ar ': 37578 c^ ;^^^^PM^, ■>^:^^^-' ^^*mm x^ -^ "^-^ PRESiDENT White Library, Cornell UNivERSfTY. Cornell University Library arW37578 Anti-evolution: 3 1924 032 221 966 olin,anx The original of tinis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924032221966 Girardeau vs. Woodrow. BY JAS. L. MARTIN Anti-Evolution : Girardeau versus Woodrow. ' He that is first in bis own cause seemeth just; but bis ntigbbor cometh and searcheth him."— Proverbs xviii: 17. In the Presbyterian Quarterly for July 1888, is an article styled "The Contra-Natural Char- acter of the Miracle." It is the production of Eev. John L. Girardeau, D. D., LL. D. What- ever emanates from his pen is worthy of care- ful consideration, all the more so, considering the high position he occupies in our Southern Zlon. There are other and peculiar reasons why this article will and should attract special and wide-spread attention. It is taken for granted that he has written not as an advocate, hut as a scientific seeker after truth'; and that therefore he will welcome this friendly criti- cism, in which an effort shall be made to ex- hibit hi^ article from the writer's point of view. Thus would I ofiier my humble contribution to, our mutual understanding, and withal to the advancement of the truth. The argument is evidently designed as a disproof of Evolution. This is manifest from the opening sentence; and even more so, from the application in the closing paragraphs of the article. Indeed so certain is Dr. Girar- deau, that he has utterly demolished Evolu- tion in all its phages, and that for all time, that he has not hesitated to declare as to the relation existing between the Scriptures and Evolution, that "they are mutually contra- dictory, and one must be true, the other false." The first criticism which is offered, is that the Doctor's definition of "Miracle" is faulty: \t \s redundant. He defines thus: "A miracle is \a, wonderful] event, contravening the known course of nature, [and accompanying the teaching of a person claiming to be com- missioned by God, or a revelation professing to be divine, and intended to promote human holiness.] The miracle is here defined from its nature [and its oj^ce."] I have placed within brackets what 1 con- sider to be superfiuous. He maintains that "creation out of nothing cannot be a mira- cle;" this is a necessary inference from this very redundancy in his definition. He dis- tinguishes between the swper-natural and the coniro-natural ; creation out of nothing is SMper-natural, not contra-natural; therefore "creation" ex nihilo "cannot be a miracle;" for miracle is contra, not SMper-natural. So far as the argument based upon his defini- tion 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. As his friend and admirer, I am ashamed and sorry that he should thus have exposed him self to the shafts of all who think soberly, and are not blinded by prejudice. Include what I have marked as redundant, and of course creation cannot he a miracle. But we are entitled to demand that "Occam's razor" lop off' those superfluities; and then, by the very terms of the definition — "Miracle is an event, contravening the known course of nature," creation from nothing must be a miracle. We may again demand that he shall not in- clude in the abstract "definition" of "miracle" not only the "nature," lait also the "office" of the miracle; nnless 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 his definition) apart from the particular "office" which he has assigned to it. A miracle would be a mir- acle whether it was designed to attest a relig- ious teacher or not; or whether to promote "human holiness" or not. An ox would be an ox whether 'designed" to plough or not; a cow would be a cow whether "intended" to give milk to ' human" beings or not: or whether although evidently so designed the ox did actually plough or not, or the cow did actually give milk or not. Thus he rules out "creation" from the category of "miracle" not from that part of his definition which in- cludes the "maiwre" of miracle but from that element of his definition which includes the "office" of a particular class of miracles. He has so narrowed the scope of his definition, by unnecessary qualifications js to exclude crea- tion from miracle. He has embraced too many attributes in his definition of miracle; hence, as a matter of course, it includes under it too few subjects. This is an invariable rule of logic in classifying or in defining by genus and species. The less you put in your defini- tion, the wider its applicatian; the more you put in your definition, the narrower its appli- — 2- cation, e. g. Should you define Man by the terms (species) Kational, (genus) Being, you would Include too many ''Beings" [angels, etc.] ; should you define Man by the terms Animal Being, you would again include too many [brutes, etc.] If you define him as Rational Animal, then you would define properly; because you thus include all men — no more and no less. But suppose now you enlarge this proper definition by adding "American" [a special class of men] you see at once that you narrow its application and give a faulty definition. ■ Or suppose that you define Man not only by his "nature," but by the "office" of some particular men