20 
under no necessity, from this point of view, to tackle the third proposi- 
ticn of the trilemma; hence, in respect to this, “deponent saith not” 
what his opinion is; and since “his days are determined,” and he is a 
skilful rider, he may go down to his grave perhaps, firmly “set’’ on the 
top rail which divides between the adjoining farms of supero-contra-nat- 
ural, and supero-non-contra-natural. As the Doctor does not know him- 
self on this point, how can his critic be required to know him? 
Every effect has a cause, and curiosity is native to the human mind; 
we cannot therefore repress the inquiry, Why has the Professor studi- 
ously “avoided expressing that opinion’”—viz., “that the creation of 
Adam’s body was miraculous”? Can it be because, from his exalted 
perch, he studiously keeps one eye vigilantly open to the trend of scien- 
tific opinion on this question? Such is the habit of his school of 
thought; they reject the principle of harmony in the species ‘“non-con- 
tradiction,” that they may embrace the principle of harmony in the spe- 
cies “identity of teaching.” Thus, in investigating the ‘‘connection be- 
tween Natural Science and Revelation ” the habit of his school of thought 
is very different from the habit of thought of that school which he so 
industriously antagonizes, and seeks to render harmless by a presbyterial 
muzzle. The thought will force itself upon us, that perhaps after all 
Dr. Woodrow’s labors have not been altogether in vain, in respect to the 
leader of the opposition. May it be, that the Professor’s “opinion” on 
this point—Adam’s body—has not been expressed, and that of “set pur- 
pose,” because of the impression—left upon his mind and subsequently 
wrought out—by Dr. Woodrow’s Address on Evolution? £. g., this 
paragraph from the Address: ‘‘Having now pointed out the probable 
absence of contradiction between the Scripture account of creation and 
the doctrine of Evolution, except in the case of man so far as regards his 
soul, but without having at all considered the probable truth or false- 
hood of Evolution, I proceed next, as briefly as possible, to state a few 
of the facts which seem to be sufficient at least, to keep us from summari- 
ly rejecting the doctrine as certainly false.’’ Upon the whole, as we study 
Doctor Girardeau’s present posture—‘‘of set purpose avoided expressing” 
an opinion as to “Adam’s body,” whether its “creation was miraculous” 
or not miraculous—it does have the appearance of one who, having anx- 
iously forecast the future, carefully trims his sails for a change in the 
weather—a possible verdict on the part of Science in favor of Evolution. 
The General Assembly, at Augusta, and again at Baltimore, assured the 
Church and the world that there was no danger; but the Doctor is not 
disposed to abide by these ecclesiastical deliverances on non-ecclesiastical 
