PRESIDENT WHITE LIBRARY,
CORNELL UNIVERSITY.
iit
 

 

 

‘Wk RARDNUS ANTOLIN:

THE LOGIC OF HIS REPLY. =|

BY JAMES 1. MARTIN.

_  COLUMBIA,-S. C.
THE | YTERIAN PUBLISHING HOUSE

T889.

 

 

 

 

 
Qh, GAMARDEALS | ANTEYOLUTION

oe
é

THE LOGIC OF HIS REPLY.

BY JAMES I.. MARTIN.

COLUMBIA, &. C.

1889,
DQ
DR. GIRARDEAU’S ANTI-EVOLUTION:
THE LOGIC OF HIS REPLY.

“First pure, then peaceable, ... without partiality.” JAMEs iii. 17.

Encouraged by the friendly spirit of Dr. Girardeau’s “Reply,” I
make this second attempt.* Thus may each of us promote, not only
our mutual edification, but that of the Church at large; and by advanc-
ing her purity secure her peace, and at the same time give all due encour-
agement to sound learning, whether derived from the works or from the
word of God. Let it be borne in mind, that both formerly and now, my
attack is not against Dr. Girardeau—the logician—but against his logic ;
not his knowledge of the principles of logic, but his application of these
principles, he being not infallible. My argument, therefore, if it be in
any sense a “‘torpedo’”’ (the Dr.’s simile), is intended not ‘for blowing
up an argument and its author,” but for blowing up the “argument,”
and thereby saving the ‘“‘author.”’ To this task I address myself all the
more cheerfully because, as I trust, both he and I desire to seck after,
to know, and to “walk in the truth.”

There are many sources of error, such as prejudice, passion, sloth,
and pride, even where the knowledge of the laws of Logic may be
perfect. Logic is blind—it is “necessary” thinking—it must, if true
to itself, go whithersoever its premises lead; it can only conclude from
the given premises. If, therefore, the ‘“Regulative’ (or any other)
faculty be at fault, whilst this would seriously cripple (not theoretically
but practically) the success of the “Elaborative” faculty, still it would
not necessarily prove the ignorance or even the false application of the
rules of Logic. #. g., All men are quadrupeds ; Czesar is a man ; there-
fore Caesar is a quadruped. Here the Logic is perfect; but the man
who accepts the major premise would thereby prove that his Regulative
faculty was sadly disjointed. Logic determines, in and of itself, not the
truth or falsity of the premises, but the validity or invalidity of the con-
clusion. The insane reason logically : their regulative-faculty is.at fault ;
not their elaborative. Hence inconsistency is sometimes a proof of
feigning insanity, and consistency a proof of real insanity.

The Doctor complains against me, because as his critic I proceeded to

 

* For the full text of Dr. Girardeau’s “Reply,” see the Appendix.
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; althoigh 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
adisproof 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
5

based upon his definition is relied upon to prove that Evolution is not
true and cannot be true, because it contradicts the Bible, I am sure the
Doctor has made a stupendous failure.” (Pamphlet, p 1.)

The “Reply” professes to limit itself to the criticism in my “first arti-
cle’ *—viz.: “Contradicts Logic (1) in his redundant definition; (2)
in his incoherent argument.” Then, in the next to the last paragraph,
he says: “If his [Dr. M.’s] charge that I have contradicted Logic has
been proved to be inconclusive, it is likely that the charge of contra-
diction to the Confession of Faith, standard authors, and the Bible is
in the same category.’ The wary sophist would have left this sophisti-
cal train of reasoning to suggest itself to the unsophisticated mind of the
unwary reader; but the Doctor suggests it himself, and claims it to be
of force—‘an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile.” Sound in
Logic, ergo, sound in Confession of Faith, Bible, ete. He must there-
fore be held accountable for the logic of this suggestion: ‘I have vindi-
cated myself from the charge of contradicting logic ; therefore I am vin-
dicated from thé charge of contradicting (1) the Confession of Faith,
(2) standard authors, and (3) the Bible.’ There were six separate and
independent charges, each built upon an independent base; the Doctor
imagines he has thrown down the first column of argument, and then
politely bowing to the public he says, ‘The fall of one is the fall of six.”
The curtain drops, but the six columns remain in their original integ-
rity ; and as the audience retire they whisper: ‘‘Another sample of the
Doctor’s anti-evolution logic.”

Those (some at least) who have known the learned Professor for many
years, and have often witnessed his valiant assaults upon those who depart
from the Confession and the Bible, have been surprised and pained to
discover such a radical change between the present and the past—to
be so earnest in defending himself against the charge of anti-logical, and
so indifferent to the far graver charges—anti-Confvssional and anti-
Biblical.

In that first article to which he proposed to confine himself, there
were two distinct criticisms: ‘“(1) redundant; (2) incoherent.” He
attempts to justify himself against the first; but seems to have forgotten
that the fullest success here would not have vindicated him from the
second. “Granting his definition, still Evolution is not disproved.”
(Pamphlet, page 3.) The argument (as against Evolution) is a non
sequitur upon either supposition.

 

* My criticisms appeared first in four articles in the St. Louis Presbyterian and
in the Southern Presbyterian, afterwards in pamphlet form as one article.
6

But has the “Reply” really disproved the “redundancy”? On the
contrary, it makes a great parade of forces—marching round in a cir-
cle—and then concludes the review by this surrender: ‘The question is
not, whether if one specific mark renders the definition adequate, one
only ought to be inserted. That is admitted.” On the other hand—
what the Doctor claims ‘“‘’s not the question,” was and is precisely the
very question. The scope of my remarks, the point of my criticism—
“redundancy’’—the illustrations I used, all furnish sufficient proof of
this. Even the references to Burgersdyck, Porphyry, and Hamilton
furnish no disproof of anything asserted by me. 1. Burgersdyck: what
his actual definition of Logic is, we are not informed in the “Reply,”
only the “genus,” and then the sources from which the “difference” is
taken, viz., “end; office; matter or object.” It would have been bet-
ter had the Doctor given the very words of the definition itself, and not
the sources “from” which. Again, I must call the Doctor’s attention to
the fact, that my criticism of his definition was not, because it embraced
two or more specific marks, but because they rendered his definition
“redundant”; not because he embraced ‘‘office,”’ but because embracing
“office” in this instance introduced “redundancy.” Turning to Pam-
phlet, p. 1, he will find my language to be: ‘We may again demand
that he shall not include in the abstract ‘definition’ of ‘miracle’ not only
the ‘nature,’ but also the ‘office’ of the miracle ; unless he can first prove
that there cannot possibly be in nature or in thought any such thing as
miracle apart from its office; (and in the case of Ais definition) apart
from the particular ‘office’ which he has assigned to it.” If I should
propose to define “Cow,” the term “milk” would be “redundant” ; but
should I propose to define Dairy Cow, the term “milk,” if omitted, would
be a very essential defect, and render the definition inadequate. Because
Burgersdyck used “office” in the definition of “Logie,” ergo, the Doctor
may use “office” in the definition of “miracle” !! 2. Porphyry. I see
nothing here militating against my position. As explained by Porphyry
himself, the one term mortale was essential to differentiate between man
and God; just as much so as the one term rationale was essential to
differentiate between the brute and man. True, I would not, any more
than the learned Doctor, “defend the material truth of the definition.”
For, to my mind, under existing circumstances, the term “animal” not
only includes mortale, but already sufficiently discriminates man as such
from God; just as the term “rationale” not only includes immortal, but
already sufficiently discriminates man as such from the brutes. Whilst
on this point let me say, that I may prevent any possible misunderstand-
7

ing, that it is noticeable, confining the attention to man and brute, tha

the highest analysis of man furnished by human philosophy is—rational
animal. The term rational does not express all the difference between
man and the lower animals, but it sufficiently discriminates, and there,
therefore, the definition stops. If, however, as some claim, there is proof
that the brute has not only intellect, but the faculty, however feeble, of
reasoning, then, as soon as this shall be admitted, the term rational will
no longer differentiate, and as common to brute and man will disappear
(as a specific mark) from the definition of man. Some higher quality,
say moral, found in man and not found in brutes, will take the place of
rational. Should the moral sense—distinction between right and wrong—
be subsequently discovered to exist (however feebly) in the brute, then,
of course, that term would disappear from the definition of man. Some
higher quality (say spiritual), found in man and not found in the brute,
will take the place of moral. Even now we (some of us) discriminate
between men and men by affirming ‘‘carnal” as indicating the death of
the spiritual nature in man; and “spiritual” as indicating the regener-
ated man in whom the spiritual nature has been restored to life again by
the Holy Ghost. So that it is not whether one or a dozen specific marks
may be inserted if necessary, but whether in the case of the definition
by the Doctor such elements were inserted as rendered it “redundant.”’
3. Hamilton. The above remarks leave little to be said under this
head. Of course, if we choose to conceive of men existing elsewhere
than on this earth, then to distinguish these from those we shall have to
append “terrestrial—or, of this earth.” But just how this quotation
from Hamilton proves Hamilton to have violated his own rule; or how
it relieves the Doctor’s definition from ‘“redundancy,”’ or his argument
from “incoherency,” would overtax the logical acumen of Aristotle him-
self. So likewise with the other quotations—from Bowen and from
Jevons ; the ‘Reply’ has rendered the critique upon his Review arti-
cle good service. All the authorities quoted in the “Reply” are either
irrelevant or else they confirm the criticism.

I shall make no defence if any one shall charge me with superfluity for
proceeding, in the next place, to notice what the Professor of Theology
has said regarding the answers to the Shorter Catechism. To offend as
little as littie as possible, I shall call attention to but one of the Profes-
sor's specimens. He claims, e. g., that the answers in the Shorter Cate-
chism are specimens of logical definition by genus and species; but
many of those answers give more than one specific mark; what then?
Why then the Doctor's critic is reduced to this dreadful dilemma: either
8

he must retract the charge of redundancy against the Professor, or else
he must consent to fasten the same charge upon the Shorter Catechism,
i.¢., against the Westminster Assembly; they and the Doctor must
sink or swim together. But this identification I cannot perceive. ‘The
Shorter Catechism frequently furnishes more than one specific mark ;
therefore the Doctor’s definition of miracle is not redundant; and his
anti-evolution argument is logically consequential.’ Iam not ashamed
to confess, that in my judgment this is another specimen of the Doctor’s
incoherent argumentation. Is there no other escape from this dilemma
than that indicated by him? I think we have no dilemma at all con-
fronting us. There is nothing before us but a broad open path. The
“Reply” has placed the Catechism in an awkward dilemma; and I
shall rescue this standard from the charge “illogical,” by proving that
its answers are not to be considered in the light of logical definitions.
Take, e. g., the answer to the question, What is justification? Take
the analysis of this answer furnished in the “Reply”: Proximate genus:
“act of God's free grace.” Since, however, adoption belongs to the
same genus, how is justification to be distinguished therefrom? What
are the specific differences? (1) Pardon; (2) acceptance of the person
as righteous; (3) imputation of Christ’s righteousness; (4) reception
of Christ’s righteousness by faith alone.” Such is his analysis; and he
insists that it is an instance of “the definition of justification” by genus
and species. If so, let us test it. The whole of the genus must be
found in each of the species. What is the genus? ‘Act of God’s
free grace.” What is the fourth specific mark? “Reception of
Christ’s righteousness by faith alone.” ‘“Taith,” then, according to this
analysis must be an “act of God's free grace”; whereas in reality, and
according to the Catechism’s own explanation of “faith,” it is not an
“act of God” at all, but solely an act—gracious act—of the believer.
The Catechism, therefore, no less than the Bible, needs to be rescued
from the Professor's logic. But is this answer in any sense a logical
definition of the term “justification” ? If so, how would it apply to the
justification of Adam, if he had stood during the term of his probation?
How would it apply to the justification of an innocent man falsely
charged (say) with murder? How would it apply to the justification of
the angels who fell not? How would it apply to the justification of
the Second Adam upon his performing the conditions of the covenant
of Redemption? It is perfectly manifest, therefore, that the “proximate
genus of justification” is not an “act of God's free grace.” Surely the
Professor's language must needs be revised in order to save the reputa-
9

tion for logic of the Westminster divines. Is it not manifest, that the
framers of the Catechism did not intend to give a logical ‘‘definition, by
proximate genus and specific difference,” of the term “justification,” but
a scriptural explanation of the justification of a senner under the cove-
nant of grace? Is it not equally manifest, that under the one single
question—“ What is justification ?”—the Assembly answers several dis-
tinct but consecutive questions, e. g., (1) What isit? An act. (2)
Whose act? God’s. (3) What class of God’s acts? Free grace. (4)
What does God do in this act? Pardons. (5) Pardons what? Sins.
(6) How many sins? All. (7) Whose sins? Ours. (8) What else
does he do in this act? Accepts. (9) Whom? Us. (10) As what?
Righteous. (11) In whose sight? His sight. (12) Upon what
ground? Righteousness of Christ. (13) Upon what principle? Im-
putation. (14) What instrument? Faith alone. (15)What class of
creatures are thus justified? The “ungodly.” (16) With or without
works of their own? ‘Without works.” (17) Under what covenant ?
Covenant of Grace. Surely not thus do Logicians define by genus
and species. The lover of the Catechism therefore will look with
apprehension to Columbia, not to Memphis, when grieving ‘over
the wreck of the Shorter Catechism.’’

There necd be no difficulty in determining the scope of the term defi-
nition. /inis—end, terminus—a boundary line. Definition marks out
the end of a term, points out its boundary lines, up to which it does go,
beyond which it must not go. Definition discriminates severely and
exactly between this term and all other terms—it individualizes an idea;
puts the term in such clothing that no other term can wear it; or in
such shape that it will fit into no other encasement. Whatever, then, of
course, is necessary to accomplish this severe and cast-iron limitation—
whether it be one word, or a thousand words—is legitimate. But there
is nothing in all this that contradicts what I quoted from Hamilton :
“Definition in the stricter sense must afford at least two, and properly
only two original characters, viz.: that of the genus (proximum) and
that of the difference by which it is itself marked out from its co-ordi-
nates as a distinct species.” The “invariable rule’ which I mentioned
was: “The less you put in your definition, the wider its application ;
the more you put in your definition, the narrower its application.”
(Pamphlet, p. 1.) This the “Reply” does not and cannot dispute. The
careful reader will note, in this connection, that the ‘‘Reply” has fur-
nished no defence against the charge: that the Doctor “has given in his
premise the definition of some miracle, and drawn his conclusion as if
10

he had given the definition of ali miracle. From a particular premise
he has drawn a universal conclusion.” (Pamphlet, p. 2.) I reiterate,
therefore, with emphasis the criticism: “Dr. Girardeau’s definition of
miracle—pure and simple—proceeds not only by genus and by species,
but also by variety, etc.’ (Pamphlet, p. 2.) To profess, e. g., to de-
fine Dog—pure and simple’—and yet include in that definition not
only marks which differentiate between dogs and all other animals—not
dogs, which, of course, would be essential; but also to add marks which
differentiate not only between different species of dogs, but also between
different varieties, would certainly be illogical. If you profess to be
defining a particular ‘“‘species’ of dog, then, of course, give in addition
the specific mark of that species; if you propose to give the definition of
a particular “variety,” then, of course, add the differentiating mark of
that variety. But, in the name of all sound reasoning, do not define a
particular “species” or “variety,” and then insist that a certain animal
cannot be “Dog,” because it lacks the marks peculiar to this species or
that variety. Thus to do would be to “ignore the rule laid down by Sir
William Hamilton (Logic, p. 342)”; and also to “violate a fundamental
rule of the syllogism.” °

In the next place, the “Reply” seeks refuge from my criticisms in the
fact that “Logicians divide definitions into two kinds—the narrower
(angustior) and the wider (latior).” And then he proceeds strangely
to argue as if I had denied that his definition was any definition at all.
“Of course, then,” (he argues) “the wide are definitions as well as the
narrow.” But this was never denied ; the point was and is, the Doc-
tor’s definition is “redundant,” and his argument a ‘non sequitur.” The
charge was not that it was something minus “definition ;” but that it
was ‘‘definition” plus something else: surplusage was the point of my
objection ; and I indicated, by brackets, the overlargeness. (Pamphlet,
p- 1.) Now, a “wider’’ definition may be superfluous, no less than a
‘narrower’ one. There is nothing here for the Doctor, then, but a
roofless refuge.

Neither does the Doctor claim that, in his Aeview article he was
defining in the “wider” sense; his native honesty would not permit him
to set up this claim. His language is: “I did not say that I was fur-
nishing a narrow definition. I may have had the benefit given ‘me of
the supposition that I intended to use the wide, even if the critic held
that it could not be the narrow.” He does not even now say that he
intended his definition to be of the ‘‘wider’’ specics; nor even now does
he demand this construction ; but only pleads that since he “did not say
11

I was furnishing a narrow definition,” the generosity of the critic should
have given his friend the “benefit” of the doubt. But then it must be
remembered that critics [xpcr7¢] like judges dispense not alms but jus-
tice; they must never forget that they are servants of truth and of
righteousness. None, more than I, would walk backward with the man-
tle of charity to cover the Doctor’s faults, 4s I know none, more than
he, would do so unto me. But then this kindly office must not be
sought at my hands when I am sitting in judgment upon the Doctor,
viewing with a ‘‘critic’s eye’ his offences against truth and sound learn-
ing, to the detriment of the purity and peace of the Church. ‘He that
justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both
are abomination to the Lord.’ (Prov. xvii. 15.)