thus: Eational Animal Presidential, you have en- larged the definition and narrowed its appli- cation; and that by including not only the "nature" of all men, but the "office" of some men. This is exactly what Dr. Girardeau has done bv his own confession. In the first — Eational Being — too many are included i. e., more than all men: in the last — Eational Animal Presidential — too few are included i. e., less than all men. This defect in a definition is always fatal. To profess to give a definition of all "miracle" and then so to define (by enlarging) as to in- clude only some "miracle" is a fatal defect: this is precisely what the Doctor has done. Therefore his whole line of argument as it is colored by this vice, so it is fatally vitiated by it. The true definition includes all — no more no less: the faulty definition includes either too few or too many : the Doctor's definition includes too few [i. e. subjects under it] ; it is therefore faulty. Had he excluded what I have bracketed, he would have included exactly all — no more no less, therefore it would have been perfect; beyond that point it is radically defective, and must lead him [as it did] into error. Thus it is seen that Dr. Girardeau's defini- tion of miracle pure and simple, proceeds not only by genus and by species, but also by variety, etc. He has evidently ignored the rule laid down by Sir William Hamilton (Logic page 342); "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." Not only so, but he has given in his premise the definition of some miracle, and drawn his conclusion as if he had given the definition of all miracle. Prom a particular premise he has drawn a universal conclusion. Thus he has violated a fundamental rule of the syllogism. His argu- ment traverses the very first principles of logic. The conira-natural miracle argument is a contra-logical miracle of an argument. In the next place, this fault appears not only by virtue of including the ' office " but of the distinction between super-natMiaX as non-mir- aculous, and the comira-natural alone as mir- aculous. This distinction is unnecessary and therefore superfiuous Jiesides being an unwar- ranted departure from usage. Careful reflection will manifest that it makes no particle of difference whether you say an event or a creation, is s«^er-natural or contra- natural, except for the purpose of splitting hairs, or for the purpose of evading some ulterior logical consequence, e. g. To bring "something out of nothing" is certainly both super and conira-natural : to "raise Lazarus from the dead," is certainly both contra and ttper-natural ; so also to cause ' iron to swim" : whilst to bring "Gain" into the world by ordinary generation, is certainly neither super nor coiiira-natural. Therefore the three- fold distinction (1) Super; (2) Contra; and (3) Natural, is superfluous. Everything or event is either (1) natural . (2) non-natural — it makes no shadow of difference wLether you say super, or contra, or preeter, 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. There is therefore no sufficient ground for the subdivi- sion of non-natural events into two classes, viz.: super and contra; assigning "creation ex nihilo" to the former class and excluding miracle from it: assigning "miracle" to the second class and excluding "creation ex nihilo" from it. It is perfectly evident that either one of these subdivisions (the one as well as the other), would include both miracle and crea- tion ex nihilo (the one as well as the other) ; evident therefore, that this two-fold subdivi- sion of creation, or of events by non-natural methods, is both groundless and useless. This fault appears in the use of the word "contra- vening" in the definition, as it is afterwards expounded, so as to exclude super-na,i\ira\ events. Had he used it as synonymous with supernatural, there would be no objection to it. . In the third place, the definition is redun- dant, because it includes the word "wonder- ful." This cannot be ranged under either the "nature" or the "office," buta newhead must now come into view, viz.: the "effect" and even this will need to be subdivided; (1) on the person or thing; (2) on the mind of the be- holders. "Wonderful" would have to be ranged under the second head of this subdivi- sion. To make this an element in his defini- tion would be to rule out from the class ' miracle" every event that did not strike won- der into the mind of the beholder; and to render it impossible for God to work a miracle unless some rational creature were present to be struck with wonder. Of course this, aa well as "office," would rule out creation from the class of miraculous events. It is equally evident, that a constantly repeated miracle, though it'should be exactly the same phenom- enon, would cease to be a miracle just as soon as familiarity should cause the "wonder" element to evaporate. If at every marriage ' water" should be turned into "wine" by contra-natrxTa.1 method, i. «., by the sole effi- ciency of the will and Word of God, acting immediately upon the water; then, since, long ere this, the beholders would have ceased to "wonder," the turning of water into wine would have ceased to be a "miracle"; i. e , what was a genuine miracle in the first cen- tury of