17 
. 
then, since “miracle” must contain all that is in supernatural plus what 
is in contranatural, with what consistency can you say creation ex nihilo 
in the first instance cannot be a miracle, because it is super; whereas 
“super” is the very.genus under which you range miracle? Since you 
admit the resurrection of Lazarus to be a miracle; and since you claim 
that the restoration of his body to life is an instance of creation ex ni- 
hilo in the second instance; what is the specific mark differentiating 
between creation from nothing in the first instance, and creation from 
nothing in the second instance, which makes the resurrection of Lazarus 
a miracle, and the original creation of all things from nothing not a 
miracle? How is it possible, that creation of all things from nothing 
“in the first instance’ does not contradict the ‘known course of nature’’? 
but creation of’ some things from nothing in the second instance does 
“contradict the known course of nature’? If, according to your theory, 
Lazarus’s life was annihilated at his death and again exnihilated at his 
resurrection; and this act of annihilation was not a miracle, but the 
subsequent act of exnthilation was a miracle ; then why may not every 
act of “exnihilation” be a miracle? and if so, why may not the grand 
all-comprehending original act of “exnihilation” be a miracle? If 
not, then why should all other exnihilating acts be miracle, save only 
the one original exnihilating act? 
But so far as my contention with the Doctor on this point is con- 
cerned, I have no more interest in denying this analysis than I had in 
denying the other analysis. As formerly, so now I say: ‘Granting, 
therefore, his classification, no refutation of Evolution follows.’ The 
argument against Evolution remains, as before, notwithstanding the 
“Reply,” a non sequitur. Evolution finds a place under both “miracle” 
and “natural,” as I have proven in my Pamphlet (pages 3-5), drawing 
the proof from (1) Nature; (2) Confession of Faith ; and (3) the Bible. 
2. The next point in the “Reply,” it is freely confessed, is stunning, 
I have not yet recovered from the blow. ‘Dr. Martin is again mis- 
tuken in affirming that I have held that the creation of Adam's body 
was miraculous. On the contrary, I have always, of set purpose, avoid- 
ed expressing that opinion.” J imagine that this declaration from Dr. 
Girardeau startled the Church. What opinion does the Professor 
hold regarding the “creation of Adam’s body”? Certainly, whatever it 
may be, this declaration puts him in direct conflict with the opinion of 
the majority in the General Assembly of 1888. That opinion is: “that 
Adam’s body was directly fashioned by Almighty God of the dust of 
the ground.” If this language does not teach that the “creation of 
2 
