28 
1 
cial” creation—that, for argument’s sake at least, is admitted; (3) but 
to prove that it was a “special” creation of the class “ex nihilo in the 
second instance ;” or (+) to prove that it was a ‘special’ creation of 
the class “ex nihilo in absolutely the first instance.” Either of the last 
’ two would exclude evolution. When you have proven that this last, 
or this next to the last proposition, is true regarding the body of Adam, 
then you will have proven, that it is something which could not have 
been “born,” and therefore could not have been an “evolutiou’’—de- 
scent with modification. 
Meantime the position of the Woodrow school remains impregnable: 
The Bible is silent—does not say: (1) whether Adam’s body was 
“born ;” or (2) whether Adam’s body was not “born ;’’ so, - then, 
whether the scientist shall eventually decide: (1) that Adam’s body was 
“born,” the Bible will be connected with that proposition in the cate- 
gory of ‘“non-contradiction ;” for the Bible is svlent on “that point ;” or 
(2) whether the scientist shall eventually decide that Adam’s body was 
not “born,” the Bible will be connected with that proposition in the cat- 
egory of “non-contradiction ;” for the Bible is silent on “that point.” 
It is manifest, therefore, that Dr. Girardeau’s reply to my criticism on 
this point is a fatal concession. He attempts to parry the blow by seek- 
ing shelter under the distinction between “special” and “natural” crea- 
tion. He finds, however, that he is just as equally shelterless under the 
one as under the other; and that, in substance, he has actually aban- 
doned the last inch of ground upon which to erect a shelter. Under the 
head of “special,” as differentiated from “natural,” there were three posi- 
tions: 1, Miracle. 2. Hx nihilo in the “first.” 3. Hx nihilo in the 
“second.” ‘Miracle’ was the only ground of PossIBLE tenability, but 
that he hastily abandons; the two remaining are of impossible tenability, ° 
and even the second of these two remaining he fled from in confusion, 
when he abandoned “miracle ;” for he holds that “ex nihilo in the sec- 
ond,” is a “miracle; for he holds that resurrection of Lazarus is an 
instance of ex nihilo in the ‘“‘second;” and he holds that resurrection of 
Lazarus is a “miracle.” His case therefore is hopeless. 
On the other hand, my argument is equally good under either suppo- 
sition: (1) natural; or (2) miracle; and I claim, on the accepted force 
of language, that these two are not only mutual exclusives, but that 
they are exhaustive—as much so as natural and non-natural, or miracle 
and non-miracle. His defence, however, according to himself, is good 
only on condition that Adam’s body is a “special” creation; and that, 
morever, as we have seen, of a peculiar variety, viz.: “ex nihilo in ab- 