the Christian era would be no miracle in the nineteenth century. Let us take e. g., the two miracles: (1) of the "pillar of cloud by day, and of fire by night;.' and (2) the "man- na that fell in the wilderness." For forty years these two miracles were in daily exhibi- tion and repetition before the eyes of the peo- ple. They looked for the "pillar" by day and by night as naturally as they expected the rising and the setting of the sun, moon and stars. Morning after morning. (Sabbaths alone excepted) they went forth to gather their daily rations as naturally as ever they had gone to the corn cribs of Egypt or the slaughter pens of Goshen. The wonder evap- orated after a while, but the phenomena re- mained alter forty years as pure a miracle as at the beginning. Therefore to include "won- derful" in the definition ot a "miracle" is clearly illogical. It belongs to the accident, not the essence ; it is extrinsic, not intrinsic. But the argument as it proceeds gathers new elements into the definition, notably that of "Design" (p. 205), and the presence of human witness (p. 206). This is not an inference of ours drawn from "wonderful," but a distinct and independent statement. Inferentially we gather still another element from this passage; for if we understand his argument against the "Theistic Evolutionist," it amounts, in part at least if not wholly, to this: "Creation from nothing cannot be a miracle," because, even though it might be a miracle, you [i. e., upon the principles of Deism] could not prove it to be such. To gather up then the redundancies of this definition : we find that in the text and in the exposition, the Doctor demands for miracle, be- sides its essential nature, i. e., contra natural, these superfluities, viz: 1. "Contra" as exclud- ing super: 2. "Office"; 3. "Wonderful": 4. "Design" ; i. c. (1) as bearing on the origination of a "new species"; or (2) reproduction of an "extinct species" : 5. The "existence of human intelligences": 6. It must be proven to be such upon the principles of Deism. Thus his definition of "miracle," already a monstrosity at its birth, grows according to the law of its own being in daily evolution: it is like a snow- ball— C)-esa< eundo. It is, therefore, redundant- coniro-logical. The second criticism which we offer is that Dr. Girardeau's amW- Evolution argument from the "Contra-natural character of the Miracle," is a non-sequitur. Granting his definition, still Evolution is not disproved. The argument therefore, no less than the definition, is contra- logical. 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, i. e>., "Creation" ex nihilo; 2. Conira-natural, i. e., "Miracle"; or 3. Natural, i. e., according to "the known course of nature"; therefore there is no standing-room left for Evolution. That this is an error is manifest. For it is not claimed by any that Evolution is a fourth mode of creation ; but, granting his three-fold division. Evolution may be ranged under either his second or his third — it may be "miraculous" or it may be "natural." Grant- ing, therefore, his classification, no refutation of Evolution follows— it remains undisturbed. He cannot, therefore, refute the doctrine of Evolution by his unnecessary, groundless, and useless distinction. God created "Cain" by "natural creation": God create'd "Cain" by a process of "Evolution." There is therefore no contradiction between creation by "natural" process and "Evolution." But again, according to our Confession of Faith, and the Bible as interpreted thereby, {Confession of Faith chap. y. Par. iv. Romans iv:19, 20, 21.) God created the body of ' Isaac" by a "super" natural process (same as Dr. Girardeau's "contra" natural process, and therefore by a "Miracle"): yet it is none the less true, that the same God created the body of "Isaac" by a process of Evolution: there is, therefore, no contradiction between creation by "Miracle" and "Evolution." Evolution therefore may be ranked under both heads, (1) Evolution by miracle, (2) Evolution by natural processes. His three-fold classification — or what amounts to the same thing — ^his definition and his exposition thereof, does not therefore disprove Evolution. Now if it were claimed that Evolution — "de- scent with modification" — was not by natural processes; then of course it would behoove its advocates to vindicate its claim to be classified under one or the other of Dr. Girardeau's two remaining categories, or under some other legitimats head of Creation. This is precisely where he flatters himself he has utterly routed all Evolutionists, horse, foot and dragoon. But he will find it is utterly ab initio null and void— a barren victory. He lias demolisbed his own man of straw; the Evolutionist is per- fectly safe— so far as the Doctor's argument is concerned— just as lonR as he can vindicate his claim to classify "Evolution" under "Crea- tion" by "contra" natural, or creation by "natural" processes. The attempt has been to rule out Evolution from any category of "Creation," (1) Super, (2) or Contra, or (3) Natural. But we may safely ask— after most careful examination of his argument— Where is the proof that God does not create by Bvo, lution? To assume this is to beg the question : to claim that it has been proven