Not to protract my remarks upon this division, let us note what Ham-
ilton says about these different species of Definitions, in order that the
Professor may enjoy the full ‘‘benefit” of the doubt. Let us briefly
glance at Hamilton’s analysis: ‘Formal Perfection” of thought: (1)
Clearness; (2) Distinctness; (3) Harmony. Rules by which these are
secured: (1) Definition; (2) Division; (3) Probation. Declaration:
(1) Definition Proper—‘where two of the essential and original attri-
butes of the defined subject are given, whereof the one is common to it
with the various species of the same genus, and the other discriminates
it from these.” (2) Definitions in the wider sense: 1st. Explication ;
2ndly. Exposition; 3rdly. Description. Now, under which one of these
three sub-refuges will the Doctor seek shelter? Certainly we should
always prefer, for the sake of ‘‘Clearness’—the end of ‘Definition’’—to
furnish, wherever possible, the Definition proper, ¢. e., the narrow
(angustior). But, if we have not advanced far enough in our knowl-
edge, as Hamilton suggests, why then, of course, Definition in the wider
sense (latior) will prove a very useful and even necessary auxiliary.
Consequently, under- these necessitous circumstances, very many privi-
leges have been granted by Logicians to Definitions in the ‘wider’ sense.
These tentative hypotheses—since they do not claim to be “Definitions
Proper ;” since they are “only to be considered as a prelusory defini-
tion; and as the mark of an inetpient and yet imperfect knowledge;
and since they “make no pretence to logical perfection ; and are only
subsidiary to the discovery of more perfect definitions—are not to be
very rigidly dealt with.” (Hamilton’s Logic, 340-349.)

I shall not, therefore, be led astray by this false scent. It is not,
whether he defined in ‘“‘narrower or wider’ sense; but whether, in what-
ever sense, it was (1) “redundant”; and (2) disproved Hivolution; and
12

(3) proved the Bible and Evolution to be “mutual contradictories.”
His refuge is no refuge. Granting the ‘‘wider sense,” still his definition
is surcharged ; and still there isa missing link between his premise and
his conclusion.

The “Reply” presses me with this home-thrust: ‘How would Dr.
Martin adequately define by a single specific mark evolution?” Let me
commend the Doctor to a more careful perusal of my criticism. He will
find (Pamphlet, p. 3) that I had already anticipated this kindly thrust :
“Evolution—'DESCENT with modification.’ Surely this is an ade-
quate definition.

From what has been said, it seems perfectly clear that the first column
anda half of the “Reply” is largely an ignoratio elenchi. The Doctor
has endeavored to disprove what I have never affirmed; and to prove
what I have never denied, viz., that logicians have subdivided defini-
tions into two kinds: 1, narrow; 2, and wide; and that when necessary
to adequacy a definition may contain more than one specific mark. But
the real questions at issue between us, he has either neglected or ineffec-
tually assaulted.

The Doctor's “Reply” still insists, that “Wonderful” and ‘‘Eviden-
tial” are so inherently the qualities of “Miracle,” that without them an
event “cannot be a miracle.” Here is his own analysis: “I. Highest
genus: Event. 1. Proximate genus: Wonderful event. (1) Specific
marks, differentiating it from other wonderful events: 1st. Contraven-
tion of the known course of nature; 2ndly. Accompanies, (a) the teach-
ing of a person claiming to be commissioned by God; (0) or a revela-
tion ; (x) professing to be divine; (y) and intended to promote human
holiness.” Here is his own synthesis: “Miracle: I. Wonderful event:
1. Contravening the known course of nature: 2. Accompanying: (1)
the teaching of a person claiming to be commissioned by God; (2) ora
revelation; Ist, professing to be divine; 2ndly, and intended to promote
human holiness. . . . Defined from 1, its nature; 2, and its office.”
(179.) That is, in answering the question—‘ W hat, then, isa miracle?”
he has really answered two questions, viz.: 1. What is? and 2. Why?
or 1. What is “nature” of miracle? 2. What is the “office” of mir-
acle? Note, that he proposes the question concerning “A miracle,” that
is, ALL miracle, pot SOME; 1. é., he furnishes this as the abstract defini-
tion of the term “Miracle.”

Now let us hear Dr. Thornwell: “What, then, 7s a miracle ?”

“Tt is an event either above or opposed to secondary causes.” Then
several pages farther on, under a distinct head numbered ‘‘2,” he pro-
13

ceeds: “Having settled that the essENcE of the miracle consists in
the contranatural op the supernatural, we are now prepared to investi-
gate its apologetic worth.” He distinctly mentions this department to
be another question: “The question to be answered is briefly this—
Is the miracle, in itself, from its own’ intrinsic character, a sufficient. cre-
dential of a Divine inspiration or a Divine commission?” This is the
second question: the first was, ““‘What is the miracle?” He feels no
preparation to “investigate” the second, until he has “settled” the jirst.
Hence he escaped giving a multifarious definition, and its logical con-
sequences. This second question Dr. Thornwell ‘answers in the affir-
mative.” Remarking upon his definition, he says: “Leave out the
notion of these secondary causes, and there can be no miracle.” Nota
bene, “the notion’”’—the abstract idea—not the concrete presence: ‘‘can
be no miracle’—when ?—at the moment of “creation from nothing in
the first instance”? not only; but also at any subsequent period in the
whole history of the material universe ;—‘there CAN BE NO miracle.”
Clearing the way for his definition, cautiously feeling his way for ‘the
peculiarity of the miracle,” he remarks: “He [Trench] explains the
terms by which miracles are distinguished in Scripture, but these terms
express only the effects upon our own minds, the purposes for which,
and the powers by which, they are wrought, and the operations them-
selves—the effect, the end, the cause—but they do not single out that
in the phenomenon by which it becomes a wonder, a sign, » power, or
a work.” Still farther feeling his way, he says: “The scriptural term
which gives us the nearest insight into the real nature of the miracle is
precisely the one of which Dr. Trench speaks most slightingly—the
word wonder. It is true that every wonder is not a miracle, but every
miracle is a wonder. The cause of wonder is the unexpectedness of an
event; and the specific difference of the miracle is, that it contradicts
that course of nature which we expected to find uniform.” Then, hav-
ing thus discriminated between that which is and that which is not;
having assigned “wonder” to a position as “effect,” and perceiving that,
as point of view, it afforded the “nearest insight into the real nature,”
he announces in clearness, beauty, and severest simplicity the result: “It
is an event either above or opposed to: secondary causes.’ (Collected
Writings, Vol. 3, pages 228-233.) Evidently he did not drag into the
inner essence the “effect” and the ‘nearest’ point of view; his logical
instinct taught him to leave these where they belonged—amongst the
externals. That which was an accidental and common property would
not serve to define—to differentiate. Hence the ante bellum Professor’s
14

‘

measure is too small for the post bellum Professor’s wear. Hence the
definition given by Dr. Thornwell excludes ‘‘wonderful,” but that given
by Dr. Girardeau includes it. Perceiving, as Dr. Thornwell did, that
“every wonder is not a miracle, but every miracle is a wonder,” he
refused to incorporate the term “wonderful” in his definition ; he pre-
ferred that which differentiated. From my criticism on this point the
“Reply” sought two avenues: (1) “Dr. Martin narrowly limits the
wonderful to the unexpected;’’ but escape by this route was already
blocked; for I had distinctly said (PampAlet, p. 2), ‘Wonderful would
have to be ranged under the second head, . . 7. e., the effect on the
mind of the beholders.”” Now, “unexpected” is the state of mind before
the miracle is wrought; “wonderful” is the ‘‘effect’’—state of mind
after the wiracle is wrought. It is something existing in the mind, not
in the miracle ; taking place in the mind after the miracle has been
performed, not before. (2) “I expressly assigned” (says the “Reply’’)
“wonder or wonderful event as the proximate genus. I could not there-
fore have made it a specific mark.” But, is it essential in proving a
definition to be “redundant,” that the term objected to should be the
“specific mark”? How, then, can the fact, that the Doctor did not
make “wonderful” one of the specific marks, relieve his definition of the
charge of “redundancy”? Besides, I did not overlook the fact, but dis-
tinctly recognised it, that in the Doctor’s definition ‘wonderful’ was
made the “proximate genus.” (Pamphlet, p. 9) There is another
fact which, equally, I did not overlook, viz., that “proximate genus and
specific difference” are related terms: the proximate genus is just as
much a specific mark, differentiating in its sphere, as is the specific
difference a mark differentiating in its sphere; these things are not im-
movable, but movable; they are on a sliding scale; upwards—the spe-
cific difference becomes proximate genus; downwards—and the proxi-
mate genus becomes specific difference: take one principle of division
and the scale slides upwards; take another principle of division, and
it slides downwards. This (which the Doctor’s self-esteem will not
suffer him to challenge) effectually blocks his passage through the sec-
ond avenue.

In the next place, let us see how the “Reply” defends the Review
article from the charge of “redundancy” in introducing “evidential” as
a specific mark of ‘a miracle.”

The defence may be ranged under three heads:

1. “I [the Doctor] hold that it is essential to the miracle, and not
accidental, that it is evidential.” This, of course, no reader of the Re-
15

view article will doubt. But, equally, no reader of the ‘‘Reply”’ will
perceive in it any proof of the correctness of what the Doctor holds.
Therefore this part of the “Reply” may safely be left to take care of
itself.

2. That the miracle is evidential of “divine communications, is .. .
universally, or at least well-nigh universally, conceded.” But this was
not the point of my criticism ; and the affirmation, therefore, does not
relieve the Doctor’s position. That all writers on miracles have treated
them as “evidential,” is one proposition—a proposition I have never
denied ; that all (or nearly all) writers on miracle have “incorporated
credential of divine communications” in their definition of ‘a miracle” —
miracle in the abstract—all miracles, is a very different proposition—a
proposition which, even could the Doctor demonstrate, would fall very
fof short of proving that the incorporation of it did not render the defi-
nition “redundant.”

3. “Dr. Thornwell did not formally incorporate it [evidential] in his
definition.” This is very manifest; and equally manifest is it, that Dr.
Girardeau did “incorporate it in Ais definition.”

“Be [Dr. Thornwell] treats it as essential to the miracle.” ‘‘Essen-
tial” to what “of the miracle’ ?—(1) the definition of it ?—or (2) the
exhaustive treatment of the subject—Miracies” ?—the unmodified
title of his discourse. The latter, of course, not the former: for, let it
never be forgotten, not till Dr. Thornwell had settled the “EssENCE’—
that which is ‘‘essential’’—did he feel “prepared to investigate its apolo-
getic worth,” that is, the “credential” division of his subject. It is,
therefore, not only manifest that ‘‘Dr. Thornwell did not incorporate it
in his definition,” but no less clearly manifest, that he did not “treat it
as essential to the [definition of ] miracle.”

Now let us turn our attention to the defence, made in the ‘Reply,’ *
to the criticism, that the Doctor’s argument is contra-logical, i. ¢.,
non sequitur, 7. é€., incoherent.

1. The “Reply” objects to my analysis of the Doctor’s views. “As
we understand the drift of his argument there is an implicit claim, that
since all ‘events’ must fall under one of these heads, viz.: 1. Super-
natural, 7. ¢., ‘Creation’ ex nihilo; 2. Contra-natural, 7. é., ‘miracle;’
or 3. Natural, 7. e., according to ‘the known course of nature’; there-
fore there is no standing room left for Evolution.” (PampdAlet, p. 3.)
This analysis, the “Reply” objects, opposes ‘‘supernatural and contra-
natural as mutually exclusive,” and as such is “mistaken.” The “Reply”
furnishes this analysis: I. Supernatural: 1. Contra-natural, 7. e.,
16

“miracle.” 2. Non-contra natural: 7. e., not “miracle,” 7. ¢., “Creation
ex nihilo in the first instance.” II. Natural: i. e., according to “the
known course of nature.” This analysis the “Reply” defends thus:
“T do not know, and I fancy Dr. Martin does not know, that all which
is supernatural is contra-natural, but I do know that all which is contra-
natural is supernatural.” On the contrary, however, that is just what
the Doctor’s critic fancies he does know. It was this conviction which
induced me to lay down this proposition, viz.: ‘It makes no particle of
difference whether you say an event or a creation, is super-natural, or
contra-natural. very thing or event is either (1) natural, or (2) non-
natural—it makes no shadow of difference whether you say super, or
contra, or preter, or how many changes you may choose to ring on the
Latin prepositions. If it is non-natural, it is miracle; if it is natural, it is
not: miracle.” (Pamphlet, p. 2.) \

Why is not every supernatural event contra-natural? It seems to us
that the mere accepted force of language sustains the affirmative of this
question. All events are either natural or non-natural: 1. The super-
natural therefore is non-natural; 2. The contra-natural therefore is non-
natural. Every non-natural event is a “Miracle’: 1 Every supernat-
ural event therefore is a miracle; 2. Every contra-natural event there-
fore is a miracle. The steps of this argument would seem to be intui-
tive. If they are valid, then the Miracle is indifferently super or con-
tra. Therefore, that analysis, which furnishes two species of the super-
natural [(1) miracle—because it is supero-contra-natural; (2) non-
miracle—because it is supero-non-contra-natural] is an illogical analysis.

Evidently, according to the Doctor’s own analysis he will need to
amend the title of his Review article, so as to read: “The Supero-con-
tra-natural character of the miracle, as contrasted with Natural.
Events, and with the supero-non-contra-natural character of Crea-
tion from. nothing in absolutely the First Instance.” To this revised
statement of the Doctor's doctrine of “a miracle,” the curious might
append several questions; e. g., Since you do not hold that Creation
super, and Creation contra, are mutually exclusive, why may not the
“super” be contra, and the “contra” super, if not in the whole, at least
in the part? Why did you not define miracle to be a supero-contra-
natural event? If miracle is an event—supero-contra-natural, what is
an event “super” but not contra? what an event—“contra’”’ but not
super? what an event,“super” but neither contra nor non-contra?
Since you claim to range “Creation ex nihilo in the first instance,” co-
ordinately with miracle as Contra-natural, under the genus Supernatural,
17

D

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
“Gn 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 exnihilation 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
18

Adam’s body was miraculous,” then language has lost its power to
express thought. If, however, it does and can only mean that the “crea-
tion of Adam’s body wa3 miraculous,” then it is in palpable discord with
Professor Girardeau’s opinion. Strange exhibition of human nature!
On October 3, 1888, Dr. Girardeau is found publicly “contending
against the decision of the General Assembly ;” yet that very week he
leads his Presbytery in adopting that celebrated Interdict, which ‘“for-
bids the public contending against the decision [this very decision] of
the Assembly.’ Is it at all likely that the Presbytery of Charleston
will call this eminent presbyter to account for this flagrant offence? Or
was it the intention of the majority in that Presbytery, by this Presby-
terial but unpresbyterian Interdict upon public discussion, to manufac-
ture a muzzle for the minority alone?

Upon general principles, in my criticism I took for granted that, if
there was one opinion which the eminent leader of the opposition did
hold it, was that the “creation of Adam’s body was miraculous.” Now,
as formerly, however, I cannot see how he could hold that-opinion con-
sistently with some principles enunciated in his Review article. Now,
however, I feel that light is dawning. If we do not yet know what opin-
ion the Professor holds on this burning question which has so vexed the
Church for the past four years, we feel confident we are possessed of
his consciousness on the negative side of this question; we know what
opinion he does not hold: he publicly disavows holding “‘that the crea-
tion of Adam’s body was miraculous.’ Yea more; he has “always of
set purpose avoided expressing that opinion.”

