26 
that Adam’s body was not born. . . . The issue is between evolutionism 
and special creationism.” All this, just as if I had not already super- 
abundantly proven, that there is no contradiction ‘“‘between evolutionism 
and SPECIAL creationism,” and therefore squarely met ‘‘the issue.” 
‘What was my argument designed to show? That ‘““Adam’s body was 
created like Girardeau’s, that is, through birth’? Wot at all, It was 
designed to show that the simple fact that the Scriptures assert “create” 
of Adam’s body, does not disprove “evolution” of Adam’s body, any 
more than “creation” of Girardeau’s body disproves “evolution” of 
Girardeau’s body. Other scriptures abundantly prove, that the formula 
in Gen. ii. 7, is applicable to Girardeau’s body as to Adam’s. And my 
argument is equally good whether Adam’s body is a “special creation’’ 
or not—as shown by the creation of the bodies of Isaac and of Jesus; 
both of these bodies afford instances of “evolutionism” and of “special 
creationism ;” equally good whether Adam’s body was an evolution or 
not—descent with modification or not—created through birth or not. 
It did not behoove me, therefore, to prove that Adam’s body ‘was born, 
but it did rest upon the Doctor to prove that Adam’s body was not 
born ; whilst it rested upon me to prove only (as I did) that the Doc- 
tor’s line of proof was a non sequitur—that in his premises his conclu- 
sion found no justification. To illustrate: The Doctur’s argument is: 
Adam’s body could not be an “evolution,” because it was a ‘“creation,” 
i. e., @ “special creation.” My disproof of the Doctor's argument is: 
the Doctor’s argument is a non sequitur ; because, (1) “creation” (nat- 
ural) does not exclude “evolution”—Girardeau’s body, e. g.; (2) crea- 
tion miraculous (or ‘“‘special’’) does not exclude “evolution”’—the bodies, 
é. g., of Isaac and of Jesus; (3) “special creation’”—in the sense of 
“ex nihilo in absolutely the first instance’—does not disprove evolution 
of Adam’s body; for the creation of Adam’s body was not an instance 
of this kind of creation, any more than the bodies of Girardeau, of 
Isaac, or of Bethlehem’s babe; (4) ‘Special creation’’—in the sense of 
“ex nihilo in the second instance’—that which the Doctor teaches the 
resurrection life of Lazarus was—the creation of Adam’s body could not 
be; for the man is “mistaken,” says the “Reply,” “in affirming that I 
[the Doctor] have held that the creation of Adam’s body was miracu- 
lous.” Besides, according to the literal word of God, the creation of 
Adam’s body cannot be ranged under the head of creation ex nihilo 
either (1) in ‘absolutely the first instance ;” or (2) ‘in the second in- 
stance.” It must therefore be ranged under the head of either (1) “nat- 
ural;” or (2) ‘‘miraculous;” but not “ex nihilo” (a) in the “first,” 