is to put Logic to the V.lush. With this threefold classification in full view, I wish to point out an insuperable difficulty, which I think cannot be removed consistently with his exposition of the difference between miracle and supernatural; by which he un- dertakes to defend his division ; and to prove that "creation f.om nothing cannot be a mir- able" (p 206); because "there was no nature in BELATioN to which an event could be de- TEEMINED to be miraculous [Contra'] or even EXTEA-ordinary." Now let us take the crea- tion of Adam's body: Was this event Gontra- natural? or Swper-natural? or Natural? By the canoB he has laid down it would be impos- siblefor 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. Accord- ing to his canon then, he cannot tell whether this event is natural- or noji-natural ; 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. Was it ' contra" natural? or "super" natural? How can he determine? If he shall say it was "contra," i. e., "miracle," then we ask what fact— "event" — [of this kind] in nature then existed with regard to which it could be''contra," i. e., determined to be miraculous, or even extra- ordinary? If he shall say it was "super," i. e., "creation ex nihilo," then it must have been "immediate" indeed; i. e., God created the body of Adam immediately ex nihilo, and not, according to the Scriptures, out of the "dust of the ground." But how could he "deter- mine" even this, according to his canon : "for there was no nature in relation to which an event [of this kind] could be determined to be miraculous [contra] or even ea;ignecl as a sign authenticat- ing the divine mission of some religious teacher." OaHTOCs, page 53, Ed. 1868. Again: "These [miracles] are supernatural events im- plying a special and exceptional mode of God's providential action." Popular Lectures, p. 52. It will at once be noticed that there is a striking similarity between the definition by the late Princeton Professor and the present Professor at Columbia. Our business at pres- ent is with their .dissimilarities, after calling attention to one coincident attribute: they both define by 'nature" and by 'oflBce"; also Dr. Hodge evidently rejects "creation from nothing" as an instance of the "miracle" ; for he classifies it as a mode of God's ' provi- dential" action. He could not do otherwise, since he defined by ofiSce as well as by nature. This, however, will i e noticed, that the Colum- bia professor puts three times as much into the office of the miracle as does the Princeton professor. (1) Dr. Hodge defines miracle as an "act of God, ' Dr. Girardeau omits this attribute (and we think, properly) leaving this (i. e., "imme- diate act of God"), to be a matter of necessary inference from the nature, and therefore not to be included in the statement of the essential attributes. (2) Princeton explicitly affirms that the miracle is a "supernatural" event: Columbia explicitly denies; affirming that it is cora^ra-natural, which again Princeton im- plicitly denies. Pop. Led. p. 59; Hodge says, miracle is super not contra; Girardeau says, it is contra not super. (3) Princeton excludes "wonderful'! from the definition of miracle, and that of set purpose, because wonder is no ' essential characteristic" of the event but the "effect they happen to produce upon the minds of some classes of beholders." Popular Lectures p. 52. Columbia includes wonderful, and that of set purpose. 'The proximate genus is wonderful event.'' Eer. art. i.. 179. Strange that he should put 'wonderful" as one of the differentiating attributes of the gen- nine miracle, when the Scriptures mention it as a common attendant of both genuine and false miracles— "Lying wonders" — "with all power and signs and lying wonuers. ' ' 2 Thess. ii:9. The second standard author contradicted by Dr. Girardeau, is Dr. Charles Hodge — also late Professor of Theology at Princeton. He says: "The word miracle is derived from miror, to wonder, and therefore signifies that which ex- cites wonder." After enumerating the "most common," i. e., of the "words used in the Bible in reference to miraculous events," and stating that these "words do not inform us of their nature," i. e., of miracles, he proceeds to say: "Inmost cases these terms express the design rather than the nature of the events to which they are applied." . . As neither the etymology nor the usage of the word leads to a definite idea ot the nature of a miracle, we can attain that idea only by the examina- tion of some confessedly miraculous event. Definition of a Miracle: According to the 'West- minster Confession,' 'God, in ordinary prov- idence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work' without, above, or against them at pleas- ure.'" He then divides events into three classes: (1) Natural; (2) Spiritual; (3) Miracu- lous. "To this [i. e., the miraculous] class, belongs the original act of creation, in which all co-operation of second causes was impossi- ble. To the same class belong all events truly miraculous. A miracle, therefore, may be defined to be an event, in the external world, brought about by the immediate efficiency, or simple volition of God." Again: "The word supernatural is used in two senses : First, for that which is above nature, and