Since the Doctor is fond of Logic—a master in the art—suppose he
listen to a friend’s advice, who would thus gently lead him by the line
of Logic safely through this labyrinth of doubt. WL. g., all events are
either: 1. Contra-Natural; or 2. Non-contra-natural. All Mon-con-
tra-natural events are either: 1. Creation ex nihilo in absolutely the
jirst instance, 7. é., under the genus Supernatural; or 2. Natural,
7. é., under the genus Von-supernatural. But now: the creation of
Adam's body was an “Event.” The Doctor disavows holding that it
belongs to the class of ‘miraculous’ events, 7. ¢., the class contra-nat-
ural. It must, then, belong to that class of events known as either: 1.
“Supero-non-contra-natural,” or 2, that class known as ‘“Natural,”—
Non-supero-natural. But the Doctor is very confident that the creation
of Adam’s body must be ruled out of this class, 7. ¢., the “Natural ;” for
he says, in his “Reply,” “Now we maintain that Adam’s body was not
born.” Then, of course, the Doctor is bound by the laws of Logic to
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
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
21

matters ; he takes his own horoscope, and acts the wise part recommend-
ed by Solomon: “A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself:
but the simple pass on, and are punished.” To this extent, therefore,
he may be regarded as a Semi-Woodrowite; and may the day be not
far distant when we shall give him the right hand of fellowship, and
welcome him into our full communion. There is this difference between
the school which the Professor seems to be abandoning, and that to
which as his friend I cordially invite him. The former, interpreting
Scripture on scientific points, keeps one eye on the facts of science and
the other eye on the sacred record, so as to interpret the one in exact
“harmony” with the other; of course, this process has in the past and
must in the future treat alternately the Bible and Nature as if they
were noses made of wax, and hence the “variations” and “conflicts”
must be provoking and countless until the harmonizing process is com-
pleted and the residuum of harmony is at last discovered. The latter
school treats both the Bible and Nature as respectable, independent, in-
fallible witnesses of the truth of God, each supreme in its own divinely
assigned department. Thus, in each department—independently stud-
ied—we seek, not what they call “harmony,” but what we call ‘“non-
contradiction’—the harmony of ‘“non-contradiction.” We have no
need, therefore, to suspend our interpretation of the sacred record till
the returns from the secular record are all in; neither therefore are we
ever called upon to “import” into the sacred record the latest verdict of
the secular. On the contrary, we believe that what the Bible teaches
now it has always taught and always will teach; and that these teach-
ings are and have been attainable by all students of the Bible without
any aid from outside sources, if only we could lay aside prejudice, pas-
sion, sloth, and pride. Having reached our interpretation, by which we
are assured of “non-contradiction,”’ we then, so far as the Bible is con-
cerned, rest without fears by day or alarms by night. and let the Nat-
ural Scientist work out his conclusions without fear, favor, or affection—
without any prejudice of mind against the Bible on account of unneces-
sary friction between the Scripturist and the Naturalist. In reaching
this happy posture—of “non-contradiction”—“we do not need to show
that our interpretation must be correct, but only that it may be cor-
rect—that it is not reached by distortion or perversion, but by an honest
application of admitted principles of exegesis.” (Woodrow’s Address.)
Perhaps a comparative view just at this point may be profitable :—
General Assembly: 1. Adam’s body; miracle. 2. His body; not
born.
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.
23

The Doctor’s “Reply” can be understood only by supposing that he
failed to read, or else failed to remember, that I gave two instances of
Evolution by special creation, viz.: (1) the birth of Isaac; and (2)
the birth of Jesus. The first instance (as to interpretation) was’ con-
firmed by reference to the Confession of Faith ; the second needed no
confirmation. The proof, therefore, that the argument of Prof. Girar-
deau against Evolution as applied to Adam’s body was incoherent was
expressly built upon the ground which had already been estabiished,
that there was no contradiction between Evolution and Creation—
whether “special” or “ordinary.” Hence, since Girardeau’s body came
by ordinary generation, as we learn from Nature, and also by Creation,
as we learn from Scripture, so there is no vontradiction between evolu-
tion and ordinary creation. And since the bodies of Isaac and of Jesus
came by extraordinary generation, and also by evclution, so there is no
contradiction between evolution and extraordinary, i. ¢., “special” crea-
tion; the birth of Isaac was an instance of an “individual born of indi-
viduals within the same species ;”’ the birth of Jesus was an instance of
an “individual of one species born of an individual of a different species ;”’
yet both Isaac and Jesus were instances of evolution by “‘special” crea-
tion; both of these instances, therefore, prove that there is no contra-
diction between “evolutionism and special creationism ;’ thus the
‘Ggsue’’ as stated by the Doctor was fairly met; thus my original argu-
ment is fully sustained, viz.: that to reason, because God ‘‘created”
Adam’s body—even though by a “special” act of creation—therefore
Adam’‘s body could not have been been “evolved,” is to reason “‘incohe-
rently.” Since Girardeau’s, Isaac’s, and the Messiah’s bodies were all
evolutions, and all creations, and instances of three different modes of
creation, under one of which modes the creation of Adam’s body might
come; therefore, to argue that what might have been (because all that
the Scriptures say of Adam’s body is that it was a creation) could not
have been, because it was a creation, is most assuredly to argue with the
utmost incoherency. Nor will the plea that Adam’s was a case of “‘spe-
cial” creation remove the incoherency ; for that plea will not cohere with
the special creation of the bodies of Isaac and of Jesus. Nor will the
plea that Adam’s body was not created like Girardeau’s body remove the
incoherency ; for that plea will not cohere with the proof, which grants
that difference, and yet, by that very grant, shows the incoherency of
the argument against evolution drawn from that difference. Nor will
the plea that Adam’s body was not born at all remove the incoherency,
for that plea will not cohere with the state of the question—the ‘issue’
24

between us—viz.: Was the body of Adam born or not born ?—that plea
therefore “begs the question ;” certainly no logician would consent to
meet the charge of non sequitur by submitting a petitio principit.
Nor will the plea that the critic “begged the question” remove the inco-
herency, for that plea is an ignoratio elenchi, it will not cohere with the
only point the critic undertook to prove, or cared to prove, or needed to
prove, viz.: that even though Adam’s body had been created by Evolu-
tion, still that would be no contradiction of the Bible statement, that
God created his body of the dust of the ground; upon that we based
the argument, that the assertion that Adam’s body was ‘not evolved”
because it was “created,” was incoherent; and that the assertion that
the Scriptures contradicted the “evolution” of Adam’s body because the
Scriptures assert “creation” of Adam’s body, was incoherent ; and there-
fore that the conclusion, that evolution and the Scriptures are ‘mutual
contradictories,”’ because the Scriptures affirm that Adam’s body was
“created,” is a non sequitur. Our task was to prove, not the “har-
mony” according to the Doctor’s school, but the “non-contradiction”’
according to the Woodrow school. According to the former school,
the Doctor’s task was, not merely to “maintain,” but to prove by ‘good
and necessary consequence,” that Adam’s body “was not born” ; before
he could coherently draw the conclusion, that the Bible and evolution
were “mutually contradictory.” According to the latter school, my
task, in order to refute the Doctor, was, not to prove that Adam’s body
was born; but simply to prove (as I did), that whether it was born or
not born; whether generated like the body of Girardeau, of Isaac, or of
Jesus, or not generated at all; whether evolution of Adam’s budy were
true or false; still the Bible remained uncontradicted, because it gave
no testimony for or against evolution; it was neutral; it was “silent.”
The Professor’s thesis was—The Bible and evolution are “mutually con-
tradictory ;’ my thesis was the contradictory opposite—The Bible and
evolution are “not” mutually contradictory. If, therefore, evolution be
true, the Bible is not contradicted ; equally so, therefore, if evolution be
false, still the Bible is not contradicted. So far, therefore, as the
‘gssue” between us is concerned, I had no interest whatever in maintain-
ing the truth or falsity of evolution in general, or of Adam's body in
particular ; whether he was born or not born, the criticism of the Doc-
tor’s argument, viz., “incoherent,” remains. Hither Adam was born or
he was not born; in either event he was “created out of the ground ;”
in either event the Bible and evolution are not “mutually-contradictory ;”
in either event the Doctor’s argument is incoherent. My argument was
. 25

based, not upon the supposition that the one was true and the other
false, but upon the supposition that no matter which alternative was
true, the Bible was not contradicted; but inasmuch as these alternatives
are themselves ‘‘mutually contradictory,” the one must be true and the
other false; but, which was true and which was false, was to me, so far
as my argument was concerned, a matter of supreme indifference ; be-
cause that argument was based on the supposition that either one or the
other might be true.

That what has been detailed above, was really my line of argument
will be fully confirmed by reading the Pamphlet, pages 3to5. The
first step was to prove that “there is no contradiction between creation
by ‘natural’ process and ‘Evolution.’ The second step was to prove
that ‘there is no contradiction between creation by ‘miracle’ and ‘Evolu-
tion.”” If creation by “miracle” does not include ‘special’’ creation,
then I should like to be informed what it does include? The Doctor
may say, ‘Creation by miracle does not include all special creations;
because it does not include creation by supero-non-contra-natural meth-
od; “‘if thus he shall insist, then we shall insist, that to affirm this meth-
od of the creation of Adam’s body, is flatly to contradict the literal word
of God, for it says that “the Lord God formed man dyst of the ground;”
but the Doctor would say: “The Lord God formed man ex nihilo in
absolutely the first instance.”

Then our conclusion was: “Therefore, although the Bible teaches
that God created the body of Adam, still it may be true that Adam’s
body (as Girardeau’s body) came by Evolution; for certainly Girar-
deau’s did, and yet God is equally Girardeau’s Creator as he was
Adam’s.” (Pamphlet, p. 5.) And let me add just here, that the
Bible teaches of all men (and therefore of Girardeau) no less than of
Adam, that the Lord God formed them “dust of the ground.” Now,
then, our argument was and is, that to argue—Adam’s body was
not “evolved”; because God “created” Adam's body, was to argue
incoherently. To argue “incoherently,” is to conclude without justi-
jication from the premises ; the conclusion against “Evolution” be-
cause of “creation,” is to conclude without justification from the pre-
mises; the Doctor’s argument was of this kind, as has been shown
(Pamphlet, pages 3 to 5) ; therefore the Doctor’s argument is incoherent.

How does the “Reply” seek to set aside this train of reasoning? Lis-
ten: ‘“Where, then, is the contradiction between the creation and the
evolution of Adam’s body? I answer: None whatever, if Adam’s body
was created like mine—that is, through birth. . . . Now, we maintain
26

that Adam’s body was not born. . . . The issue is between evolutionism
and special creationism.” All this, just as if I had not already super-
abundantly proven, that there is no contradiction ‘“‘between evolutionism
and SPECIAL creationism,” and therefore squarely met ‘‘the issue.”
‘What was my argument designed to show? That ‘““Adam’s body was
created like Girardeau’s, that is, through birth’? Wot at all, It was
designed to show that the simple fact that the Scriptures assert “create”
of Adam’s body, does not disprove “evolution” of Adam’s body, any
more than “creation” of Girardeau’s body disproves “evolution” of
Girardeau’s body. Other scriptures abundantly prove, that the formula
in Gen. ii. 7, is applicable to Girardeau’s body as to Adam’s. And my
argument is equally good whether Adam’s body is a “special creation’’
or not—as shown by the creation of the bodies of Isaac and of Jesus;
both of these bodies afford instances of “evolutionism” and of “special
creationism ;” equally good whether Adam’s body was an evolution or
not—descent with modification or not—created through birth or not.
It did not behoove me, therefore, to prove that Adam’s body ‘was born,
but it did rest upon the Doctor to prove that Adam’s body was not
born ; whilst it rested upon me to prove only (as I did) that the Doc-
tor’s line of proof was a non sequitur—that in his premises his conclu-
sion found no justification. To illustrate: The Doctur’s argument is:
Adam’s body could not be an “evolution,” because it was a “creation,”
i. e., a “special creation.” My disproof of the Doctor’s argument is:
the Doctor’s argument is a non sequitur ; because, (1) “creation” (nat-
ural) does not exclude “evolution”—Girardeau’s body, e. g.; (2) crea-
tion miraculous (or ‘“‘special’’) does not exclude “evolution’”’—the bodies,
é. g., of Isaac and of Jesus; (3) “special creation’”—in the sense of
“ex nihilo in absolutely the first instance’—does not disprove evolution
of Adam’s body; for the creation of Adam’s body was not an instance
of this kind of creation, any more than the bodies of Girardeau, of
Isaac, or of Bethlehem’s babe; (4) “Special creation’”’—in the sense of
“ex nihilo in the second instance’—that which the Doctor teaches the
resurrection life of Lazarus was—the creation of Adam’s body could not
be; for the man is “mistaken,” says the “Reply,” “in affirming that I
[the Doctor] have held that the creation of Adam’s body was miracu-
lous.” Besides, according to the literal word of God, the creation of
Adam’s body cannot be ranged under the head of creation ex nihilo
either (1) in ‘absolutely the first instance ;” or (2) “in the second in-
stance.” It must therefore be ranged under the head of either (1) “nat-
ural;” or (2) ‘‘miraculous;” but not “ex nihilo” (a) in the “first,”
27

or (b) in the second instance. But we have seen that creation (1) nat-
ural, or (2) miraculous, does not exclude evolution ; Adam’s body, there-
fore, whether a ‘‘natural” or a “miraculous” creation, does not exclude
evolution ; it may therefore have been created by evolution; therefore
the Doctor’s argument, which mediated the preof of non-evolution of
Adam’s body, through the term “creation”—[whether “natural or mir-
aculous”—seeing it must be one or the other]—in the premise—‘‘crea-
tion excludes evolution” —is a non sequitur.

To illustrate again: the Doctor’s argument is tantamount to this:

The whale cannot be a reptile; because it is a vertebrate.

Criticism ; Since vertebrate includes reptile, the Doctor’s argument
is “incoherent”—even though it ve true that the whale is not a reptile.

“Reply” : But since the whale is a “special” class of vertebrate, my
argument is not incoherent.

Criticism ; Since vertebrate includes reptile as a “special” class, the
argument is still incoherent, even though it be true that the whale is not
a reptile. There are four “special” classes of vertebrates: 1. Mammals.
2. Birds. 3. Reptiles. 4. Fishes. You do not prove that the whale is
not a “reptile” by proving that it is a “vertebrate”; neither do you
prove that it is not a reptile by proving that it is a “special” class of ver-
tebrates ; for, although it is a “vertebrate” and even a “special” class of
vertebrate, yet for all that the ‘‘whale” may be a “reptile.” It does
not behoove me to prove that the whale is not areptile; even though I
admit that, still your argument is incoherent. But it does devolve upon
you to prove your proposition by proving ‘whale’ to be—‘mamma],;”
or “bird ;’’ or “fish”—something that excludes “reptile.” Now just so
in the matter of “creation ;” granting, for argument’s sake, the Doctor’s
fourfold subdivision, viz.: 1. Natural. 2. Miraculous: (1) contra-nat-
ural; (2) “ex nihilo in the second instance.” 3. “Hx nihilo in abso-
lutely the first instance.” You do not prove anything against ‘‘evolu-
tion” by proving “creation” of Adam's body; you prove nothing against
it by proving “special” creation of Adam’s body; for, this being true,
still “evolution” may be affirmed of the “creation” of Adam’s body.
Neither does it behoove me to prove that Adam’s body is an instance of
evolution—that is not my proposition; my proposition is, that your ar-
gument is a non sequitur ; and that therefore, so far as regards your
argument. Adam’s body may be an “evolution.” On the contrary, how-
ever, it does behoove you—in order to sustain your proposition—viz. :
that “creation’’ of Adam’s body is ‘‘not evolution’”—to prove (1) not
that it was a “creation”—that is admitted; (2) not that it was a “‘spe-
28

1

cial” creation—that, for argument’s sake at least, is admitted; (3) but
to prove that it was a “special” creation of the class “ex nihilo in the
second instance ;” or (+) to prove that it was a ‘special’ creation of

the class “ex nihilo in absolutely the first instance.” Either of the last
' two would eaclude evolution. When you have proven that this last,
or this next to the last proposition, is true regarding the body of Adam,
then you will have proven, that it is something which could not have
been “born,” and therefore could not have been an “evolutiou’’—de-
scent with modification.

Meantime the position of the Woodrow school remains impregnable:
The Bible is silent—does not say: (1) whether Adam’s body was
“born ;” or (2) whether Adam’s body was not “born ;’’ so, - then,
whether the scientist shall eventually decide: (1) that Adam’s body was
“born,” the Bible will be connected with that proposition in the cate-
gory of “non-contradiction ;” for the Bible is silent on “that point ;” or
(2) whether the scientist shall eventually decide that Adam’s body was
not “born,” the Bible will be connected with that proposition in the cat-
egory of “non-contradiction ;” for the Bible is silent on “that point.”

It is manifest, therefore, that Dr. Girardeau’s reply to my criticism on
this point is a fatal concession. He attempts to parry the blow by seek-
ing shelter under the distinction between “special” and “natural” crea-
tion. He finds, however, that he is just as equally shelterless under the
one as under the other; and that, in substance, he has actually aban-
doned the last inch of ground upon which to erect a shelter. Under the
head of “special,” as differentiated from “natural,” there were three posi-
tions: 1, Miracle. 2. Hx nihilo in the “first.” 3. Hx nihilo in the
“second.” ‘Miracle’ was the only ground of PossIBLE tenability, but
that he hastily abandons; the two remaining are of impossible tenability, °
and even the second of these two remaining he fled from in confusion,
when he abandoned “miracle ;” for he holds that “ex nihilo in the sec-
ond,” is a “miracle; for he holds that resurrection of Lazarus is an
instance of ex nihilo in the “second ;” and he holds that resurrection of
Lazarus is a “miracle.” His case therefore is hopeless.

On the other hand, my argument is equally good under either suppo-
sition: (1) natural; or (2) miracle; and I claim, on the accepted force
of language, that these two are not only mutual exclusives, but that
they are exhaustive—as much so as natural and non-natural, or miracle
and non-miracle. His defence, however, according to himself, is good
only on condition that Adam’s body is a “special” creation; and that,
morever, as we have seen, of a peculiar variety, viz.: “ex nihilo in ab-
29

solutely the first instance ;’’ for he has abandoned “miracle,” of the first
and second varieties ; he rejects ‘natural ;” and therefore “creation from
nothing in absolutely the first instance,” is ald that remains to him. We
know how valiant he is, how fearless, how ready to throw himse!f into
the breach, how prompt to offer himself as one of a forlorn hope when
the precious truth is at stake. We do not therefore despair of’ seeing
him undertake the task of proving that “Adam’s body was created ex
nihilo in absolutely the first instance.’ When he shall have accom-
plished this feat, he will have richly earned the title, Hercuves of
Loaic. But, as our brother whom we “love in fhe truth,” we forewarn
him, that ere that chaplet shall be placed upon his noble brow, like
Samson, and yet unlike Samson, he will, in the hour of the greatest
success of his life, have tumbled into ruins, not the temple of the Philis-
tines, but the temple of Christianity ; for he will have demonstrated the
Bible in the first chapters of Genesis, at least, to be a myth; and he
himself will doubtless perish in the overthrow.

