22 
Dr. Girardeau: 1. Adam’s body; not miracle (?). 2. His body; 
not born. 
Dr. Woodrow: 1. Adam’s body; not miracle (?) 2. Adam’s body ; 
born (probably). 
Thus it will be seen that the Assembly differs from Dr. Woodrow on 
both points, and from Dr. Girardeau on one; that Dr. Girardeau differs 
from the Assembly on one point, and on that point agrees with Dr. 
Woodrow; that he agrees-with the Assembly on one point, and on that 
point differs from Dr. Woodrow. With one hand he girps the hand of 
the Assembly, with the other the hand of Dr. Woodrow. The under- 
signed is disposed to side with the Assembly on the first point, viz.: 
Adam’s body ; miracle; and to side with Dr. Woodrow on the second 
point, viz.: Adam’s body ; born. 
But, returning to the trilemma, let us not forget that Dr. Girardeau 
escapes the necessity of embracing the third alternative—viz.: that 
Adam’s body is a “creation ex nihilo in absolutely the first instance”— 
only by being allowed the “benefit of his doubt” whether ‘‘Adam’s body 
was a miraculous creation.” What he says is, that his critic, in “‘affirm- 
ing” that he “has held to the miraculous creation of Adam’s body, is 
mistaken.” Ordinarily such a disclaimer implies that he holds the oppo- 
site view from that which his critic ‘mistakenly affirmed;” therefore, 
for the present, at least, I shall affirm, that the leaning of the Professor’s 
mind is toward the proposition—that, since the creation of Adam’s body 
was 1. Not Natural; 2. Not Miraculous; 3. It must have been “ex 
nihilo in absolutely the first instance’—in other words, it was an event 
supero-non-contra-natural. 
3. In the third place, the “Reply” objects to my criticism—incohe- 
rent argument’’—by admitting the justice of that criticism; 7. e., pro- 
vided I can fairly meet the issue between “evolutionism and special 
creationism.’ This task I most cheerfully enter upon; and I trust the 
Doctor will manfully abide ‘the issue.”’ 
Here it is a pleasure to know that for once, at least, the critic was not 
mistaken. I attributed to the Doctor the position, that creationism and 
evolutionism are exact contradictories. This is what was said: “The 
idea is: ‘Creation’ is the exact contradiction [not of nature, but] of 
‘Evolution.’ Miracle is the contradiction of nature, but Evolution 
is the contradiction of Creation.” (Pamphlet, p. 4.) And in the 
argument which followed, I clinched’ it by reminding the reader “that 
it has already been proven, according to the Bible as interpreted in our 
standards, that Evolution may be ranked under either of these two cate- 
gories viz.: Creation by (1) miracle, or by (2) Nature. 