by nature is meant everything out ot God. An effect, therefore, is said to be supernatural, in the production of which nature exercises no efficiency. But secondly, the word is often used to mark the distinction between the providential efficiency of God operating ac- cording to fixed laws, and the voluntary agency of the Holy Spirit." System. Theol. Vol. 1, p. 617, 18. and Vol. 3, p. 214. In this second use of the word "super- natural". Dr. Hodge distinguishes between the "supernatural" and the "truly miracu- lous," e. g., "And even Calvin could not divest himself of the conviction, not only of its [i. e., the Lord's Supper] supernatural character, which all admit who regard it as a means of grace, but also of its being truly miraculous." Com. on 1 Cor. ii: 33, 34. (This criticism, we pause to remark, grossly misrepresents Calvin.) In the first sense, however, it is clear that Dr. Hodge rates "supernatural' ' as exactly synon- omous with the "truly miraculous," (See also Vol. 3, p. 623) and it is equally clear, that under the term "supernatural" in this first sense, you may range not only "the original act of creation," but also "all events truly mirac- ulous." Now then, as to the difference between these two Professors: (1) Princeton admits "Crea- tion out of nothing' ' to be a ' miracle ;" Colum- bia denies. (2) Princeton, agreeing with the Westminster Confession, embraces "miracle" under the head of the supernatural; but Columbia refuses so to classify. (3) Princeton knows nothing of the rigid limitation of the miracle to the (7on£ra-Natural ; but Columbia insists that if miracle is not ConxBA-Natural it is nothing. (4) Princeton refuses to admit the attribute wonderful into the definition of miracle, not every wonderful event is a mira- -8 — cle. and equally so not every miracle is a won- derful event; but Columbia admits that whilst not every wonderful event is a miracle, yet every miracle is, and must be, from the very nature of the case, essentially a "wonderful event." Eliminate the attribute "wonderful '■ and the ''proximate genus" which differen- tiates it from all other events, has evaporated. Take away the "wonderful," the "event" re- mains, but there remains no "miracle." The third standard writer contradicted by Dr. Girardeau is Dr. Thornwell. He being dead yet speaketh. At the time of his death, and for many years previous, he occupied the same chair of Theology in the Columbia Sem- inary, now adorned by his beloved disciple and illustrious successor, Dr. Girardeau. It is sad to discover, that, in these latter days, Columbia is "divided against itself." Let us hear what Dr. Thornwell says: (All the quo- tations are from his collected writings. Vol. 4.) "The supernatural [i. e., miraclesj has been the stone of stumbling and the rock of offence." p. 221. "To reduce the supernatural in the New Testament to the dimensions of the nat- ural, to make the miracles nothing," etc. (223.) "Such a revelation, being essentially supernatural, stands or falls with the miracle." (226.) "What then is a miracle? Itisobvious that the definition should contemplate it only as a phenomenon and include nothing but the difference which distinguishes it from every other species of events. There should be no reference to the cause [how much less then to the office] that produces it; that must be an inference from the nature of the effect. . . . But the miracle as a phenomenon, may be apprehended even by the Atheist. . . . God comes in when the Inquiry is made for the cause. . . . Considered as a phenomenon, in what does the peculiarity [i. e., the specific difference] of the miracle consist? . . . The specifio difference of the miracle is, that it contradicts that course of nature which we expected to find uniform." Hence this is "the cause of wonder. . . . It is an event either above or opposed to secondary causes, ' [i. e., either super or contra.] (228-230.) To the following from Wardlaw, Dr. Thornwell says: "we cordially assent:" Wardlaw's "defi- nition: works involving a temporary suspen- sion of the known laws of nature, or etc therefore which can be effected by no power short of that which gave the universe its being and its constitution and laws.' Again he quotes from Wardlaw approvingly: "It does not to me seem very material whether we speak of it as beyond nature, or above nature, or beside nature, or against nature, or contrary to nature — whether as a suspension or inter- ruption, a contravention or a violation of nature's laws, provided we are understanding •nature and nature's laws' as having reference to the physicar economy of our own system." (231,2.) Referring to Trench, Dr. Thornwell says: "He explains the terms by which mira- cles are distinguished in Scripture, but these terms express only the effects upon our own minds, the purposes for which and the power by which they are wrought, and the opera- tions themselves — the effect, the end, the cause; but they do not single out that in the phenomenon by which it becomes a wonder, a sign, a power, or a work„' (229.) Again: "Having settled that the essekce of the mira- cle consists in the cojii'canatural or the super- natural.' (233.) Again : Speaking of the New Testament miracles, he says: "The super-asA- ural and the