50 
proof of his assertion: 1. That either Dr. Woodrow or I ever main- 
tained a distinction of persons between the “first man” and “Adam.” 2. 
That either of us ever held, (1) that the “first” man’s body was evolved, 
or (2) that ‘“Adam’s” body was not evolved—t. e., “not born.” 3. 
That either of us ever maintained ‘‘non-contradiction between those con- 
tradictories and the Bible.” 
But let the reader not forget to scan the Doctor’s medium of proof: 
The term ‘““Woodrow” is inscribed upon my battle-flag; therefore Dr. 
‘Woodrow is responsible for all my sayings in that Pamphlet. Some pat- 
Tiotic regiment emblazes upon its battle-flag the face or inscribes the 
name of “Washington ;” therefore General Washington—the Father of 
his country—is responsible for all the military blunders of that Colonel 
and his regiment. Such is logic in the hands of the “Reply.” 
In the next place, let us look into the Pamphlet for the materials 
upon which the Doctor’s “logic” wrought, when he concluded that Dr. 
M. held: 1. A distinction between the “first man” and Adam. 2. 
That the first man ‘was born,” and that Adam was “not born.” 3. 
That Dr. M. believed in a “Pre-Adamite man.” 4. That he main- 
tained ‘“‘non-contradiction” between the Bible and “that grotesque hypo- 
thesis.” 
As the Doctor has furnished no references, and as he professed to 
“limit my [his] remarks to the criticism contained in the first article ;” 
and since that “first article” terminated with the first paragraph of the 
second column on page 5 of the Pamphlet, it need not detain us long to 
lay before the mind the premises upon which the Doctor founded his 
conclusion. 
On page 4 the Pamphlet says: “Now let us take the creation of 
Adam’s body: Was this event Contra natural? or Super natural? or 
Natural? By the canon he has laid down it would be impossible for 
him to answer either one of these questions. Was the ‘creation’ of 
Adam’s body natural? How can he know, for it was the first and 
then only body of man. According to his canon, then, he cannot tell 
whether this event is natural or non uatural; for there would be no 
other human being in existence with which to compare it so that it may 
be ‘determined’ what is God’s ‘natural’ mode of creating human bodies.” 
Again, giving the substance of the Doctor's argument in the Review, 
the Pamphlet proceeds: “The Bible says, God created the body of 
Adam. Science says, the body of the first man came by Evolution— 
natural process; whereas creation, though not miracle [contra natural] 
is yet super natural. Whether, therefore, by Super or by Contra, it 
