19 
hold that the creation of Adam’s body must be classified as an event 
belonging to the head of Supero-non-contra-natural, 1. e., to the class of 
“Creation ex nihilo in absolutely the first instance.” Thus: Adam's 
body was either: 1. Creation ex nihilo in absolutely the first instance ; 
or, 2. It was Natural, 7. e., born like the rest of us, by ordinary genera- 
tion of a human father and a human mother; or, 3. It was miraculous. 
But it was: 1. Mot “miraculous”; 2. It was “not born.” Therefore, by 
the laws of Logic, 3. It must have been ‘created ex nihilo in absolutely 
the first instance.” Now the Doctor is out of the labyrinth, in the 
broad sunlight of a “good and necessary consequence.’ True, this good 
and necessary logical reduction of the Doctor's position has led him into 
an attitude which contradicts: 1. Science; 2. General Assembly, 1886 
and 1888; 3. Confession of Faith ; 4. Bible; 5. Himself; and in this 
self-contradiction, this unique, logical, impregnable conclusion, he. is 
seen standing illustriously and pre-eminently alone, on the very pinnacle 
of his glory, the wonder of the ages. Still, this need not disturb his 
conscience, as it does not disturb the conscience of the Church. The 
Church seems, like Gallio, to ‘care for none of these things’’—contradic- 
tious, e. g., of the Confession of Faith and of the Bible—-providing only 
they are held by the valiant and trusted Professor of Theology in the 
Seminary at Columbia, So. Ca. 
But let us not overlook the fact that the “Reply” has not left the 
Professor without a forethoughtful provision by way of retreat in case of 
emergency. He is not absolutely committed to the thesis that the crea- 
tion of Adam's body was not “miraculous.” As he studies the trilem- 
ma: 1. Born; 2. Miraculous; 3. Creation ex nihilo; he boldly 
marches up to the first, and writes his verdict—‘‘Not born ;” looking now 
very cautiously at the second, he writes a Scotch verdict—‘“Not proven ;” 
he is still an anxious inquirer—seeking light; therefore if any man 
charges that the Professor teaches his classes that the creation of Adam’s 
body was “‘miraculous,”’ that man is “mistaken”; if, however, it be in- 
sinuated that the Professor teaches that the creation of Adam’s body is 
not miraculous, the reply is at hand—‘I have always of set purpose 
avoided expressing that opinion,” 7. é., on either side of this question, 
the Doctor’s policy has “always” been to be non-committal, and that of 
“set purpose.” Like the landless laird, astraddle of the line-fence be- 
tween two farms, he is prepared for attack from either side, being always 
found standing on that foot which is on the other side of the fence. 
Truly he has of “‘set purpose” so arranged matters as to be ‘always’ 
strongly entrenched. Until, therefore, he decides this question, he is 
