53 
~down to the end of time. What a curious exhibition of the practical 
application of the laws of Logic the “Reply” furnishes, when, out of 
such material as this, the Doctor inferred ‘“Pre-Adamite man.” Evi- 
dently his logical faculty was coiled up in its winter quarters, whilst his 
imagination was careering wildly over the plain enjoying the vivifying 
influence of the genial rays of the vernal sun. 
As to the Doctor imputing to me the notion “that the first man's 
body was born, but that Adam’s was not born,” I give up in despair the 
attempt to find anything I have said upon which he could justly found 
such an imputation. If, indeed, he imagines he finds it in the expres- 
sion of my belief that Adam’s body was miraculously created; he could 
only have done so by forgetting that the miraculous creation of the 
bodies of Isaac and of Jesus was perfectly consistent with the evolution, 
i. é., with the birth, of those bodies. But we have seen too many speci- 
mens of the miracle-working power of the Doctor's logic to be any longer 
struck with wonder at any exhibition of his talent in this line. 
Fortunately I have escaped the tender mercies of ‘the children” to 
whom the “Reply” relegates the task of “refuting” me on this point. 
For it appears that if the “children when asked, Who was the first man? 
answer, Adam,” they will not “‘refute,’’ but confirm the teaching of the 
Doctor’s critic. If, however, the children should be asked, Who was 
the “second man”? they would very promptly answer, “Cain.” Where- 
as the Apostle Paul would answer, ‘The second man is the Lord from 
heaven.” 1 Cor. xv. 47. Whether the Doctor would decide that the 
children had refuted the Apostle, or that the Apostle had refuted the 
children, I am at a loss to conjecture. My decision would be, that 
neither had refuted the other; that both had answered correctly—scrip- 
turally ; that the apparent conflict was reduced to unity under the head 
of ‘‘non-contradiction.”’ 
The “Reply” has quoted from Sir William Hamilton a passage which 
suggests the possibility of “other worlds’ besides ours being inhabited 
by “rational animals.” Now, of course, those rational animals may be 
“human,” or they may be conceived to be ‘not human.’ Doubtless the 
author of the “Reply” has himself often indulged in the speculation 
whether the other worlds are inhabited; and if so, whether the inhabit- 
ants are like or unlike the men and women of our race; whether, like 
Adam, their primeval father was an immediate creation from “star dust,” 
or mediately created through birth—natural, or contra natural? But, 
again let me caution him that in speculating upon such points, he is ap- 
proaching perilously near the “danger line.” For the Bible reveals but 
