29 
solutely the first instance ;’’ for he has abandoned “miracle,” of the first 
and second varieties ; he rejects ‘natural ;” and therefore “creation from 
nothing in absolutely the first instance,” is all that remains to him. We 
know how valiant he is, how fearless, how ready to throw himse!f into 
the breach, how prompt to offer himself as one of a forlorn hope when 
the precious truth is at stake. We do not therefore despair of’ seeing 
him undertake the task of proving that “Adam’s body was created ex 
nihilo in absolutely the first instance.’ When he shall have accom- 
plished this feat, he will have richly earned the title, Hercuves of 
Loaic. But, as our brother whom we “love in fhe truth,” we forewarn 
him, that ere that chaplet shall be placed upon his noble brow, like 
Samson, and yet unlike Samson, he will, in the hour of the greatest 
success of his life, have tumbled into ruins, not the temple of the Philis- 
tines, but the temple of Christianity ; for he will have demonstrated the 
Bible in the first chapters of Genesis, at least, to be a myth; and he 
himself will doubtless perish in the overthrow. 
The Doctor evidently felt the gravity of the concession which he had 
made; for he proceeds immediately to inform us—“now we maintain 
that Adam's body was not born.” But where is the proof that it was 
“not born”? He furnishes none—he begs the question. This is his pro- 
position—'‘Adam’s body was not born.” What I have proven is that: 
for all that the Scriptures reveal on this subject, and for all that the 
Doctor’s argument has proven, it is an open question whether ““Adam’s 
body was born” or not. It behooves him to prove his proposition; and 
I think he will utterly fail in any and every attempt so to do; but until 
he has proven it, I claim the full measure of his concession: ‘Where, 
then, is the contradiction between the creation and the evolution of 
Adam’s body? Ianswer: Non wHatever, if Adam’s body was 
created like mine—that is, through birth.” And, furthermore, I insist, 
that should he prove that Adam’s body was a “special” creation, he will 
not yet have proven that it was “not born”; for the bodies of Isaac and 
of Jesus were “special creations,” and yet they were “BORN.” 
4. In the fourth place, the “Reply” addresses itself to the “argumen- 
tative application’’—7. ¢., to the disproof of Theistic Evolutionism drawn 
from the Doctor’s “definition” of miracle: the disproof of the one is 
included in the proof of the other ; so the ‘‘Reply” thinks. To this point 
perhaps even the Doctor by this time thinks I have addressed myself ad 
nauseam. 
Reserving for a subsequent page what I shall say as to the irrelevant 
matter contained in the “Reply’s’ three paragraphs on this head, I shail 
