55 
moreover, there was a covenant before this “first”? Sinai “covenant,” 
viz., the covenant with Abraham; and there was still a covenant which 
antedated this Abrahamic covenant, viz., the covenant of works; and 
there was a covenant which was even prior to this Eden covenant, viz., 
the covenant of redemption. So, whilst it is true, that “the first man 
Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening 
spirit’ —still, we might, without at all impugning the absolute accuracy 
of the Sacred Scriptures, propound to the first man Adam the question 
of Eliphaz the Temanite: “Art thou the first man that was born ?”—- 
Job xv. 7. Many mummies and skeletons of men have been found and 
history tells of millions of men all of whom lived and died between 
Adam and Christ, yet these do not contradict the Scripture statement : 
Adam, the ‘“‘first”” man, and Christ, the ‘‘second” man ; first of a given 
series, second of a given series—or first of a new departure. 
The Scientist, as such, knows nothing of Adam’s body, since it has 
never been discovered, or, at least, identified amongst the fossils. But, 
by reason, the Scientist knows that there must have been a “‘first”” man. 
The Bible student, as such, knows of “Adam’s’’ body as the body of 
the “first” man. So, then, in my Pamphlet, in order to accommodate 
both, I spoke of the “first” man, which language is understood by both 
the Naturalist and the Scripturist ; and then I spoke of “Adam,” which 
language is understood by the Scripturist alone. My argument was 
based on the supposition (whether true or fulse) that “Adam’’ and 
“first” man are equivalent terms. Even though there were no Pre- 
Adamite men, still there certainly were Pre-Adamite animals. There 
was no ground, therefore, for the Doctor’s imputing to me the notion 
“that the first man’s body was born, but that Adam’s body was not 
born.” There was no call, therefore, for his attributing to me the hold- 
ing of “the hypothesis of Pre-Adamite man,” or any other of the 
irrelevant matters which he has interjected into his “Reply” to my 
criticism that his argument against the theistic evolutionist is a non 
sequitur. 
“We have but the two instances—Adam, the ‘first man,’ and Christ, 
the ‘second man’—both as to their bodies created by ‘miracle,’ and the 
latter certainly by MEDIATE creation and by Evotution” (Pamphlet, 
p. 16). |As there was no contradiction between the miraculous “birth” 
of the “second” man, and the “evolution” of his body and the ‘‘crea- 
tion” of that body, so I held that there can be no necessary contradic- 
tion between the miraculous “birth” and the “evolution” and the 
“creation” of the body of the “‘firss Adam.” As the former was, so the 