The Doctor evidently felt the gravity of the concession which he had
made; for he proceeds immediately to inform us—“now we maintain
that Adam's body was not born.” But where is the proof that it was
“not born”? He furnishes none—he begs the question. This is his pro-
position—*‘Adam’s body was not born.” What I have proven is that:
for all that the Scriptures reveal on this subject, and for all that the
Doctor’s argument has proven, it is an open question whether ‘“Adam’s
body was born” or not. It behooves him to prove his proposition ; and
I think he will utterly fail in any and every attempt so to do; but until
he has proven it, I claim the full measure of his concession: ‘Where,
then, is the contradiction between the creation and the evolution of
Adam’s body? Ianswer: None waatever, if Adam’s body was
created like mine—that is, through birth.” And, furthermore, I insist,
that should he prove that Adam’s body was a “special” creation, he will
not yet have proven that it was “not born”; for the bodies of Isaac and
of Jesus were “special creations,” and yet they were “BORN.”

4. In the fourth place, the ‘“Reply’”’ addresses itself to the “argumen-
tative application’’—7. ¢., to the disproof of Theistic Evolutionism drawn
from the Doctor’s “definition” of miracle: the disproof of the one is
included in the proof of the other ; so the ‘‘Reply” thinks. To this point
perbaps even the Doctor by this time thinks I have addressed myself ad
nauseam.

Reserving for a subsequent page what I shall say as to the irrelevant
matter contained in the “Reply’s’” three paragraphs on this head, I shail
30°

give present attention to that single sentence which has the remotest
relevancy to my criticism. Let us get the state of the question (Review
article, p. 206): According to the Doctor, the Theistic Evolutionist
“holds that God evolves the world by an unbroken process of mediate
creation.” Thence the Doctor infers that ‘‘no mediate creation could be
miraculous;” yet the creation of Adam’s body was very likely “miracu-
lous,” certainly (per Dr. Girardeau) not natural, and certainly was me-
diate, seeing, according to the Doctor, it was ‘formed out of the dust ;”
yet the creation of Isaac’s body and of the Messiah’s was certainly ‘mir-
aculous,” and as certainly “mediate.” Although, therefore, it should
be true, “that God evolves the world by an unbroken process of mediate
creation,” still it does not follow that “no mediate creation could be
miraculous ;” for “mediate” and ‘miracle’ are not mutual exclusives.
Therefore at this point the Doctor’s argument against the Theistic Evo-
lutionist breaks down; the conclusion does not follow from the premises,
his argument therefore is a non sequitur.

Then, in the next place, the astute logician supposes that the theistic
evolutionist defends himself by appealing “to the miracle of creation
from nothing in the first instance:” 7. €., the theistic evolutionist replies
to the Doctor by claiming to believe in the most stupendous of all
miracles—original creation. This the Doctor seeks to evade, by laying
down the proposition: “Creation from nothing cannot be a miracle.”
The futility of the Doctor’s argument to prove this proposition, has been
abundantly shown in the Pamphlet. As, therefore, the Doctor failed
to prove that “creation from nothing cannot be a miracle ;’’ so the con-
clusion he draws from that premise as against the theistic evolutionist, is
a non sequitur. Still the Doctor is generous: even granting that it has
oecurred [7. ¢., granting that the original act of exnihilation is a
miracle], that miracle ‘contradicts his theory’’—1. e., the theory of the
“theistic evolutionist.” Let us see the contradiction: the theistic evo-
lutionist in “his theory’ embraces the idea of the miracle of exnihila-
tion, as the very starting point of his theory, because that miracle
“begins the order of nature ;” there is no contradiction here certainly.
Therefore the Doctor’s inference—‘‘He [theistic evolutionist] cannot
therefore admit the existence of the miracle’—is a non sequitur; the
theistic evolutionist not only does admit miracle, but admits it “‘in the
very beginning” of his theory. To argue, therefore, that because the
theistic evolutionist denies miracle subsequent to the original act of ex-
nihilation, therefore to admit miracle in the very original act of exnihi-
lation, “contradicts his theory,” is certainly to argue with the utmost
incoherency.
31

Now, I shall leave the reader to judge how much force (in the way ,
of defence against my criticism) there is in this paragraph from the
“Reply,” all that remains of the three paragraphs after extracting the
irrelevant matter. That argument was briefly this: “If a miracle, as
contra-natural, has occurred, it contradicts the position of the theistic
evolutionist, for he admits no miracle but that of creation out of noth-
ing in the first instance, but that cannot be a miracle.” But “that
argument,” as we have seen, is a non sequitur. Now, where is the
proof in this “Reply,” or even attempted proof, that “that argument”
is not a non sequitur? Nowhere, save only in the bare repetition of
that argument, and that in a mutilated form; and just why, in his
“Reply,” the argument was shorn of these words—viz.: “But, if it has
occurred, it contradicts his theory’—is matter of curious speculation.
Now, as to that argument we have seen, that even as contra-natural,
miracle embraces “creation ex nihilo in the first instance,” and that ad-
mitting that the miracles, e. g., of the New Testament, contradict the
theistic evolutionist, that is one proposition, but that proposition does
not disprove mine, viz.: That the Doctor's argument against theistic
evolution is incoherent, for both these propositions may be true, for they
are not mutual contradictories. The ‘‘ Reply,” therefore, like the argu-
ment which it professes to defend, is incoherent.

One can scarcely restrain the surmise that the Professor does not know
what “non sequitur” means. Because I do not believe in theistic evo-
lution, therefore I must endorse every argument that the Doctor (or any
body else) may urge against it. Or, because I expose the fallacy of the
Doctor’s argument against theistic evolutionism, therefore I believe in
that form of evolution. Because this exposure occurs in a pamphlet
devoted to the defence (another of the Doctor’s fallacies) of Dr. Wood-
row, therefore Dr. Woodrow must be a theistic evolutionist; of, at
least, Dr. Martin does not know the difference between Dr. Woodrow
and “the thorough-paced theistic evolutionist.’’ Such logic as this is
surely too palpably puerile to require any severer castigation than this
bare mention. If this had been the only occasion on which such falla-
cies were practised by the opponents of Dr. Woodrow, there would be
less to regret; on the contrary, however, it seems to be one of their
stock performances. Dr. Woodrow’s name occurs nowhere in the
Pamphiet—save only as a convenient antithesis on the title page. He
was not consulted at all in the preparation of that first series of criticisms
(or of this second series); no single quotation—save one, ‘‘evolution—
descent with modification”’—was made from any of his writings, and
32

. that without any mention of his name. As the Pamphlet clearly
evinces, my object was, not to defend Dr. Woodrow, but the Bible, see-
ing that precious volume, by Dr. Girardeau’s argument, had been bound
in the meshes of his sophistries, and handed over to be the sport of the
Philistines.

I took especial pains (Pamphlet, p. 12) to say: “Science as such is
neither Christian nor anti-Christian, neither atheistic, pantheistic, nor
deistic.” Nature, the basis of all Natural Science, is, as God made it,
neither atheistic, theistic, nor Christian, but simply and intensely
natural—‘‘and all very good.” Is nature sin? God forbid; but sin,
taking occasion by nature, works in us all manner of infidelity. Be-
cause some farmers are atheists, we would not subdivide the science of
farming into atheistic and non-atheistic. Two physicians—one an
atheist, the other a devout Christian—may agree on every essential point
in the science of medicine, and in the practice of the healing art. Be-
cause there are on the one hand atheistic and on the other hand Christian
physicians, no one has ever thought of dividing medical science into
atheistic and Christian, although the former will seek to give only an
atheistic explanation of the occult action of medicines, and the other
only a Christian explanation of the same action. Because one man
confirms his atheism by atheistic inferences from the facts of science or
of nature, no more proves science or nature to be atheistic, than it proves
the Bible to be atheistic, because some men conjirm their atheism by
atheistic inferences from the facts of Scripture. The two physicians
agree as to the facts; they agree as to the scientific conclusions; but,
beyond this, one is confirmed in his atheism, and the other in his adoring
reverence. They both see the heart, the arteries, the veins, and the
relations between them all, and their several functions; they both make
the same use of this knowledge in the diagnosis, prognosis, and practice ;
beyond this, the one sees God in them all, the other sees nothing but
“organic dust” and “natural law”—‘“G'od is not in all his thoughts.”
How illogical it would be to argue: therefore the study of anatomy
and physiology lead to atheism. Still, it is a sad truth, revealed in
Scripture and confirmed in nature, man “by wisdom knew not God.
Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge.” Agnosti-
cism, therefore, confirms the Scriptures, even as the Scriptures discover
the root of agnosticism.

Before proceeding farther in direct line, I shall turn aside for a brief
moment.

I wish to point out the at least apparent change in Dr. Girardeau’s
33

view. In 1884, he held (as was gathered from my private correspond-
ence with him, and also from “The Substance of Two Speeches,” be-
fore “the Synod of South Carolina, at Greenville, S. C., October,
1884”): That Evolution, as inculcated by Dr. Woodrow, 1. Did not
contradict any doctrine in the Hvangelical scheme; 2. Did not contra-
dict any doctrine in the Calvinistic scheme; 3. He was not prepared to
say that it contradicted the Bible—in its highest, ‘‘absolute, and infalli-
ble sense ;” 4. But he maintained, that it contradicted “the Bible as our
Church interprets it, . . . our Bible—the Bible as it is tous.’ That
is, he held, four years ago, that Dr. Woodrow’s view contradicted our
“Church Standards” as to the creation of Adam’s body; and now, not
bene, how does it contradict the “Church Standards”? By contradict-
ing, (1) not their “absolute” sense, (2) but their relative sense—i. e.,
the sense put upon the “Standards” by the “Church’s prevailing and
recognised views.” We have then, 1. The Bible—the word of God ;
2. The Presbyterian Bible; 3. The Presbyterian ‘‘Confession’'—
founded immediately upon the Presbyterian Bible, and remotely, per-
haps, upon the word of God—G'od’s Bible; 4. The Presbyterian
“Church’s prevailing and recognised views,” founded upon and inter-
preting the Presbyterian Confession, and that Confession founded upon
and interpreting the Presbyterian Bible, and that Bible founded upon
and interpreting God’s Bible—perhaps. Now, when the eloquent orator
boiled all this down, what was the residuum? ‘The statements of
representative theologians and the orthodox [by what criterion ?] belief
of God's people in the Presbyterian Church.” It seems to me we may
put it through two more processes, and so at last, get this concentrated
extract of the orator’s test of Dr. Woodrow’s fitness to hold the Perkins
Professorship in the Columbia Seminary, viz.: 1. Vox populi Presbyteri-
ani vox Dei Presbyteriani; 2. Migut makes rigHt. Such was his
opinion in 1884.

What is “his opinion” now—1888? Speaking of “the professed
Christian Evolutionist’ —Dr. Woodrow, e. g.—the Review article says :
“They,” 7. e., “the Scriptures” and the views of “the professed Christian
Evolutionist”—Dr. Woodrow, ¢. g.—“are mutually contradictory, and
one must be true, the other false” (206). It is not now: 1. The repre-
sentative theologians and the orthodox belief of God’s people in the
Presbyterian Church; 2. The Presbyterian Church’s prevailing and
recognised views ; 3. The Presbyterian Confession; 4. The Presbyterian
Bible; 5. But, in 1888, it is “the Scriptures’—the Bible—God's
mere Bible in its highest, “absolute, and infallible sense.” Nota
34

single qualifying phrase or word is used in the Review article, no refer-
ence is made to the “Standard sense.” Have the Professor's eyes been
opened to see the inconsistency of his position in 1884? Has he now
fled for refuge to the Bible—without saying in which sense? A very
convenient refuge. Or, has he abandoned, after four years more of light,
the “Standard sense,’’ and deliberately chosen the ‘absolute and infalli-
ble sense’ of the Bible, as that which contradicts the “theory” of Dr.
Woodrow—“the professed Christian Evolutionist” ? If this is not his
position, then, by all means, let him amend his universal proposition—
the “Scriptures” and evolution “are mutually contradictory,” so as to
read: Wot the Confession of Faith and evolution are “mutually con-
tradictory,” for this proposition we have seen is false (Pamp/let, pp.
3-5), but so amend it as to read: ‘The statements of representative
theologians and the orthodox belief of God’s people in the Presbyterian
Church,” and the “theory of the professed Christian evolutionist,’ are
“mutually contradictory.” This proposition, since it will hurt no one
but (1) “the representative theologians, and (2) the orthodox (?) of
God's people in the Presbyterian Church,” will possibly not be disputed
by me, and so we shall ‘have peace.’ For—1. I do not belong to the
“representative theologians in the Presbyterian Church ;” 2. I do not
belong to the “orthodox” (7. e., when interrogatively put) of God’s
people in the Presbyterian Church.”

But still, granting that the Doctor amends his proposition, yet for
practical purposes, 7. ¢., by way of relief to tender consciences, it will be
necessary for the Professor to furnish criteria, by which to decide such
questions, é. g., as these:

J. Which is “the” Presbyterian Church? Or, at least, to which one
of the ‘‘Presbyterian” Churches do you refer ?

2. Who are the representative theologians ?

3. To which of their “statements” do you appeal ?

4. Who are “‘God’s” people in the Presbyterian Church ?

5. Amongst God’s “people” in the Presbyterian Church, who are the
“orthodox” ?

6. To what “statements” of (1) God's (2) people (3) who are ortho-
dox, (4) in the Presbyterian Church, do you refer?

7. Where have you found (1) “statements,” (2) on Dr. Woodrow’s
theory, (3) by God’s (4) people (5) who are orthodox (6) in the Pres-
byterian Church, (7) which “statements” contradict Dr. Woodrow’s
theory? Requilescat in pace.

Let us now turn our attention to another remarkable exhibition of the
Doctor’s logic.
35

He submils, in defence of his views, that “if the miracle be a creden-
tial, whether that feature of it is rightly or wrongly included in the
definition, the use of that fact to prove that creation, in the first in-
stance, was not a miracle, is relevant.” To this astounding statement
the reply is obvious. If ‘‘credential’”’ be an essential element of ‘‘miracle,”’
then it could not “rightly” be omitted from the definition. If, however,
it be not essential, then it could not otherwise than “wrongly” be in-
cluded in the definition. The znclusion of it in the first instance would
be necessary to render the definition adequate; the exclusion of it in
the second instance would be necessary to save the definition from ‘‘re-
dundancy.”” The fallacy here is in holding, as the “Keply” says, “that
evidential is essential to the miracle and not accidental,” and yet sup-
posing, for a single moment, that it could be “wrongly” included in the
“definition.” If it is “essential,” it must be included; if it is ‘“acci-
dental,” it »ust not beincluded. The fallacy, in the next place, consists
in supposing that in determining whether any given event—crestion ex
nihilo, e. g.—is, or is nota “miracle,” you may test the claims of that
event with equal relevancy by the ‘‘redundant’’ element of the definition,
as by that element which is not redundant; 7. e., the ‘‘accidental” is just
as good a test of the “whether or not?” asisthe “essential.” The ‘‘re-
dundant definition” is just as good a test of truth as is the purely and
severely “adequate definition.” That which is ‘‘wrongly” included in
a definition, serves just as well for ‘testing’ purposes as that which is
“rightly” included. Or, to put it a little differently, so as to obviate any
objection from the Doctor: If the critic insists that ‘‘evidential” in the
“definition” renders it ‘‘redundant,” then I will put “evidential” outside
of the “definition.” Then I will test whether or not creation ex nihilo
is a miracle, first by the definition, and, if it passes that test, I shall
then cry, ‘‘ Halt!’ and proceed to test it by that which is not in the
“definition ;” and if it shall fail to pass that test, then I will reject it
from the category of “miracle ;” for “I hold that evidential is essential
to the miracle and not accidental,” 7. ¢., ‘ntrinsic and not extrinsic. But
why then, Doctor, do you consent to put it outside of the definition,
and then apply the definition as if evidential were inside, and not outside,
just as if you had not consented? Why “grant,” and then “apply”
as if you had not granted? In this apparent “grant for argument’s
sake,” you very shrewdly beg the question.

