4 
determine the “purport” of his article, as if “possessed” of his “‘con- 
sciousness.” J certainly supposed that I was, and that I had a right to 
that assumption ; for I took for granted that he used language to express 
thought. But, if he claims that I erred in my interpretation, it is not 
for me to contradict him on such a point as this; although I must say 
(on this supposition), that he was very indiscriminate in his choice of 
language. The criticism was: “The argument is evidently designed as 
a disproof of Evolution. This is manifest from the opening sentence ; 
and even more so, from the application in the closing paragraphs of the 
article.” Now, let us see what that “opening sentence” is, and what 
the “application in the closing paragraphs.” The opening sentence: 
‘None but the maintainers of,a rigid process of evolution, enforced by a 
law of blind, immanent necessity, would deny that man has degenerated 
from his primitive condition.” Therefore, of course, Evolution cannot 
be true; because according to that theory man has advanced—the anti- 
thesis of “degenerated.” ‘The application in the closing paragraphs” : 
“We proceed very briefly to show the bearing of the miracle, as contra- 
natural, upon various theories.” Then follows: “1. Atheism. 2. Pan- 
theism, Atheistic Evolution, and Materialism. 3. The professed Theistic 
Evolutionist. 4. The professed Christian Evolutionist. 5. Agnosticism.” 
All these the Doctor claims to have overthrown by the truth of the 
“Contra-Natural Character of the Miracle.” The “opening sen- 
tence” attempts to plant a blow plump between the eyes of “evo- 
lution,” as flatly contradicting the doctrine of the Bible regarding 
the fall of Adam; and of the five vigorous blows in the “closing 
paragraphs,” in which the assailant puts forth all his strength, the 
attempt is to give the coup de grace to the ‘Evolutionist’ three 
times out of every five. Thus, to me, as critic, the “opening sen- 
tence” looked as if he had raised his hindsights for a shot at long range 
at the “Evolutionists,” and the “closing paragraphs,” in which he is en- 
gaged in burying the dead (?) Evolutionists, seemed to confirm the 
opening presumption. But then, since the charge is denied, and he 
alone knows what he really meant, I must claim that the interpretation 
of his “purport” was due to no fault of the critic, but to the Doctor’s 
misleading language. 
A second complaint which the Doctor lodges against his critic is, that 
T pronounced his whole article a “stupendous failure,” because a “single 
corollary” did not refute the “evolutionary hypothesis.” I must beg 
him to read my article again, and more carefully the second time. He 
will find my language very carefully guarded: ‘So far as the argument 
