51 
did not come by natural laws as affirmed by the scientific evolutionist ; 
therefore the body of Adam did not come by Evolution.” 
If there are any rules of exegesis by which to determine a man’s 
thoughts by his language, then the merest tyro in interpretation must 
perceive, that in using the above language, I meant not two distinct and 
separate individuals, but one single and identical individual. ‘“Adam’s 
body” is spoken of as the “first and then only body of man ;’’—it is fur- 
ther asserted that at the time of the creation of Adam’s body, there was 
“no other human being in existence.” So again, “body of Adam” is 
used synonymously with “body of the first man.” How in the name of 
Logic the Doctor obtained from this material the proposition that I held 
“Adam” and the “first man” to be two different individuals; and that 
I taught that the first man “was born” and that Adam was “not born ;” 
and that I believed in a ‘“Pre-Adamite man;” and that I affirmed 
‘non-contradiction’”’ between the Bible and “that grotesque hypothe- 
sis,” surpasses my powers of comprehension. True, upon the hypo- 
thesis not of Logic but of a bewildered imagination, mistaking my 
paraphrase of the Doctor’s argument as if it were an argument of 
mine—thus blending in wild confusion the subjective ‘“grotesque” 
images of the Doctor's own fancy and objectifying those images as if 
they were real, they might rise up before him, now in the image of his 
critic, and now in the “grotesque” shade of his quondam colleague—Dr. 
Woodrow, who, like Banquo’s ghost, will not down at the bidding of 
Dr. Girardeau. 
But laying aside imagination, and returning to reason and common 
sense, I must confess my utter inability to reach that exact point of view 
from which the Doctor sees so clearly “that grotesque hypothesis.” The 
“first man,” different from ‘“‘Adam;” the former “born ;” the latter ‘not 
born.” Of course, on this hypothesis the first man would be a “Pre- 
Adamite man ;” of course, on this hypothesis, Adam’s body if not born 
could not have been evolved; for evolution is DESCENT with modifica- 
tion ; of course, on this hypothesis Dr. Woodrow would be guilty of 
“self-contradiction” if he maintains that, 1, Adam’s body was evolved. 
7. é., “born ;” 2, and yet that Adam’s body was “not born,” 7. ¢., not 
evolved. But then I must again challenge Dr. Girardeau for the proof 
of his assertion that Dr. Woodrow maintains these two contradictory 
propositions. To maintain that Adam’s body was probably “evolved,” 
and at the same time to admit that it may possibly have been ‘not born,” 
is certainly not to be guilty of self-contradiction (you may maintain 
the probability of one and admit the possibility of the other without 