Credentil though not belonging to the essence is a concomitant—or
circumstance—of some miracles ; but this can give no base for arguing that
creation ex nihilo cannot be a miracle because not wrought for eviden-
36

tial purposes. This argument could be used only after it has been proven
that “evidential” is essential and intrinsic of all miracles—not of some
only (and that the “evidential” effect must operate in the very moment
when the miracle is performed, and not afterwards only; this rule, of
course, would render the resurrection of Christ no miracle) ; whereas the
Doctor has not proven, and is not likely to prove, that it is intrinsic of
even a single miracle, how much less then of all? Dr. Girardeau’s
hypothetical proposition, therefore, is absurd: “(Jf the miracle [7. e.,
some miracle] be evidential [whether essentially so or accidentally
so], then that feature, whether rightly or wrongly included in the
definition, may be relevantly used to prove that creation ex nihilo in
the first instance, is not a miracle; because creation in the first instance
is not evidential.” The fallacy here is very patent: In the first place,
he concludes from a particular premise, as if it had been universal; in
the next place, he concludes from specially modified premises as if those
special modifications had been omitted: ¢. g., the premise is (seeing it
is “‘some’”’ miracle) ‘‘whether essential or accidental,” but the conclusion
is drawn as if the “or accidental” had been omitted from the premise ;
again, é€. g., the premise is—‘“whether rightly or wrongly included,”
but the conclusion is drawn as if the “or wrongly” had been omitted
from the premise. Let us exhibit the Doctor’s argument in its naked
deformity: “Jf some miracle be accidentally evidential, then that fea-
ture, although wrongly included in the definition, may be relevantly
used as a test; But, according to this test, creation ex nihilo is not a
miracle; because it lacks evidential, which is an essential feature of all
noiracle, and is therefore rightly included in the definition.”

How can that which is not essential to the being of a thing be rele-
vantly used in argument as if it were essential? How can that which
is essential be relevantly used in argument as if it were not essential ?
Evidential (or credential) as a quality of the miracle is just as good in
argument whether that quality is “rightly or wrongly included in the
definition,” 7. ¢., an inadequate definition, or a redundant definition, is no
whit better in argument than an adequate definition: in the matter of
“aroument,” so far as “definition” may be concerned, “inadequate” and
“vedundant,” “correct” and “incorrect,” are obsolete terms! In the
name of Logic, why then should the logician be at all careful in defin-
ing his terms? or why should all sound reasoning insist upon accuracy
of definition? Suppose, then, an argument of this kind by way of illus-
tration: This ‘“‘fact” (stabbing, ¢. g., with a knife) is not essential to that
killmg which is murder; but is sometimes a circumstance of that killing
37

which is murder ; but this ‘‘fact” (stabbing, e. g., with a knife) is absent
in the case of A. B.; therefore A. B. is not guilty of murder.

But for the special reference to me, by the Doctor himself, I should
not have noticed the topic that I now introduce. Let me say just here,
that to this hour, after most careful inquiry, I have not been able to dis-
cover the name of the “friend of Dr. Martin,” to whom the ‘Reply’
refers. Since the “Reply” assigns to me the task of “deprecating the
logic of this definition of his [my] attack,” 7. e., upon Dr. Girardeau’s
Review article; and since the logic, 7. e., the analysis, is that of Dr.
Girardeau himself, and not of my unknown “friend,” I, therefore,
although reluctantly, respond to the Doctor's challenge, and ‘‘deprecate
the logic of this definition” of “Cyclone” by Dr. Girardeau: Proximate
genus, Storm; specific difference, consisting of four specific marks—(1)
Windy; (2) Moving ina circle; (3) Blown by Dr. Martin; (4) De-
molishing Professor Girardeau.”

The first deprecatory remark I would make regarding the matter is,
that the term “Cyclone” [used by ***, the author of “The Wreck,”
in Southern Presbyterian, September 20, 1888], in the connexion in
which it occurs, is what rhetoricians would call a simile, and not what
logicians would call a “definition.” Secondly, the Doctor’s definition
of Cyclone, under the circumstances, affords an instance of the “fallacy
of equivocation:” (1) supposing that the things themselves are similar,
because they have similar relations ; (2) pressing the analogy too far,
or making the application ‘of it more complete than the nature of the
case justifies, in consequence of overlooking the exact point of the anal-
ogy. (Whately's Logic, 200-206.) It violates the rule for interpret-
ing metaphors, parables, etc., viz.: that for the most part they touch
like two globes at a single point, not like two plane surfaces when super-
imposed at all points. The Doctor’s interpretation of Cyclone makes an
illustration go on all-fours, and may be called a quadrupedal interpreta-
tion. The Professor himself would be shocked, if one of his students
(following his example) should apply this principle of interpretation to
the metaphor comparing the coming of the “Son of man” to that of a
“thief.” (Broadus, Prep. and Del., 69, 157, 373.) Thirdly. The
Doctor’s definition of Cyclone tested by the five rules (Hawmilton’s
Logic, 344), is found to be heterogeneous, redundant. tautological, and
ambiguous. Perhaps the Doctor will claim that his definition was mere-
ly sportive; if so, alas; that in his merry, no less than in his serious,
moods, he should define so defectively—so indefinitely.

Let us examine next the “Reply’s” attempt to confirm the doctrine of
38

the Review article, viz.: that ‘Creation from nothing cannot be a mir-
acle.”

1. The “Reply” seeks shelter under the distinction between creation
ex nihilo “originating” a course of nature; and the same act “during”
a course of nature. Instead, however, of overlooking this distinction, it
was precisely upon the Doctor’s own ground of creation ‘‘originating,”
ete., that the first argument to prove his “‘self-contradiction” was based.
(Pamphlet, p. 10.) Nor does the ‘‘Reply” yet save the Doctor from
logical suicide, or vindicate the coherency of his argument. Again, s0
far from attempting to ‘involve him in self-contradiction, because he ad-
mitted” the miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus to be a “creation e2°
nihilo as regards his animal life,” it is frankly confessed that the discov-
ery was never made that the Doctor held that view till the information
was furnished in the “Reply.” It was thought that the Professor taught
as the Confession of Faith certainly does, that 1, death (in this sense)
was the separation of the soul from the body; that the soul was then
made perfect’ in holiness, and passed immediately into glory, and that
the body rested in the grave till the resurrection ; and 2, that resurrec-
tion consisted in the reunion of the soul and body. But that the Pro-
fessor held that there isin man a third distinct entity, viz.: “animal
life,” and that 1, death consisted in the annihilation of this animal life ;
and that 2, resurrection consisted in the exnihilation of it, is a matter
which has been learned for the first time in the ‘Reply.” True the
Doctor may claim that this theory is related to the teaching of our Stan-
dards in the category of ‘“non-contradiction,”’ and that therefore his
teaching is in ‘‘harmony” with the Confession; granted; but if so, why
should he refuse to observe toward others the Golden Rule? If, how-
ever, in harmony with the creed of the Church, can it be in harmony
with the Scriptures? ‘And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly;
and I pray God your whole spirit (pneuma) and soul (psukee) and body
(soma) be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ.” 1 Thess. v. 23. It seems, then, that the “Reply” teaches that
the “soul” (psukee—“animal life’) of Lazarus was annihilated at his
death and exnihilated at his resurrection. Does he then believe that,
“at their death,” the souls of believers are annihilated ; the spirits
(same as “soul” in Con. Faith) “do immediately pass into glory,” having
been made “perfect in holiness ;” and that their bodies are given to cor-
ruption? Does he believe that in the general resurrection the body is
“resurrected ;” the spirit is “reunited” to the body; and the soul ‘“ex-
nihilated”’ If so, then whilst it may be true that the Doctor's private
39

creed may “‘not contradict” the Church’s public creed, still, his creed con-
tradicts the Apostle’s prayer. For the Apostle prays that the “whole
spirit and sou! and body may be preserved blameless ;” but the Doctor
teaches that the soul—‘“animal life’—instead of being preserved, is
“annihilated” at death and “‘exnihilated” at resurrection.

But the Doctor may object to my interpretation of 1 Thess. v. 23.
Moreover, he may object to my attributing to him the “tripartite” view.
Again, he may deny the fairness of my inference that the “animal life”
of Lazarus is a “distinct entity.” But then in my justification, let me
plead: that which is annihilated must have been an “entity” ; that
which has been ‘“‘exnihilated” must be an entity. Since, at his death,
Lazarus's “animal life” was annihilated, and at his resurrection it was
“exnihilated,” it must be an “entity”; and since, according to my pre-
vious supposition, the Doctor held the body of Lazarus, as also the spirit
of Lazarus, to be cutities, and “distinct” from the animal life of Laza-
rus, it would seem that I was correct in attributing to him the view that
Lazarus's animal life was a third “distinct entity; but if so, then it
was a fair inference—my attributing to him the “tripartite” view. But
it is always one’s privilege to repudiate the holding of that which may
be logically inferred from his positions. If, therefore, the Doctor does
not hold that the animal life of Lazarus wasa “third entity distinct” from
his body and from his soul; let us inquire, with which one of these two
entities—his “body”? or his ‘soul’ ?—does the Doctor identify the
‘animal life’ ? Or does he identify it with both his “body” and his
‘soul’? In either case he will be not in harmony with the standards
of the Church, but in direct contradiction thereof. ‘The souls of be-
lievers are, at their death, made perfect in holiness, and do immediately
pass into glory; and their Jodies, being still united to Christ, do rest in
their graves till the resurrection.” (Shorter Catechism, Quest. 37.) If,
therefore, the Doctor holds to the annihilation at death, or the exnihila-
tion at resurrection, of the “body” or the “soul,” or of both the body
and the soul, then he holds a proposition which is in direct contradic-
tion of our standards.

Dr. Girardeau is mistaken, therefore, in charging that I denied him
the benefit of his distinction—‘‘in the first instance.” (Pamphlet, p.
10.) Therefore his defence, grounded upon this mistaken allegation,
fails to. perform the function of a ‘“Reply’—it does not defend. So,
too, his critic did not feel, as the Doctor desires he should have felt,
viz., the obligation “to have refuted the argument for the contra-nat-
ural character of the miracle before he could fairly invalidate the conclu-
40

sion.” For my criticism was not that the miracle is not “contra-nat-
ural,” therefore your argument is invalid; but, notwithstanding it be
true that the miracle zs “‘contranatural,” yet still your argument is not
valid. My point was, your argument refutes itself, by proving too much ;
and this was done upon your own base, viz., that “creation begins the
order of nature.”

It seems, then, that creation ex nihilo in the second instance is a
miracle, and that the resurrection of Lazarus is one of this class; and
that creation from nothing in the first instance is not a miracle. What,
then, constitutes the difference between the “first”’ instance and the ‘“‘sec-
ond’? Wherein do they intrinsically (not circumstantially or contin-
gently) differ, so that the one is a miracle, and the other “cannot be’ ?
This difference, whatever it is, would be at last the essence of miracle.
According to the Doctor it would be not the “notion,” but the presence,
of “secondary causes,” 7. ¢., nature in a position contra, 7. é., at last the
essence of miracle is presence of nature as contra, 7. ¢., the inner essence
of a thing is a contingent external circumstance ; 7. ¢., the accident is
the essence. But even judged by this criterion, it is doubtful whether
Lazarus’s resurrection was a miracle; for, whence came that animal life
of Lazarus at the time of the first quickening of his body? If ex nihilo,
then there is absolutely no difference between the first quickening and
the second quickening of his body. If not ea nihilo in the first quick-
ening, then it is still less necessary to suppose it was ex nihilo in the
second; for having been once brought into existence, we know of no in-
stance of annihilation; and therefore this radical difference between the
first and the second, would be lacking: Lazarus’s resurrection would not
therefore be an example of ex nihilo in the second instance; it (so far
as the restoration of his ‘animal life’ is concerned) would lack therefore
the contra natural element as comparef with the first: 7. ¢., neither of
them would be ex nihilo; i. e., both would be not ex nihilo; 7. ¢.,
the first and the second quickening would be reduced to the same level;
and as the first was no miracle, so the second was none; though the first
was natural and the second was contra-natural! This burden is surely
too heavy for the Doctor’s *‘theory’’—it crushes the life out of it.

2. The “Reply” is very positive in the second step of his defence:
“Manifestly, if the miracle be contranatural, there could have been no
nature to be contradicted” in exnihilation in “absolutely the first in-
stance ;” therefore, creation from nothing in the first instance “cannot
be a miracle.” But the “manifestly” strikes us as just the other way;
for of all the most “contra” natural things—“creation from nothing in
41

absolutely the first instance’ takes the lead. He must needs prove, in
order to validate his conclusion, not only that miracle is contra-natural
(that his critic believes as firmly as he does, and the whole course of my
criticism abundantly proves it), but he must prove, in the second place,
that original exnihilation cannot be contra natural. To argue that it
cannot be contra natural, because there was ‘“‘no nature there to be con-
tradicted,” is after all but reasoning in a circle; or, if the Doctor prefers
it, to introduce a fourth term into his syllogism, and thus to be guilty of
what is called in logic “illicit process.’’ If miracle is contra natural, and
contra natural excludes super natural, and original exnihilation is super-
natural ; then, of course, miracle and original exnihilation are mutual
contradictories. But the “Reply” denics that “contra” excludes “super ;”
and insists that “super” includes “contra.” So, then, what is granted
in the premise is forgotten in the conclusion. It should be seriously
weighed by him, that the logical sequence of “Contra-Natural,” as ex-
pounded and applied by its author, excludes from the category of mir-
acle, original exnihilation—the very “beginning of all miracles.” To
most minds this will prove, (1) either that the Doctor's text was corrupt ;
or, (2) that his exposition of the text is illogical.

The “Reply” insists that to say original creation ‘‘was supernatural is
not enough.” But then no such claim was set up; the criticism did
not stop there; it proceeded to show that both supernatural and contra-
natural are alike miracle. Every super is non natural; every non nat-
ural is miracle ; every miracle is contra natural; original exnihilation is
super; therefore non natural ; therefore miracle; therefore contra natural.

‘So also” (the -‘Reply” continues), “in denying that creation out of
nothing in the first instance was evidential, and concluding that there-
fore it could not be a miracle, I meant to deny that it was a credential
of a divine message or revelation. Now that we are certified of the fact,
IT admit that it is evidential of God’s existence and almighty power. But
that it was either when it occurred, or now, evidential of’ a divine mes-
sage or revelation, I cannot see. Neither can I see how, in the first in-
stance, it was evidential of anything, since, ex hypothesi, there were no
recipients of evidence in existence.”

1. All that the above may prove is, that in the Doctor’s own hands
his theory of the miracle is so defective as to rule out the very ‘“begin-
ning of all miracles.” Most men will judge his theory and condemn it,
because of this defect. Creation from nothing in absolutely the first in-
stance is the ‘one powerful negative,” which, according to Bacon’s canon,
will consign the Doctor’s theory to the category of a “disproved hypo-
thesis.”
42

2. Miracle, then, is a specific credential—not merely a species, but a
variety. Miracle is “‘credential”—specific mark; but not credential in
general, but in particular—i. e., variety; not credential after it has oc-
curred, but at the time of its occurring, i. ¢., a sub-variety ; and creden-
tial of a divine message, 1. ¢., a sub-sub-variety. Yet, on this principle,
all the Bible miracles would cease to be miracles to us; for we were not
“witnesses of their occurrence ;” to us they are credentials after they
occurred ; therefcre not miracles!

3. But he expressly allows that Creation, though not credential at the
time of its occurring, would be “now evidential of (rod’s existence and
almighty power ;”
witnessed it save the Almighty. Judged by this criterion, we are almost
compelled to conclude that “creation ex nihilo in the first instance’’ is
the only real miracle. Yet the Doctor’s language (206), ‘‘Creation from
nothing cannot be a miracle,” was absolute, it hinted of no exception.
Now, however, it appears that it was not a miracle “when it occurred,”
because then it could not be ‘evidential of God’s existence and almighty

although we never witnessed it; and no one else ever

power ;” and not even now “‘evidential of a divine message or revela-
tion ;” and in the “‘first instance not evidential of anything.” But

“Now—I admit it is evidential of God’s existence and almighty power.”
Once the testimony was, it “cannot be a miracle.” Again, the testi-
mony changes: “it is evidential,’ therefore we may conclude it can
be a miracle; not only because it is ‘evidential,’ but because it
proves that ‘creation ex nihilo in the first instance” is “‘contra-natural.”
When we inquire of the Doctor why he testifies differently on these
two occasions—‘cannot be; can be a “miracle,” he may reply:
Not because of the exigency of the argument; but because of the
accident of time—i. ¢., the difference between “then and now.” The
accidental circumstances of time and place are so potent that they change
the radical essence of the same identical phenomenon from that which
cannot be miracle to that which can be. The inner essence has changed,
but the outward form remains identically the same; and that because in
this particular instance, circumstances (of time and place) alter the essen-
tial nature of a phenomenon. This, it will be perceived, is the reverse
of the effect of “wonderful.” By “wonderful” that which was a mir-
acle in the days of Moses and of Christ would cease to be a miracle now ;
by “evidential’’ that which could not be a miracle “in the beginning’
becomes a miracle “in these last days.” Certainly in the Doctor's
hands logic has proven “evidential” of a most “wonderful” event—it
has wrought the Non-Contra-Natural into the Contra-Natural, et vice
versa.
43

”

4, One would suppose, from the Doctor’s “Reply,” that the question
between us is: He affirms that miracle is “contra,” and I deny; I affirm
that miracle is “super,” and he denies. This, however, 1s not the state
of the question and cannot be unless he shall change his base. The real
state of the question is: He affirms, and J also affirm, that miracle is
“eontra-natural ;” he affirms, and 7 deny, that original exnihiiation can-
not be a miracle. We both affirm exnihilation in the second instance
to be a miracle. The Doctor says original exnihilation cannot. be contru
natural; his critic affirms that exnihilation, whether (1) originating a
course of nature, or (2) during a course of nature, is like all other mir-
acles, “indifferently super natural or contra natural.”