coreica-natural are so flagrant and glaring, that he that runs may read." (248.) To gather up then the elements of Dr. Thornwell s definition, it would be this: Mira- cle is a (1) phenomenon; (2) that contradicts the (i) known course of nature. Or again: An (1) event either, (2) above or opposed to secondary causes. Or again : The essence of the miracle consists in a (1) phenomenon, that (2) is conironatural or SMpcr-uatural. To show conclusively in addition to the above, that Dr. Thornwell refused to incorpo- rate "ofBce ' in his definition of miracle, we need only quote a single sentence: 'Having settled that the essence of the miracle consists in the contranatural or the supernatural, we are now prepared to investigate its apologetic worth." [i. e., its ''office."] The "apologetic worth" is something separate and distinct from the "definition" of the minacle; so much so, that until we have "settled ' the first, we are not even "prepared to investigate" the second. It is equally evident that Dr. Thorn- well utterly refused to incorporate the attri- bute "wonderful ' in his definition of miracle. It is severely let alone, and purposely omitted in his last analysis, wherein he states what is, according to his conception, the very 'essence of the miracle," viz.: ' the cotiSra-natural or the SM^e9'-natural.' This definition is clean- cut, pure and simple. Wherever you have the "essence ' there you have the "miracle;" wherever the "essence" is not, there the "miracle" is not. What is that inner intrinsic essence stripped of all that is outer, extrinsic and accidental? It is {per Thornwell) the ' contra-natural or the super-natnTaX," only this and nothing more. But, since original "creation of all things from nothing," fur- nishes exactly this "essence;" for it is indil- ferently either "contra or super," (per Thorn- well,) whilst it is certainly super (per Girar- deau) ; therefore creation ex nihilo is a miracle according to Thornwell's definition, and must be admitted to be such by Dr. Girardeau, or else he must part company with Dr. Thorn- well. Yea, without question it would have been admitteii to be such by Dr. Girardeau, had be not included what Dr. Thornwell rig- idly excluded from the definition of miracle, viz. : ' its office." We may now note in brief compass the dif- ference in regard to miracle between Columbia as it was under Tbornwell, and Columbia as it is under Girardeau, i. c, between the ante- bellum and the post-bellum — between the past and the present: (1) Thornwell implicitly ranks "creation from nothing" as a miracle; Girardeau explicitly affirms 'creation from nothing, cannot be a miracle.' (2) Thornwell says: ''essence" of miracle is indifferently "contra OT super;" Girardeau insists that the "contra" alone is miracle, and that which is "super cannot be a miracle." (3) Thornwell aiifirms that in defining miracle, confusion and superfluity would ensue, if we incorporate anything bui the senus and the specific differ- ence, which lie rigidly confines to "contra or super," and expressly repudiates ' apologetic worth" i. e., use or 'office;" Girardeau affirms "clearness and completeness require" that the miracle be "defined from its nature and its office." What Thornwell rejects as redun- dant and obscuring, Girardeau embraces as essential. (4) Thornwell, though admitting "wonder" to be an "effect" of the miracle, and therefore extrinsic, and therefore not of the inner essence, was too astute a logician to in- corporate the "effect" in the definition of the "nature" of the 'cause. ' He, of course, admits that, wherever that "cause" operates under the same identical circumstances, there the "effect ' will follow, but he does not, by incorporating the ■ effect ' in his definition of the "cause," expose that definition to disas- trous refutation, by being tested in the lights and shadows of the "pillar of cloud and ot fire," after "forty years; ' nor of being ground to death hy the molars of the children ol Israel, who ate "manna in the wilderness forty years," without any more "wonder" than their descendants now experience when they eat bread and beef. The "cause' re- mained the same, the "phenomena" pure and simple remained the same, but the "effect," wonder, did not remain the same , because by virtue of the "forty years' ' duration and repe- tition, that "cause" operated under — not the "same," but very different circumstances. Dr. Thornwell admits, that to view the mira- cle from this point, viz.: ' wonder' gives us the nearest insight into the real nature of the miracle." (2.30.) That is, the "effect" is the most favorable point-ofview from which to study the "real nature" of the "cause:" but Dr Thornwell was too wide awake to incorpo- rate his most favorable point-of-view into his definition of the "real nature' of the thing that he was viewing. So then Dr. Thornwell rejects wonderful from his definition; but Dr. Girardeau insists that "wonderful is the proxi- mate genus," and that "clearness and com- pleteness require the incorporation into the definition of these elements." (Eev. art. p. 179.) It may be said, that the language of Ward- law, "cordially endorsed" by Thornwell, evin- ces that be could not have intended to include "creation ex nihilo" in the same