul’? In either case he will be not in harmony with the standards 
of the Church, but in direct contradiction thereof. ‘The souls of be- 
lievers are, at their death, made perfect in holiness, and do immediately 
pass into glory; and their Jodies, being still united to Christ, do rest in 
their graves till the resurrection.” (Shorter Catechism, Quest. 37.) If, 
therefore, the Doctor holds to the annihilation at death, or the exnihila- 
tion at resurrection, of the “body” or the “soul,” or of both the body 
and the soul, then he holds a proposition which is in direct contradic- 
tion of our standards. 
Dr. Girardeau is mistaken, therefore, in charging that I denied him 
the benefit of his distinction—‘‘in the first instance.” (Pamphlet, p. 
10.) Therefore his defence, grounded upon this mistaken allegation, 
fails to.perform the function of a ‘“Reply’—it does not defend. So, 
too, his critic did not feel, as the Doctor desires he should have felt, 
viz., the obligation “to have refuted the argument for the contra-nat- 
ural character of the miracle before he could fairly invalidate the conclu- 