In order to invalidate the Doctor’s argument against Evolution, there
was no attempt, neither was there any necessity, to “refute the argument
for the contra-natural character of the miracle.” What was attempted
(and successfully) was to “refute’’ the proposition—that miracle was
contra natural as against supernatural, only contra natural, nothing but
contra natural. There is a vast difference between the proposition—
Miracle cannot be anything but contra natural as distinguished froin
supernatural; and the proposition—Miracle is contra-natural. The
Doctor holds the former ; his critic the latter proposition. Tis “Reply”
therefore fails to defend. ‘

5. So, too, one would suppose from the “Reply,” that because I main-
tained that exnihilation is “miracle,” therefore I maintained that it was
“evidential” ulso. In truth, however, I affirmed nothing on this latter
point. My only interest was to point out the connexiov between the
Doctor’s inclusion of “evidential of a divine messenger” in his definition,
and his conclusion therefrom, that original exnihilation cannot be a mir-
acle. His /nclusion involved a conclusion that involved an ezclusion.
He will search in vain for even the remotest hint that ever I claimed
original exnihilation was ‘evidential of a divine message.” He seems to
have mixed his premise and my conclusion; he holds that nothing is
“miracle” that is not “evidential of a divine message ;’’ I hold that orig-
inal exnihilation is a ‘miracle ;” therefore he concludes that I hold that
exnihilation is ‘evidential of a divine message.” Surely this is logic run
mad. Still pursuing the same logical method—mixing his premise and
my conclusion—twirling around and around his notion and mine till he
seems to have forgotten “which is which”—no wonder he says, “neither
can I see how in the first instance it was evidential of anything.” Where
have J ever claimed that any miracle is essentially “evidential”? Only
thus could he logically demand of me to find ‘‘evidential” in that which
44

I find to be “miracle.” On the contrary, I have entered it as one excep-
tion to Ais doctrine that he has embraced in his definition of miracle the
quality “evidential,” whereas I maintain that this quality is an “‘acci-
dent ;” essential to none, but accompanying only “some” miracles. So
that once more the “Reply” fails to answer the demand.

6. But even the Doctor, if you only grant him a little time, can dis-
cover some feeble beginnings of “evidential” in original exnibilation.
Not, when by the omnipotent will of Jehovah, the material universe
sprang from nothing into Kosmos, was it “evidential of anything.” But
“now that we are certified of the fact, it is evidential of, 1, God’s exist-
ence; and 2, almighty power.” It is matter of surprise that one so
skilled in logic should find so little evidential power in exnihilation.
Paul could find in it: 1. ‘“Kternal power; and 2. Godhead,’ and so
potent did he regard it as a divine message, that he insists “they are
without excuse” to whom creation delivered this message. ‘Tor the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power
und Godhead ; so that they are without excuse.” Rom. i. 20. Perhaps
if the “Reply” would consult some of the Professor’s Lectures on Theo-
logy, it might be found that this stupendous event is evidential of some-
thing more than, 1, “existence, and 2, almighty power.” What pro-
gress, then, has the ‘‘Reply” made in supporting the position that orig-
” or in defending the Doctor's, 1,
redundant definition ; 2, and incoherent argument ?

In the conclusion Dr. Girardeau says: “If, however, Dr. Martin
chooses to regard the miracle as not essentially evidential, he is entitled
to his opinion. Only he must be content to occupy an exceptional posi-
tion.” .

1. [have already shown that it is the Doctor who occupies that ex-
ceptional position.

2. So far, however, as he intended it as an argumentum ad hominem,
Tam not unwilling at any time to be classed in the number of “excep-
tional,” provided only I am found on the side of “truth and of right.”
T trust I shall never abandon a position because it is “exceptional ;” or
flee to another because that other may secure a position for the time in
the ranks of the majority. It was the damning charge against the ‘chief
rulers” that they had convictions of the right, but they “did not con-
fess . . . for they loved the praise of men.”’

Some additional specimens of the Logic of the “Reply” shall now
engage our attention.

inal exnihilation “cannot be a miracle ;’
45

1. Defending himself against the criticism—‘redundant definition,”
the Doctor insists that the references to the pillar of cloud and the
manna that fell in the wilderness are sufficiently offset by the miracle of
regeneration. ‘The point of my criticism was, that, if “wonderful” is
properly in the definition (as belonging to the essence of the “miracle”
and not to the accident of some miracle, aud common to miracle with
other events not miraculous), then, when the essence evaporated, the
miracle itself would evaporate; and so that which was miracle at the
beginning must have ceased to be such at the end of “forty years.”
But this result of the Doctor’s definition proves that the term “wonder-
ful” should not have been incorporated as a differentiating “mark,”
either as “‘specific” or as proximately ‘“‘generic,”’ for it proves too much,
viz.: That that which is miracle is no miracle, or that which is miracle
to-day is no miracle to-morrow. The same was shown to be true of
turning ‘‘water into wine,” if it should be repeated at every ‘‘marriage,”’
and in fact may be applied to any miracle,

To all this the “Reply’’ makes answer :

1. That I have ‘narrowly limited the wonderful to the unexpected,”’
This part of his defence has already been exposed.

2. Then he asks: ‘Will he [1] ever cease to regard his conversion as
wonderful?” To which I reply:

(1) Will the Doctor endorse this syllogism? viz.: Some miracles are
wonderful events; pillar of cloud and manna are wonderful events;
Firgo, they are miracles. If so, then he will doubtless approve this
syllogism: Some buggies have tongues ; two-horse wagons and carriages
have tongues. rgo, they are buggies. Or will he endorse this?
Some miracles (regeneration, €. g.) are continuously wonderful events;

Pillar of cloud-and: manna are not continuously wonderful events ;

Ergo, they are miracles. If so, then he will doubtless smile approv-
ingly upon this:

Some women are continuously beautiful to the end of life;

Mr. John Smith’s beauty evaporated long before he was forty years of
age ;

Ergo, Mr. John Smith was a woman.

(2) From a certain point of view, it is very certain that every crea-
tion is a “wonder’’: The rolling heavens; the tiniest grain of sand; the
minutest animalcule; therefore, ‘wonder’ would not, from this point of
view, differentiate miracle fromm non-miracle even in the ‘proximate
genus.”

(3) The daily preservation of a sinner’s soul in the estate of grace
46

“to the end,” is as much a marvel of redeeming power (as much contra-
natural), as the original introduction into that estate. The parallelism,
therefore, between regeneration and the “pillar” and the ‘“manna’’ breaks
down just where the Doctor’s defence most needs it to stand firm.
Wonder, in this case, belongs to the very essence of regeneration itself,
und not to the essence of the ‘miraculous’ element of regeneration.
My regeneration, therefore, was and continues to be a wonderful event,
but, in defining it, I would not think of incorporating “wonderful,” for
it would not be a differentiating mark—other events, not regeneration,
and not miracle, are wonderful. Besides it differs from “pillar” and
“manna” in not being repeated twice a day for forty years. Had I un-
dergone regeneration anew once or twice a day for the last forty years,
it would certainly have ceased long ere this to be a “wonder” to me or
to any one else. I would then, indeed, ‘tbe an exception to the class—
converted sinners,” for, according to the Scriptures, the soul of man is
regenerated but once, and that for all time and for all eternity.

(4) From the miracle point-of-view, that wonder is not of the essence
of regeneration may be seen from these considerations, viz.: 1st. No one
could be regenerated who did not instantaneously and contemporaneously
strike wonder into the mind of beholders. 2dly. The act of regenera-
tion on God’s part is always completed before wonder could be produced
as an “effect” of it in the mind of the regenerate or of the beholder.
3dly. No one could be regenerated, except in the presence of witnesses.
4thly. Since regeneration itself cannot be the object of human vision,
but can be known only by its “fruits,” and by “the witness of the
Spirit,” therefore, the wonder could not be an effect produced in the
minds of the witnesses by regeneration immediately, but only as an
effect produced mediately by the effects of regeneration in the daily
walk and conversation of the regenerated, for only thus can they ‘“‘make
their calling and election sure.’ The wonder-element then of the mira-
cle of regeneration is an effect of an effect and not the essence. 5thly.
“lect infants dying in infancy,” or adults converted in dying, since
there would be no “human witnesses” of their regeneration, would not
furnish the “miracle’’ element of regeneration. It would lack: (1)
“Wonderful,” and (2) ‘‘Evidential.”

(5) Let us apply the Doctor’s eriteria :

Ist. Creation, ‘when it occurred,” was not evidential (although after-
wards it became evidential), therefore cannot be a miracle.

Regeneration—of infants, e. g.—when it occurs, is not evidential
(although, afterwards, it may become so should they live; if, however,
47

they should die, it never becomes evidential), therefore regeneration of
infants cannot be a miracle; 7@. e., contra-natural.

2dly. Creation, because of the “absence of human witnesses, when it
occurred,’ cannot be a miracle.

Regeneration—of infants, e. g.—because of the absence of human
witnesses, whereby the wonder-element was lacking “when it occurs,”
cannot be a miracle.

Thus the Doctor’s argument will not stand the test; it proves too
much, viz., That the contra-natural is not miracle.

2. In one point (besides that mentioned on a previous page) it
affords gratification to note that the Doctor and his critic are agreed :
As it has been proven “that I contradict logic, the Confession, standard
writers, the Bible—everything, the proof that I contradict myself may
be proof that I have got right.” The “Reply” should have mentioned
that this was distinctly granted in my former criticism. On page 11 of
my Pamphlet I had said, “Still the Doctor may contradict himself, and
yet, by the law of non-contradiction and excluded middle, he may be
right in one or other of the contradictories.”

3. Not the least remarkable specimen of Professor Girardeau’s logic
is found in these words: “It was the out-and-out theistic evolutionist
whom I fought . . . and as Dr. M. fights me for so doing, it is clear as
day that he fights for the out-and-out theistic evolutionist.” It seems
to me, however, that the impartial reader will discover that “it is clear
as day” that I was fighting not the Doctor, but his logic; fighting not
for the theistic evolutionist, but waging a warfare in the interest of
sound reasoning. When I entered an exception (Pamphlet, pages
12-13) to the Doctor's defence of the ‘‘Contra-Natural character of the
Miracle,” against the objection made by some “Christian writers,” did I
thereby endorse that objection and reject the contra-natural character of
the miracle? Certainly not. I simply refused to endorse the Doctor’s
line of defence. So, regarding “the out-and-out theistic evolutionist,”
surely every calm and disinterested reader will see it thus. Does the
Professor endorse every argument for the existence of God he has ever
read? Does he endorse every answer against atheistic objections to the
existence of God he has ever read? If not, will he consent to be
classed, on that account, as an atheist ?

4. Still another specimen of. logic: Because Dr. M. criticised Dr.
Girardeau’s argument against theistic evolutionism, therefore, (1) Dr. M.
identifies Dr. Woodrow “with the thorough-paced theistic evolutionist.”
(2) Since, in fighting for the theistic evolutionist, Dr. M. thinks he is
48

fighting for Dr. Woodrow, therefore, Dr, Woodrow must be a believer in
theistic evolutionism. Hence the Professor rushes to the defence of his
quondam colleague and extricates him from the awful imputation by in-
forming the public that my attack upon Dr. Woodrow was a sin of
ignorance on my part. “He (Dr. M.) did not, as I believe, intend to
identify Dr. Woodrow with the thorough-going theistic evolutionist, or to
defend the latter. He simply made a mistake.” You are right again, Doc-
tor. § did not intend to “‘defend”’ the out-and-out theistic evolutionist, but
to defend the cause of sound reasoning. I did not intend to “identify”’
Dr. Woodrow with such bad people, but I did intend to identify Dr.
Girardeau with a very bad line of defence. Whether, in so doing, I
proved myself guilty of a ‘mistaken identity,” I shall leave to the verdict
of an impartial public. (3) To condense it all in one—these three
paragraphs of the “Reply” are built upon this general proposition, viz.:
Because, as a convenient antithesis, the term “Woodrow” appears on
the title page of my Pamphlet, therefore whatever I hold must, of
course, be held by Dr. Woodrow, and all that Dr. Girardeau’s logic can
squeeze out of my sayings must be the expression of Dr. Woodrow’s
views, except so far as the generosity and valor of my friend, Dr.
Girardeau, may rescue my friend, Dr. Woodrow, from the attacks of
his friend, Dr. Martin.

Now, it will scarcely be believed, and yet it is true, that all this
knight-errantry on the part of the present occupant of the Theological
chair, in defence of the illegally ousted Professor of the Perkins chair,
is calmly passed in review before the public, as the Doctor’s “‘Reply” to
my charge that his attack upon the “Theistic Evolutionist” is an ‘in-
coherent argument”! Can it bethat the Doctor’s conscience urged him
to this measure of reparation ?

When the “Reply” shall make it ‘clear as day” that because a lawyer
defends his client against a certain line of proof that he is guilty of
burglary, therefore that lawyer is himself a burglar, or, at least, approves
of burglary, then he may claim that I believe in theistic evolutionism,
or, at least, mistook Dr. Woodrow for a theistic evolutionist.

The “Reply” has brought to mind an incident of my Seminary life.
The then Professor of Theology had been lecturing for. several days,
presenting “arguments for the existence of God.” At the conclusion of
that branch of the subject, he assigned to one of the class ‘the analysis
of Dr. Clarke’s a priori argument for the existence of God.” But,
when the student, at a subsequent recitation, read his analysis, it was to
show that “Dr. Clarke’s a priori argument is a petitio principii.”
49

Turning to another student, the Professor inquired, “Which one of my
arguments for the existence of God has occurred to your mind as the
most convincing?” The reply was: “All of them seem to me to have
begged the question.” Had that Professor practised the same method
of reasoning as Dr. Girardeau in his “Reply,” he would no doubt have
reported both of these students to their respective Presbyteries for
atheism; or, at least, he would have maintained (accommodating the
language of Dr. Girardeau): ‘It was this man—the out-and-out atheist,
whom I fought; and as these two students fight me for so doing, it is
clear as day that they fight for the out-and-out atheist.”

5. The last specimen of the “Logic of his ‘Reply’” to which refer-
ence shall be made, is perhaps the most remarkable.

By some legerdemain of logic the Doctor represents me as holding (1)
the “first man” and Adam as two very distinct individuals; (2) thence
involving myself and Dr. Woodrow in ‘au hypothesis which reduces to
unity two contradictories ;” (3) from this dilemma he kindly offers to res-
cue Dr. Woodrow and myself by supposing “that Dr. Woodrow holds—
and Dr. Martin knows it—to the hypothesis of Pre-Adamite man. That
would save the contradiction,” i. ¢., between these two propositions :
“The first man’s body was evolved; Adam’s body was not evolved.”
But still the “Reply” is not willing that Dr. Woodrow shall escape,
“He would still be involved in self-contradiction ; for, if the body of
the Pre-Adamite man was evolved, and the body of Adam was not, there
would have been a gap between the two which the process of evolution
did not cross.”

After thus delivering himself of this irrelevant matter, which, let the
reader remember, helps to pass for his “‘Reply” to the criticism—‘“inco-
herent argument” against “theistic evolutionism,” the Doctor satisfies the
longings of his logical instinct by returning to his “first supposition. Dr.
Martin appears to be as ignorant of Dr. Woodrow’s views as the distin-
guished professor seems to be of his own.”

Now, in searching for the medium of proof by which the ‘‘Reply”
thus identifies Dr. Woodrow and myself in this “self-contradiction,”’ it is
furnished in these words: “But, yet, on the flag he flies at the head
[i. e., on the title page of my Pamphlet] of his numerous columns, he [Dr.
M.] inscribes the name of the leader [Dr. Woodrow] who has maintained
that grotesque hypothesis.’ What grotesque hypothesis? This: 1.
“The first man’s body was evolved; Adam’s body was not evolved. 2.
To affirm non-contradiction between an hypothesis embracing those con-

tradictories and the Bible.” Now, I challenge Dr. Girardeau for the
4
50

proof of his assertion: 1. That either Dr. Woodrow or I ever main-
tained a distinction of persons between the “first man” and “Adam.” 2.
That either of us ever held, (1) that the “first” man’s body was evolved,
or (2) that “Adam’s” body was not evolved—t. e., “not born.” 3.
That either of us ever maintained ‘‘non-contradiction between those con-
tradictories and the Bible.”

But let the reader not forget to scan the Doctor’s medium of proof:
The term “Woodrow” is inscribed upon my battle-flag; therefore Dr.
‘Woodrow is responsible for all my sayings in that Pamphlet. Some pat-
Tiotic regiment emblazes upon its battle-flag the face or inscribes the
name of “Washington ;” therefore General Washington—the Father of
his country—is responsible for all the military blunders of that Colonel
and his regiment. Such is logic in the hands of the “Reply.”

