62 
2. Dr. Martin is mistaken in alleging that I opposed supernatural and 
contra-natural as mutually exclusive. I do not know, and I fancy Dr. 
Martin does not know, that all which is supernatural is contra-natural, 
but I do know that all which is contra-natural is supernatural. This 
sweeps away a large section of Dr. Martin’s argument to prove my self- 
contradiction. 
3. Dr. Martin is again mistaken in affirming that I have held that the 
creation of Adam’s body was miraculous. On the contrary, I have al- 
ways, of set purpose, avoided expressing that opinion. This also vacates 
of force much of what he has said. 
4. Dr. Martin presses the point that I am palpably wrong in making 
the evolution of Adam’s body and its creation contradictories ; and thus 
he reasons: My body was created, but it was evolved. There is here no 
contradiction. Where, then, is the contradiction between the creation 
and the evolution of Adam’s body? I answer: None, whatever, if 
Adam’s body was created like mine—that is, through birth. But to say 
that, is to beg the very question in dispute, namely, Was Adam’s body 
created through birth? If it be granted that birth is a species of crea- 
tion of bodies, does it follow that all bodies must be created in that way ? 
Now, we maintain that Adam’s body was not born, and that, consequent- 
ly, it was created in a different way from ours. To argue, then, from 
the creation of our bodies through birth to the creation of Adam’s body 
through birth is, I say, to beg the question in dispute. It is a question 
that cannot be settled by assuming that Adam’s body was created in the 
same way as ours are. The question, at the present day, so far as the 
animal kingdom is concerned, is not as to evolution by birth within a 
species, but as to evolution by transmutation of species: Are individuals 
of one species born of individuals of a different species just as indi- 
viduals are born of individuals within the same species? In a word, 
the issue is between evolutionism and special creationism. Dr. Mar- 
tin misconceives, as many do, the point at issue. 
5. Something must be said as to the bearing of my argument to prove 
the contra-natural character of miracles upon the Theistic evolutionist, 
and I meant one who is an out and out evolutionist, holding the evolu- 
tion of everything, body, soul, and all. JI had no reference, could have 
had none, in that argument, to a position held by no Theistic evolution- 
ist that I know of. My eye was not resting on an hypothesis which 
reduces to unity two contradictories: the hypothesis that the first man’s 
body was evolved by descent from animal forms, but that Adam’s body 
was not so evolved; or, to put it more briefly, that the first man’s body 