category with "miracles." I refer to these words of Ward- law: "It becomes therefore an indispensable requisite to a genuine miracle that it be wrought both on materials and by materials, of which the properties are well and familiarly known; respecting which, that is, the com- mon course of nature is fully understood." (232.) In answering this objection, in order to be brief, I shall merely say: That Wardlaw is evidently trying to lay down a criterion to aid us in determining, in regard to any given event, whether that phenomenon is a "genu- ine miracle. ' All. therefore, that can be claimed is, that in the absence of this "indis- pensable requisite " whether it be a miracle or not, we would not be able to affirm or deny : and therefore could not accept it as perform- ing satisfactorily the office of the miracle. If we cannot know that itis a "genuine miracle,' then its "apologetic worth" sinks to zero. Dr. Thornwell himself admits (245); "W^e can lay down no criteria by which to distinguish in every case hetwixt the natural and the super- natural.' There may therefore be some "genuine" miracles which we could not prove to be genuine; then its "apologetic worth" would be destroyed. Again: there may be some spurious miracles which we could not prove to be spurious (or prove to be genu- ine, of course) — then their pretended "apolo- getic worth" would be destroyed. Hence Dr. Thornwell insists: ' That the criterion of the miracle must be sought in itself, and that, where such a criterion cannot be definitely traced, the effect of the miracle as a proof is destroyed, is only the application to this de- partment of evidence of the universal rules of ■ probability." There is no proof here there- fore that 'creation from nothing" is excluded from the category of miracle by Dr. Thornwell. But again it may be objected, that his lan- guage on p. 230, "Leave out the notion of these secondary causes and there can be no diiracle" — will not consist with the inference that Dr. Thornwell classified "creation from nothing under the head of miracle." In an- swer we say: That Dr. Thornwell is manifest- ly speaking of miracles after the original creation of all things; this does not therefore deny that creation itself is a miracle. It is —10- agaiiist the Pantheist that Dr. Thornwell is arguing ; and his contention is, that if Panthe- ism be true, then of course "there can be no miracle." But, since Dr. Thornwell was no Pantheist, it would certainly be illocsical to attribute to him, the conclusion which he draws from Pantheism. So then the sentence we have quoted, just as it does not prove that Dr. Thornwell held that there was no "origi- nal creation;" equally so it does not prove that he held that original creation "can Le no miracle. ' Dr. Thornwell was not handi- capped by an overloaded definition of miracle. It may be remarked, that the attempt to lay down in the definition itself, an infallible "criterion ' of the genuine miracle, betrayed Drs. Girardeau and A. A. Hodge into furnish- ing a redundant definition. But the percep- tion by Drs. Thornwell and Chas. Hodge, that they could "lay down no criteria by which to distinguish in every case betwixt the natural and the supernatural," saved them from this fault. But, after all, what does it matter, even though Dr. Girardeau has contradicted these standard authors? They are all. like himself, not infallible: therefore, wherein he contra- dicts them, he may be in the right and they in the wrong; their position may be the false one, and his the true. Thus we have seen that Dr. Girardeau's Review Article contiSiAicls: 1. Logic; (1) In his redundant definition. (2) In his incoherent argument. 2. The Confession, of Faith. 3. Standard aMthOTS: (1) A.A.Hodge. (2) Chas. Hodge. (3) J. H. Thornwell. In the next place we present as our fifth criticism : That Dr. Girardeau contradicts him- self. In this matter of Miracle and Evolution, he may be a "law unto himself," but none the less it is a law of contradiction which seems to have presided over his mind ; it evolved even into a self-contradiction. We feel sure of the Doctor's heartiest thanks if we shall succed in proving to him this proposition: for, as has been already conceded, he must have written this article, not as one who had a cause to main- tain, but as one who had the truth to discover. He will therefore welcome any suggestion, from whatsoever quarter, that may in the slighest aid him to discover his error, and thereby the truth. We shall not attempt to enumerate all the self-contradictions; only a few: it is possible they are not contradictions, but at least so they seem to us in all honesty. . (1) The first reason given by the Doctor why "Creation from nothing cannot be a miracle," is that since "creation begins the order of nature," there would be "no nature in relation to which an event could be determined to be miraculous." Now as we understand this argument, to have a miracle at all, it being in its essence "contra" nature, there must neces- sarily exist along side of it some nature, in order that, by comparison, you may determine the phenomenon to be contra nature. Now why is it not equally true, that since creation is essentially "super" nature, there must ne- cessarily exist along