In the next place, let us look into the Pamphlet for the materials
upon which the Doctor’s “logic” wrought, when he concluded that Dr.
M. held: 1. A distinction between the “first man” and Adam. 2.
That the first man ‘twas born,” and that Adam was “not born.” 3.
That Dr. M. believed in a “Pre-Adamite man.” 4. That he main-
tained ‘“‘non-contradiction” between the Bible and “that grotesque hypo-
thesis.”

As the Doctor has furnished no references, and as he professed to
“limit my [his] remarks to the criticism contained in the first article ;”’
and since that “first article” terminated with the first paragraph of the
second column on page 5 of the Pamphlet, it need not detain us long to
lay before the mind the premises upon which the Doctor founded his
conclusion.

On page 4 the Pamphlet says: “Now let us take the creation of
Adam’s body: Was this event Contra natural? or Super natural? or
Natural? By the canon he has laid down it would be impossible for
him to answer either one of these questions. Was the ‘creation’ of
Adam’s body natural? How can he know, for it was the first and
then only body of man. According to his canon, then, he cannot tell
whether this event is natural or non uatural; for there would be no
other human being in existence with which to compare it so that it may
be ‘determined’ what is God’s ‘natural’ mode of creating human bodies.”
Again, giving the substance of the Doctor's argument in the Review,
the Pamphlet proceeds: “The Bible says, God created the body of
Adam. Science says, the body of the first man came by Evolution—
natural process; whereas creation, though not miracle [contra natural]
is yet super natural. Whether, therefore, by Super or by Contra, it
51

did not come by natural laws as affirmed by the scientific evolutionist ;
therefore the body of Adam did not come by Evolution.”

If there are any rules of exegesis by which to determine a man’s
thoughts by his language, then the merest tyro in interpretation must
perceive, that in using the above language, I meant not two distinct and
separate individuals, but one single and identical individual. ‘“Adam’s
body” is spoken of as the “first and then only body of man ;’’—it is fur-
ther asserted that at the time of the creation of Adam’s body, there was
“no other human being in existence.” So again, “body of Adam” is
used synonymously with “body of the first man.” How in the name of
Logic the Doctor obtained from this material the proposition that I held
“Adam” and the “first man” to be two different individuals; and that
I taught that the first man “was born” and that Adam was “not born ;”
and that I believed in a ‘“Pre-Adamite man;” and that I affirmed
‘non-contradiction’”” between the Bible and “that grotesque hypothe-
sis,” surpasses my powers of comprehension. True, upon the hypo-
thesis not of Logic but of a bewildered imagination, mistaking my
paraphrase of the Doctor’s argument as if it were an argument of
mine—thus blending in wild confusion the subjective ‘“grotesque”
images of the Doctor's own fancy and objectifying those images as if
they were real, they might rise up before him, now in the image of his
critic, and now in the “grotesque” shade of his quondam colleague—Dr.
Woodrow, who, like Banquo’s ghost, will not down at the bidding of
Dr. Girardeau.

But laying aside imagination, and returning to reason and common
sense, I must confess my utter inability to reach that exact point of view
from which the Doctor sees so clearly “that grotesque hypothesis.” The
“first man,” different from ‘““Adam;” the former “born ;” the latter ‘not
born.” Of course, on this hypothesis the first man would be a “Pre-
Adamite man ;” of course, on this hypothesis, Adam’s body if not born
could not have been evolved; for evolution is DESCENT with modifica-
tion ; of course, on this hypothesis Dr. Woodrow would be guilty of
“self-contradiction” if he maintains that, 1, Adam’s body was evolved.
7. é., “born ;” 2, and yet that Adam’s body was “not born,” 7. @., not
evolved. But then I must again challenge Dr. Girardeau for the proof
of his assertion that Dr. Woodrow maintains these two contradictory
propositions. To maintain that Adam’s body was probably “evolved,”
and at the same time to admit that it may possibly have been ‘not born,”
is certainly not to be guilty of self-contradiction (you may maintain
the probability of one and admit the possibility of the other without
52

logical suicide) ; it is merely to admit that “evolution” may be true of
Adam’s body, or that ‘‘non-evolution” may be true of Adam’s body, but
that no matter which one “‘may”’ be true, both are related to the Bible
in the category of “non-contradiction ;” for the Bible affirms neither the
one nor the other—it is “SILENT” on these points. But again, I utterly
fail to reach that point of view from which the Doctor sees so clearly

. “that grotesque hypothesis” whether held by Dr. Woodrow, by myself,
or by any one else, viz.: 1. First man; 2. Adam different from first
man; 3. First man born; 4. Adam not born. 5. Non-contradiction
between the Bible and this hypothesis. Now, I should like the Doctor
or any one else to point out: 1st, the grotesqueness of that hypothesis—
Why may not there have been a “first’’? man individually different from
“Adam”? 2ndly. The grotesqueness of holding to the possible “birth”
of the first man, and the possible ‘“‘non-evolution” of Adam—Why may
not both these suppositions be true? 3dly. The grotesqueness of hold-
ing that these points are related to the Bible in the category of “non-
contradiction” — What do the Scriptures say in contradiction of them?
Let the Doctor beware, lest in attempting to point out the heterodoxy of
“that grotesque hypothesis,” he “break the silence of Scripture,” and so
merit the eondign punishment of his Presbytery—jealous guardian of
the rights and liberties of the Baltimore Assembly; or lest some future
Assembly shall lay an injunction of “silence” upon him for thus attempt-
ing “to break the silence of Scripture.’

Had it suited the Doctor’s leisure to read the last ‘page of my Pam-
phlet, or having read it, had his memory retained it, he would have been
saved all anxiety as to my holding the hypothesis of “Pre-Adamite man.”
Since the discussion was regarding Adam’s body, so all my remarks had
reference to his body—whether I used the term “Adam” or the phrase
“first man.’ Besides, the quotations already furnished from the fourth
page of my Pamphlet, the Doctor will find these on the last page: ‘The
first man was formed by miraculous intervention; the same is true of
the creation of the first woman ; and these are the primeval parents of the
human species.” Then follows an enumeration of the “first” four of
the species: ‘““Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel.’”’ Then follows the expression—
“Whether we look at the first Adam as the introduction of the species
‘man.’ Then again, “Adam the ‘first man.’”’ And again: “The orig-
inal species of man . . . formation of Adam’s body.” What could have
been a more explicit safeguard against the inference—<Pre-Adamite
man”? Jt is as if I had said, The first man was the husband of Eve,
and the father of Cain and Abel and the whole line of Adam’s race,
53

~down to the end of time. What a curious exhibition of the practical
application of the laws of Logic the “Reply” furnishes, when, out of
such material as this, the Doctor inferred ‘“Pre-Adamite man.” Evi-
dently his logical faculty was coiled up in its winter quarters, whilst his
imagination was careering wildly over the plain enjoying the vivifying
influence of the genial rays of the vernal sun.

As to the Doctor imputing to me the notion “that the first man's
body was born, but that Adam’s was not born,” I give up in despair the
attempt to find anything I have said upon which he could justly found
such an imputation. If, indeed, he imagines he finds it in the expres-
sion of my belief that Adam’s body was miraculously created ; he could
only have done so by forgetting that the miraculous creation of the
bodies of Isaac and of Jesus was perfectly consistent with the evolution,
i. é., with the birth, of those bodies. But we have seen too many speci-
mens of the miracle-working power of the Doctor's logic to be any longer
struck with wonder at any exhibition of his talent in this line.

Fortunately I have escaped the tender mercies of ‘the children” to
whom the “Reply” relegates the task of “refuting” me on this point.
For it appears that if the “children when asked, Who was the first man?
answer, Adam,” they will not “‘refute,’’ but confirm the teaching of the
Doctor’s critic. If, however, the children should be asked, Who was
the “second man”? they would very promptly answer, “Cain.”” Where-
as the Apostle Paul would answer, ‘The second man is the Lord from
heaven.” 1 Cor. xv. 47. Whether the Doctor would decide that the
children had refuted the Apostle, or that the Apostle had refuted the
children, I am at a loss to conjecture. My decision would be, that
neither had refuted the other; that both had answered correctly—scrip-
turally ; that the apparent conflict was reduced to unity under the head
of ‘‘non-contradiction.’’

The “Reply” has quoted from Sir William Hamilton a passage which
suggests the possibility of “other worlds” besides ours being inhabited
by “rational animals.” Now, of course, those rational animals may be
“human,” or they may be conceived to be ‘not human.’ Doubtless the
author of the ‘Reply’ has himself often indulged in the speculation
whether the other worlds are inhabited; and if so, whether the inhabit-
ants are like or unlike the men and women of our race; whether, like
Adam, their primeval father was an immediate creation from “star dust,”
or mediately created through birth—natural, or contra natural? But,
again let me caution him that in speculating upon such points, he is ap-
proaching perilously near the “danger line.” For the Bible reveals but
54

one race of “rational animals’—the descendants of “Adam, the first
man.” But if another race of rational animals may be found and yet
the Bible not be contradicted, why should the Bible he held to contra-
dict Pre-Adamite man? Why should Post-Adamite man, or another
race of rational animals on this planet, or in other worlds, be less contra-
dictory of the Bible than Pre-Adamite man? The Bible speaks of
neither one nor the other. Why should Saturnite man be less contra-
dictory than Pre-Adamite man—seeing the Bible is equally silent as to
both? Tt tells us no more whether there are men in the other worlds,
than whether there were other men on this earth before Adam. Ask
the Bible, Are the stars inhabited? It answers not. Ask the Bible,
Were there any Pre-Adamite men? Still it answers not. It tells of
“Adam, the first man,” and of “the Lord from heaven, the second man,”
although twenty-seven generations of Adamites intervened between the
‘first’? man and the “second.” Strangely, too, in this connection ap-
pears the fact that the same formula of words addressed to Noah after
the flood was addressed to Adam: ‘“‘And God blessed Noah and his
sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the
earth.” Gen. ix. 1. “And God blessed them [Adam and Eve], and
God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”
Gen. i. 28.

Supposing, therefore, that according to the Scriptures, Adam was the
first man, I used Adam and first man as interchangeable terms. Of
course every one knows that ‘‘first’’ means “first” (Potter's Dwarris),
but the question will recur, What does “first” mean? Perhaps the
Doctor had better first settle what “first” means, befure he launches out
into another untried sea of speculation, or engages in another tilt with
scientists. To aid him in this investigation let us look at some inspired
usages of the term: “First day’—Gen. i. 5, although, according to
the well-established science of geology, there were millions of days which
had preceded this “first day.” “For your fellowship in the gospel from
the first day until now’’—Philipp. i. 5, although, doubtless, many days,
years, and centuries had passed before that ‘first day.” ‘‘And he called
the name of the first, Jemima’—Job xlii. 14, although she was only
Job's first daughter of the second set of ten children. “That Christ
should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the
dead” —Acts xxvi. 23, although many (Lazarus and others) had already
risen from the dead. “First covenant,—testament,—tabernacle”—
Heb. viii. 7; ix. 1, 2, 6, 8, 15,18; x. 9. Yet there had been many
tabernacles erected before that ‘first tabernacle” in the wilderness. So,
55

moreover, there was a covenant before this “first”? Sinai “covenant,”
viz., the covenant with Abraham; and there was still a covenant which
antedated this Abrahamic covenant, viz., the covenant of works; and
there was a covenant which was even prior to this Eden covenant, viz.,
the covenant of redemption. So, whilst it is true, that “the first man
Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening
spirit’ —still, we might, without at all impugning the absolute accuracy
of the Sacred Scriptures, propound to the first man Adam the question
of Eliphaz the Temanite: “Art thou the first man that was born ?”—-
Job xv. 7. Many mummies and skeletons of men have been found and
history tells of millions of men all of whom lived and died between
Adam and Christ, yet these do not contradict the Scripture statement :
Adam, the ‘“‘first”” man, and Christ, the ‘‘second” man ; first of a given
series, second of a given series—or first of a new departure.

The Scientist, as such, knows nothing of Adam’s body, since it has
never been discovered, or, at least, identified amongst the fossils. But,
by reason, the Scientist knows that there must have been a “‘first”” man.
The Bible student, as such, knows of “Adam’s’’ body as the body of
the “first” man. So, then, in my Pamphlet, in order to accommodate
both, I spoke of the “first” man, which language is understood by both
the Naturalist and the Scripturist ; and then I spoke of “Adam,” which
language is understood by the Scripturist alone. My argument was
based on the supposition (whether true or fulse) that “Adam’’ and
“first” man are equivalent terms. Even though there were no Pre-
Adamite men, still there certainly were Pre-Adamite animals. There
was no ground, therefore, for the Doctor’s imputing to me the notion
“that the first man’s body was born, but that Adam’s body was not
born.” There was no call, therefore, for his attributing to me the hold-
ing of “the hypothesis of Pre-Adamite man,” or any other of the
irrelevant matters which he has interjected into his “Reply” to my
criticism that his argument against the theistic evolutionist is a non
sequitur.

“We have but the two instances—Adam, the ‘first man,’ and Christ,
the ‘second man’—both as to their bodies created by ‘miracle,’ and the
latter certainly by MEDIATE creation and by Evotution” (Pamphlet,
p. 16). |As there was no contradiction between the miraculous “birth”
of the “second” man, and the “evolution” of his body and the ‘‘crea-
tion” of that body, so I held that there can be no necessary contradic-
tion between the miraculous “birth” and the “evolution” and the
“creation” of the body of the “‘firss Adam.” As the former was, so the
56

latter (reasoning analogically) may have been an instance of creation
by PARTHENO-GENESIS; and so the “genetic” evolution of Adam’s
body would in no way contradict the statement, “‘And the Lord God
formed man dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life; and man became a living soul.” For the proposal
was: “Let us make man in our image.” 1. That certainly did not
refer to his body. 2. It was a proposal to take ‘‘man,” and now make
him “in our image.” 3. By that breathing upon him man “became a
living soul.” ‘And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and
saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost’—Jno. xx. 22. Thus,
“in the image of God created he him.’’ Thus, ‘when Jesus himself
began to be about thirty years of age,” he received the baptism of the
“Holy Ghost’—Luke iii. 22,23. And so, possibly, for anything that
the Scriptures teach to the contrary, Adam may have been thirty years
old when he received the baptism of the Spirit by which he became a
“living soul’’—created in the ‘image of God.” So far, therefore, from
contradicting the Scriptures the hypothesis of evolution suggests a strik-
ing analogy between the “first” man and the “second” man as to the
creation of their bodies. And this would sufficiently answer the ques-
tion, ‘“‘Why no more than one Adam appeared?” for this plain reason:
It pleased the Lord to create but one; as it pleased him to create but
one second Adam.

Adam was born—it was a miracle—he was the first man. Jesus was
born—it was a miracle—he was the second man. This is the substance
of what was meant by the passage which I have quoted from the six-
teenth page of my Pamphlet. Not that either then or now I would
teach that Adam was born, but that, supposing evolution of his body
to be true, he may (following the analogy of the second man) have
been born of a virgin mother.

As there is nothing in Scripture which contradicts this, so the Doctor’s
proposition that the Scriptures and evolution ‘‘are mutually contradic-
tory” must be amended so as to read: They are not mutually contradic-
tory. And, as we have abundantly seen, notwithstanding the “Reply”:
1. The Doctor’s definition remains “redundant.” 2. His argument
against Hvolution is still “incoherent.”

JAS. L. MARTIN.
Mempuis, Tenn., December 14, 1888. :
57

APPENDIX.

 

From the Christian Observer.

REPLY TO DR. MARTIN.
What is a Miracle. ,

BY REV. J. L. GIRARDEAU, D. D.

In four successive numbers of the Southern Presbyterian, Dr. J. L.
Martin has recently attacked an article written by me, and published in
the last Presbyterian Quarterly, in defence of the contra-natural char-
acter of the miracle. The article was almost whelly occupied in vindi-
cating against objections, the position that the miracle is contra-natural.
When the argument had been finished, it occurred to me that the view
sustained by it might be applied to atheism, materialism, pantheism, evo-
lutionism, and agnosticism. Dr. Martin, as if possessed of my conscious-
ness, declares it obvious that the purport of the article was the refuta-
tion of evolutionism. This is an entire mistake; and if he demands
proof of a statement made by an old friend, I would refer to the whole
apparent aim, strain, and tenor of the article, and to the very few words
spoken in regard to evolutionism,

It would have been perfectly fair for him to single out the special
application of the argument to the evolutionist, and make it the point of
attack ; but it was hardly so to say not a word with reference to the
main contention of the article, and represent it as a ‘‘stupendous fail-
ure,” because a single corollary did not, as he judged, refute the evolu-
tionary hypothesis. Ruled, as his mind was, by this estimate of my
argument, his whole discussion was foredoomed to be colored by pre-
judice.

My respect for Dr. Martin’s acknowledged abilities induces me, al-
though reluctantly, to say some things in reply. His own recapitulation
of his first two articles is: “Dr. Girardeau’s Quarterly article contra-
dicts: 1. Logic, (1) in his redundant definition ; (2) in his incoherent
argument. 2. The Confession of Faith. 3. Standard authors: (1)
A. A. Hodge; (2) Chas. Hodge; (3) J. H. Thornwell.” The third
article is devoted to proving that I contradict myself; and the fourth,
58

that I contradict the Bible. I shall limit my remarks to the criticism
coutained in the first article—namely, that I contradict logic; and to
the chief points of that criticism, without attempting to follow it into its
forest of specifications. I shall not strictly observe Dr. Martin’s order of
statement, because, begeing his pardon, I cannot regard it as logical: he
mixes proximate genus with specific difference.

