52 
logical suicide) ; it is merely to admit that “evolution” may be true of 
Adam’s body, or that ‘‘non-evolution” may be true of Adam’s body, but 
that no matter which one “‘may”’ be true, both are related to the Bible 
in the category of “non-contradiction ;” for the Bible affirms neither the 
one nor the other—it is “SILENT” on these points. But again, I utterly 
fail to reach that point of view from which the Doctor sees so clearly 
. “that grotesque hypothesis” whether held by Dr. Woodrow, by myself, 
or by any one else, viz.: 1. First man; 2. Adam different from first 
man; 3. First man born; 4. Adam not born. 5. Non-contradiction 
between the Bible and this hypothesis. Now, I should like the Doctor 
or any one else to point out: 1st, the grotesqueness of that hypothesis— 
Why may not there have been a “first’’? man individually different from 
“Adam”? 2ndly. The grotesqueness of holding to the possible “birth” 
of the first man, and the possible ‘“‘non-evolution” of Adam—Why may 
not both these suppositions be true? 3dly. The grotesqueness of hold- 
ing that these points are related to the Bible in the category of “non- 
contradiction” — What do the Scriptures say in contradiction of them? 
Let the Doctor beware, lest in attempting to point out the heterodoxy of 
“that grotesque hypothesis,” he “break the silence of Scripture,” and so 
merit the eondign punishment of his Presbytery—jealous guardian of 
the rights and liberties of the Baltimore Assembly; or lest some future 
Assembly shall lay an injunction of “silence” upon him for thus attempt- 
ing “to break the silence of Scripture.’ 
Had it suited the Doctor’s leisure to read the last ‘page of my Pam- 
phlet, or having read it, had his memory retained it, he would have been 
saved all anxiety as to my holding the hypothesis of “Pre-Adamite man.” 
Since the discussion was regarding Adam’s body, so all my remarks had 
reference to his body—whether I used the term “Adam” or the phrase 
“first man.’ Besides, the quotations already furnished from the fourth 
page of my Pamphlet, the Doctor will find these on the last page: ‘The 
first man was formed by miraculous intervention; the same is true of 
the creation of the first woman ; and these are the primeval parents of the 
human species.” Then follows an enumeration of the “first” four of 
the species: ‘““Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel.’”” Then follows the expression— 
“Whether we look at the first Adam as the introduction of the species 
‘man.’” Then again, “Adam the ‘first man.’”? And again: “The orig- 
inal species of man . . . formation of Adam’s body.” What could have 
been a more explicit safeguard against the inference—<Pre-Adamite 
man”? Jt is as if I had said, The first man was the husband of Eve, 
and the father of Cain and Abel and the whole line of Adam’s race, 
