23 
The Doctor’s “Reply” can be understood only by supposing that he 
failed to read, or else failed to remember, that I gave two instances of 
Evolution by special creation, viz.: (1) the birth of Isaac; and (2) 
the birth of Jesus. The first instance (as to interpretation) was’ con- 
firmed by reference to the Confession of Faith ; the second needed no 
confirmation. The proof, therefore, that the argument of Prof. Girar- 
deau against Evolution as applied to Adam’s body was incoherent was 
expressly built upon the ground which had already been established, 
that there was no contradiction between Evolution and Creation— 
whether “special” or “ordinary.” Hence, since Girardeau’s body came 
by ordinary generation, as we learn from Nature, and also by Creation, 
as we learn from Scripture, so there is no vontradiction between evolu- 
tion and ordinary creation. And since the bodies of Isaac and of Jesus 
came by extraordinary generation, and also by evclution, so there is no 
contradiction between evolution and extraordinary, 7. ¢., “special” crea- 
tion; the birth of Isaac was an instance of an “individual born of indi- 
viduals within the same species ;”’ the birth of Jesus was an instance of 
an “individual of one species born of an individual of a different species ;”’ 
yet both Isaac and Jesus were instances of evolution by “‘special” crea- 
tion; both of these instances, therefore, prove that there is no contra- 
diction between “evolutionism and special creationism ;’’ thus the 
‘Ggsue’’ as stated by the Doctor was fairly met; thus my original argu- 
ment is fully sustained, viz.: that to reason, because God ‘‘created” 
Adam’s body—even though by a “special” act of creation—therefore 
Adam’s body could not have been been “evolved,” is to reason “‘incohe- 
rently.” Since Girardeau’s, Isaac’s, and the Messiah’s bodies were all 
evolutions, and all creations, and instances of three different modes of 
creation, under one of which modes the creation of Adam’s body might 
come; therefore, to argue that what might have been (because all that 
the Scriptures say of Adam’s body is that it was a creation) could not 
have been, because it was a creation, is most assuredly to argue with the 
utmost incoherency. Nor will the plea that Adam’s was a case of “‘spe- 
cial” creation remove the incoherency ; for that plea will not cohere with 
the special creation of the bodies of Isaac and of Jesus. Nor will the 
plea that Adam’s body was not created like Girardeau’s body remove the 
incoherency ; for that plea will not cohere with the proof, which grants 
that difference, and yet, by that very grant, shows the incoherency of 
the argument against evolution drawn from that difference. Nor will 
the plea that Adam’s body was not born at all remove the incoherency, 
for that plea will not cohere with the state of the question—the ‘‘issue” 