THE DEFINITION OF MIRACLE,

I. Dr. Martin charges that my definition of a miracle is “redundant’’—
a “fatal” defect, which’ makes him as ‘my friend,” “ashamed and sorry”
for me. The definition he assails, briefly put, but not as clearly and
fully as in the Quarterly article, is: A miracle is a wonder, contra-
natural, accompanying a professed divine message. We are agreed
that a definition proceeds by the proximate genus and the specific differ-
ence.

1. One of Dr. Martin’s proofs of redundancy is, that wonder is super-
fluously inserted as a specific mark. He is entirely mistaken as to fact.
I expressly assigned wonder, or wonderful event, as the proximate genus.
I could not, therefore, have made it a specific mark. I did include in the
specific difference, two specific marks, contra-natural and evidential. I
did not include wonderful. That was explicitly made generic. The cri-
ticism stumbles badly at the outset.

In the next place, Dr. Martin denies that I had the right to incorpo-
rate anywhere in the definition the quality wonderful. For, if a
miracle were repeated, it would cease to be wonderful. The pillar of
cloud and fire, for instance, would not have been miraculous except at
first. Dr. Martin narrowly limits the wonderful to the unexpected.
Will he ever, in this world, cease to regard his conversion as wonderful ?
If so, he would be an exception to the class—converted sinners. The
criticism is captious. He makes me, in the sequel, contradict Dr. Thorn-
well. But that great man upon this point says:

The scriptural term which gives us the nearest insight into the real
nature of the miracle is precisely the one of which Dr, Trench speaks
most slightingly—the word wonder. It is true, that every wonder is
not a miracle, but every miracle 1s a wonder.

Evidently he made wonder the proximate genus under which miracle
is included. But, perhaps, his logic and his analysis of the nature of a
miracle were fatally defective, like mine.

2. Dr. Martin reproaches me for redundancy, because I embrace, in
the specific difference of the miracle, more specific marks than one. He
59

urges the absolute, irrefragable rule of logic, that the specific difference
(differentia) is restricted to but one specific mark. In supPort of this
position he uses Sir William Hamilton’s authority against me. It be-
hooved him to be very sure of this rule, before he mercilessly employed
it as a pestle to bray mein his mortar. But—

(1) The enforcement of this rule would convict distinguished logicians
of ignorance, ruin some of their definitions, and make sad havoc of others
which are as dear to Dr. Martin as the blood of his heart. A few illus-
trations must suffice. Bowen says:

The intension of every species contains the genus—that is. the agere-
gate of marks which characterise the genus—and the specific difference—
that is, the aggregate of marks by which this species is distinguished,
both from the genus to which it is subordinate, and from the other spe-

cies with which it is co-ordinate . . . species and genera may be per-
fectly discriminated by one or few characters.

Jevons says:

It is evident, therefore, that there must be more qualities implied in
the meaning of the species than of the genus, as well as a certain addi-
tional quality or qualities by which the several species are distinguished
from each other. Now these additional qualities form the difference,
which may be defined as the quality, or sum of qualities, which mark
out one part of a genus from the other part, or parts.

These must serve as samples. Take now a practical specimen of defi-
nition by an old logician of whom Sir William Hamilton speaks with
great respect, and whose work was a text book with John Owen and the
dissenters of his day. Burgersdyck, in his Institutionum Logicarum,
is defining logic itself. He proceeds by the genus and the difference.
The genus is art. ‘The difference,” he says, “is taken from the end, the
office (!) and the matter or object.” Here are three specific marks in the
specific difference, and among them “office,” for the use of which in the
differentia of my definition, Dr. Martin chastises me.

But to come home: Let us take the definition of the Westminster
Shorter Catechism. Begin with the definition of God. In this cele-
brated definition you have a number of specific marks con-noting along:
with the generic, the adorable subject. After pronouncing this “the
best definition in a brief compass,” Dr. Thornwell says:

Here the genus to which the substance of God is referred is spirit, in
strict accordance with the Scriptures and the manifestations of his nature
which are wade by his works; the difference, those qualities which be-
long to spirit in its full and normal development, heightened beyond all
bounds of conception by terms which are borrowed from God as an ob-
ject of faith.
60

Take the definition of justification. The proximate genus is “act of
God’s free grace.” But adoption belongs to the same genus. How is
justification to be distinguished from adoption? By the specific differ-
ence. Now, that consists of “a number of specific marks: (1) Pardon;
(2) acceptance of the person as righteous; (3) imputation of Christ’s
righteousness; (4) reception of Christ’s righteousness by faith alone.
In this definition, which is clear, distinct, and adequate, you have in the
proximate genus the nature, in the specific difference the office, the
ground, the mode, the instrument; and, besides, the office of the instru-
ment.

I need pursue this analysis of the Shorter Catechism definitions no
further. Tne same will be found true, to a greater or less extent, of the
definition of the work of creation, of the works of providence, of sin, of
effectual calling, of sanctification, of repentance, of prayer, and of a sacra-
ment. They all involve more than one specific mark in the specific dif-
ference. Now let Dr. Martin go and triumphantly flourish his inexor-
able rule, which I have so ignorantly violated, over the wreck of the
Shorter Catechism which its application would make.

Hold! It will be said, these are not definitions proper. To this T
answer: Logicians divide definition into two kinds—the narrower (an-
gustior) and the wider (latior). Of course, then, the wide are defini-
tions as well as the narrow. For definition would be the proximate
genus, including under it the two species, narrow and wide. Now, in
giving my definition of a miracle, I did not say that I was furnishing a
narrow definition. I may have had the benefit given me of the supposi-
tion that I intended to use the wide, even if the ctitic held that it could
not be the narrow. Why this vehement onslaught? Why the applica-
tion to my definition of a rule applicable only to some particular kind of
definition? Why, when the definition contained fewer specific marks
than some of those in the Shorter Catechism? The critic has “‘o’er-
vaulted himself.” In his eager attempt to break down my argument, he
has torn the Shorter Catechism to shreds. Calvinists have been wont
to regard its definitions as excellent, whether they may be assigned to
one kind or another, narrow or wide, but the same rule by which he
would destroy mine would destroy them.

But is Dr. Martin quite sure that the narrow or strict definition lim-
its the specific difference to one specific mark? The question is not,
whether if one specific mark renders the definition adequate, one only
ought to be inserted. That is admitted. But it is, whether one specific
mark in all cases renders the definition adequate. Porphyry, in his cele-
61

brated Introduction to Aristotle’s Categories, defines man as animal,
rationale, mortale. In relation to this definition, he says:

The differences of rational and mortal are constitutive of man, but
those of rational and immortal, of God, those, again, of mortal and irra-
tional, of irrational animals.

This definition was adopted by Abelard, Albertus Maguus, and Petrus
Hispanus. I am not defending the material truth of the definition, but
instance it to show that great logicians have incorporated more than one
specific mark into a specific difference. But it may be said that modern
logic has expurgated this defect. Let us, then, hear Sir William Ham-
ilton. In regard to the far-famed definition of man, he says:

If the definition, man is a rational animal, be adequate, we shall be
able to say, Hvery rational animal is human—nothing which is not a
rational animal is human. But we cannot say this; for though this may
be true of this earth, we can conceive in other worlds rational animals
which are not human. The definition is, therefore, in this case too wide;
to make it adequate, it will be necessary to add terrestrial, or some such
term as—Man is a rational animal of this earth.

I cannot multiply examples. How would Dr. Martin adequately de-
fine, by a single specific mark, evolution? LeConte gives three ;—or
creation ?—the Shorter Catechism gives four:—or a torpedo, either a
fish, or a machine, or an article for blowing up an argument and its
author ?

So far, as to the logical form of my definition of the miracle, I can see
no reason for my sharing Dr. Martin’s shame and pity in view of my
failure in that respect.

THE OBJECT OF MIRACLES.

II. As I design to compress what I have to say into this communica-
tion, but little room is left for the consideration of the criticism of the
matter of the definition, and argumentative application.

1. I hold that it is essential to the miracle and not accidental, that it is
evidential. That it is a credential, and a credential of divine communica-
tions, is the catholic doctrine both of the friends and foes of tha Bible. It
never occurred to me to defend by strenuous argument what is universally,
or at least well-nigh universally, conceded. Although Dr. Thornwell did
not formally incorporate it in his definition, he treats it as essential to the
miracle. But if the miracle be a credential, whether that feature of it is
rightly or wrongly included in the definition, the use of that fact to
prove that creation, in the first instance, was not a miracle, is relevant,
whatever may be thought of the truth of the argument.
62

2. Dr. Martin is mistaken in alleging that I opposed supernatural and
contra-natural as mutually exclusive. I do not know, and IJ fancy Dr.
Martin does not know, that all which is supernatural is contra-natural,
but I do know that all which is contra-natural is supernatural. This
sweeps away a large section of Dr. Martin’s argument to prove my self-
contradiction.

3. Dr. Martin is again mistaken in affirming that I have held that the
creation of Adam’s body was miraculous. On the contrary, I have al-
ways, of set purpose, avoided expressing that opinion. This also vacates
of force much of what he has said.

4. Dr. Martin presses the point that I am palpably wrong in making
the evolution of Adam’s body and its creation contradictories ; and thus
he reasons: My body was created, but it was evolved. There is here no
contradiction. Where, then, is the contradiction between the creation
and the evolution of Adam’s body? I answer: None, whatever, if
Adam’s body was created like mine—that is, through birth. But to say
that, is to beg the very question in dispute, namely, Was Adam’s body
created through birth? If it be granted that birth is a species of crea-
tion of bodies, does it follow that all bodies must be created in that way ?
Now, we maintain that Adam’s body was not born, and that, consequent-
ly, it was created in a different way from ours. To argue, then, from
the creation of our bodies through birth to the creation of Adam’s body
through birth is, I say, to beg the question in dispute. It is a question
that cannot be settled by assuming that Adam’s body was created in the
same way as ours are. The question, at the present day, so far as the
animal kingdom is concerned, is not as to evolution by birth within a
species, but as to evolution by transmutation of species: Are individuals
of one species born of individuals of a different species just as indi-
viduals are born of individuals within the same species? In a word,
the issue is between evolutionism and special creationism. Dr. Mar-
tin misconceives, as many do, the point at issue.

5. Something must be said as to the bearing of my argument to prove
the contra-natural character of miracles upon the Theistic evolutionist,
and I meant one who is an out and out evolutionist, holding the evolu-
tion of everything, body, soul, and all. JI had no reference, could have
had none, in that argument, to a position held by no Theistic evolution-
ist that I know of. My eye was not resting on an hypothesis which
reduces to unity two contradictories: the hypothesis that the first man’s
body was evolved by descent from animal forms, but that Adam’s body
was not so evolved; or, to put it more briefly, that the first man’s body
63

was born, but that Adam’s body was not born. It may have been left
to children to refute it, who, when asked, Who was the first man? an-
swer, Adam. It was antecedently improbable that such a man as Dr.
Martin would valiantly contend for this olla podrida. True, he affirms
non-contradiction between the Bible and science, but he could not have
meant to affirm non-contradiction between the two propositions: The
first man’s body. was evolved: Adam’s body was not evolved, or, to
affirm non-contradiction between an hypothesis embracing those contra-
dictories and the Bible. It is incredible that Dr. Martin’s logic would
allow him to do that. But, yet, on the flag he flies at the head of his
numerous columns, he inscribes the name of the leader who has main-
tained that grotesque hypothesis. Can it be that he does not understand
the position of tne leader for whom he is doing battle? For Dr. Martin
speaks of Adam’s body alone. There is one conceivable solution of the
difficulty which, however, I am reluctant to adopt. May it be that Dr.
Woodrow holds—and Dr. Martin knows it—to the hypothesis of Pre-
Adamite man? That would save the contradiction. If so, tell it out.
Let us know. But that can hardly be the solution, for two reasons:
First, Dr. Woodrow would have had the courage of his convictions, and
frankly avowed the belief; secondly, it would not help Dr. Woodrow
one jot, as he would still be involved in self-contradiction; for, if the
body of the Pre-Adamite man was evolved, and the body of Adam was
not, there would have been a gap between the two which the process of
evolution did uot cross. I return, then, to the first supposition. Dr.
Martin appears to as ignorant of Dr. Woodrow’s views as the distin-
guished professor seems to be of his own.

Further, Dr. Martin also does palpable injustice to Dr. Woodrow by
identifying him with the thorough-paced theistic evolutionist, who holds
to the evolution of soul and body. The truth is, that he meant to fight
for Dr. Woodrow, but he really fights for another man. Dr. Woodrow
avows his belief in all the miracles of the Bible, but this other man, with
whom Dr. Martin confounds him, admits no miracle but what he calls
the miracle of creation out of nothing in the first instance; all else is an
“unbroken process of mediate creation.” It was this man—the out and-
out theistic evolutionist, whom’ I fought in the paragraph criticised, and
as Dr. Martin fights me for so doing, it is clear as day that he fights for
the out-and-out theistic evolutionist. But he did not, as I believe, in-
tend to identify Dr. Woodrow with the thorough-going theistic evolu-
tionist, or to defend the latter. He simply made a mistake. In defend-
ing Dr. Woodrow, when he was not attacked, he “kicked before he was
64

spurred,” and did injustice to his friend. This alone throws the argu-
ment of his first article, as the printers say, “into pi.”

It wili not answer for Dr. Martin to say that he only defended Dr.
Woodrow in regard to a point at which he agrees with the pure
theistic evolutionist, namely, the miraculous character of creation out
of nothing in the first instance; for, first, he has not proved that Dr.
Woodrow maintains that view; and, secondly, if that were so, he
would still leave him exposed to the charge of admitting no other mir-
acle but that, for such was my argument touching the evolutionist
assailed in the paragraph in question. ‘That would be to misrepre-
sent both Dr. Woodrow and my argument. That argument was briefly
this: If a miracle, as contra-natural, has occurred, it contradicts the
position of the theistic evolutionist, for he admits no miracle but that
of creation out of nothing in the first instance, but that cannot be a
miracle,

WAS CREATION A MIRACLE?

Now, a few last words as to the position that creation out of nothing
in the first instance was not a miracle.

(1) I expressly spoke of “creation from nothing in the first instance,”
and the whole paragraph limits the argument to that act of creation.
The attempt, therefore, to involve me in self-contradiction, because I had
admitted that creation out of nothing, as in the creation of Lazarus’s
animal life, may be miraculous, is utterly vain. Creation out of nothing
originating a course of nature, and creation out of nothing during a
course of nature, are very different things. The argument ad hominem
is irrelevant. Dr. Martin misconceived, and therefore unintentionally
misrepresented my position.

(2) That creation out of nothing in the first instance could not have
been a miracle, was a conclusion from an argument in which I had vin-
dicated the contra-natural character of the miracle. Manifestly, if the
miracle be contra-natural, this conclusion is true, for, according to the
supposition of creation from nothing in absolutely the first instance, there
could have been no nature to be contradicted. It behooved Dr. Martin,
therefore, to have refuted the argument for the contra-natural character
of the miracle before he could fairly invalidate the conclusion. This,
however, he has not done. To say that creation from nothing in the first
instance was supernatural, is not enough. He must have shown that
every supernatural event is miraculous. He did not show this, and, I
imagine, cannot. So, also, in denying that creation out of nothing in
65

the first instance was evidential, and concluding that therefore it could
not be a miracle, I meant to deny that it was a credential of a divine
message or revelation. Now that we are certified of the fact, I admit
that it is evidential of God’s existence and almighty power. But that it
was either when it occurred, or now, evidential of a divine message or
revelation, I cannot see. Neither can I see how, in the first instance, it
was evidential of anything, since, ex hypothesi, there‘ were no recipients
of evidence in exchange. If, however, Dr. Martin chooses to regard the
miracle as not essentially evidential. he is entitled to his opinion. Only
he must be content to occupy an exceptional position.

I must close here. I cannot follow Dr. Martin in his three remain-
ing articles. If his charge that I have contradicted logic has been proved
to be inconclusive, it is likely that the charge of contradiction to the
Confession of Faith, standard authors, and the Bible, is in the same cat-
egory. Be that as it may, the first argument must serve as a sample of
the others. As to the charge that I have contradicted my humble self,
I have only this to say, that as Dr. Martin has proved that I contradict
logic, the Confession, standard writers, the Bible—everything, the proof
that I contradict myself may be proof that I have got right.

A friend of Dr. Martin shouts triumphantly, in the Southern Pres-
byterian, that I have been struck by the ‘“‘Martin cyclone.” I deprecate
the discourtesy, as he himself’ will the logic, of this definition of his
attack: proximate genus, Storm; specific difference, consisting of four
specific marks—(1) Windy; (2) Moving in a circle; (3) Blown by
Dr. Martin; (4) Demolishing Professor Girardeau. ‘I would hasten
my escape from the windy storm and tempest. . . . For it was not an
enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it; neither was it
he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; then I would
have hid myself from him: but it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide
and mine acquaintance. We took sweet counsel together, and walked
unto the house of God in company.”