56 
latter (reasoning analogically) may have been an instance of creation 
by PARTHENO-GENESIS; and so the “genetic” evolution of Adam’s 
body would in no way contradict the statement, ‘‘And the Lord God 
formed man dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the 
breath of life; and man became a living soul.” For the proposal 
was: “Let us make man in our image.” 1. That certainly did not 
refer to his body. 2. It was a proposal to take ‘‘man,” and now make 
him “in our image.” 3. By that breathing upon him man “became a 
living soul.” ‘And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and 
saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost’—Jno. xx. 22. Thus, 
“in the image of God created he him.’’ Thus, ‘when Jesus himself 
began to be about thirty years of age,” he received the baptism of the 
“Holy Ghost’—Luke iii. 22,23. And so, possibly, for anything that 
the Scriptures teach to the contrary, Adam may have been thirty years 
old when he received the baptism of the Spirit by which he became a 
“living soul’’—created in the ‘image of God.” So far, therefore, from 
contradicting the Scriptures the hypothesis of evolution suggests a strik- 
ing analogy between the “first” man and the “second” man as to the 
creation of their bodies. And this would sufficiently answer the ques- 
tion, ‘Why no more than one Adam appeared?” for this plain reason: 
It pleased the Lord to create but one; as it pleased him to create but 
one second Adam. 
Adam was born—it was a miracle—he was the first man. Jesus was 
born—it was a miracle—he was the second man. This is the substance 
of what was meant by the passage which I have quoted from the six- 
teenth page of my Pamphlet. Not that either then or now I would 
teach that Adam was born, but that, supposing evolution of his body 
to be true, he may (following the analogy of the second man) have 
been born of a virgin mother. 
As there is nothing in Scripture which contradicts this, so the Doctor’s 
proposition that the Scriptures and evolution ‘‘are mutually contradic- 
tory” must be amended so as to read: They are not mutually contradic- 
tory. And, as we have abundantly seen, notwithstanding the “Reply”: 
1. The Doctor’s definition remains “redundant.” 2. His argument 
against Hvolution is still “incoherent.” 
JAS. L. MARTIN. 
Mempuis, Tenn., December 14, 1888. : 