side of it some nature, in order that, by comparison, yon may determine the phenomenon to be super nature? If, in the absence of nature, you cannot determine an event to be contra, then equally, in the absence of nature, yon cannot determine an event to be super. But if because, from the nature of the case, when you cannot determine an event to be contra, it cannot be a miracle," i. e., "contra natural" : then equally, from the nature of the case, when you cannot determine an event to be super, it "cannot be" a creation, i. e., "super. natural." But the Doctor has declared that creation is super-natural and cannot be contra- natural : yet the proof which he offers in sup- port of that which he denies, equally disproves that which he affirms. He disproves his own affirmation — he contradicts himself. (2) The second instance of self-contradiction is found on page 201. He speaks of "the miracle of regeneration — it contradicts the law of spiritual death." Now if he accepts this as a clear case of miracle, and endeavors to reduce his redundant definition to the dimensions of this phenomenon ; then he will find in that re-> duction, that all that will be left of his defini- tion will be an event "conira-natural or super- natural" ; all else in his definition will overlap the extent and limits of this phenomenon. For according to the Scriptures regeneration is not only a conirculiction of "the law of spirit- ual death" i. e., contra-natural, but it is a "new creation." Now according to the Doctor, "creation ex nihilo" is supernatural "not contra- natural." He says (p. 185) that in original creation, "the supernatural agency of the divine will is demonstrated." Now then if "Regeneration" is a "miracle," (and he says, correctly, that it is,) then it cannot be made out by his definition to be such : for it is too small an event, just exactly to the extent oi his redundancies. But again ; inasmuch as it is not only a contra according to him, but also "creation" according to the Scriptures, and therefore according to him must be super; it follows either, that he must deny regeneration to be a "miracle," which would contradict him- self; or deny that it is a supernatural creation which would contradict the Scriptures, and also himself, provided he affirms that regener- ation can be proven to be a supernatural event, (p. 206.) Or, admitting that regenera- tion, according to the Scriptures, is both a resurrection" and an original "creation," and yet is a "mircale,'.' (which is only contra-natural -11— and not su^jer-natural — for the snpernatural is creation ex nihilo, as contradistingnished from the coatro-natural,) he would then be compell- ed to admit, that in this, his own chosen ex- ample of a genuine miracle, the contranatural and the supernatural co-exist — the very attri- butes which he has declared cannot co-exist in one and the same subject. This is a palpable contradiction. Begeneration then either (t) is not a miracle, or (2) it is not super, or (3) it is both super and contra. The first contradicts himself ; the second contradicts the Scriptures , the third agrees with the Scriptures and con- tradicts the Doctor. (3) We pass on to point out a third specimen of self-contradiction. "If, then, the remedial scheme proposed by a revelation claiming to be supernatural and divine is, in the general, contradictory to lA great and admitted law of sin and death," etc., (189). "We can, in the exercise of mere reason unassisted by a super- natural revelation, know nothing," etc., (191). "But whatever view may be taken of the origin of revelation, it cannot with truth be denied that it contravenes the universal law of human ignorance with reference to spiritual things." (202.) Now then, here we have a very strange conglomerate: The "supernatural is in the general contradictory to law," i. e., the SMpernatural is in the general contranatural , i. e. , supernatural is a species under the genus con- tranatural, i. e. "Creation ex nihilo" is a species of the genus "miracle" : but, none the less, "creation out of nothing cannot be a miracle." "Revelation" is supernatural, there- fore not a miracle; "Revelation" is contra- natural, therefore it is a miracle. Revelation is contranatural, therefore a miracle; but Revelation is supernatural also ; therefore of the "miracle" you may indifferently predicate "contra '-natural or "super' -natural. But this clearly contradicts what he says elsewhere, viz.; that these attributes cannot cohere in the same subject: "Creation from nothing cannot be a miracle": because creation is supernatural not contranatural. Here then, in another genuine sampleof the miracle furnished by the learned Doctor himself, we find, by his own acknowledgement, these attributes dwelling together which he has declared to be so diverse, that they serve to distinguish a genuine miracle from original creation. That is to say, these two attributes may serve to distinguish two phenomena each from the other, and yet appear as common attributes inhering in them both in the case of genuine samples. They distinguish and yet they do not distinguish : they are common and yet they are not com- mon : creation ex nihilo is a species under the genus miracle: but 'creation from nothing cannot be a miracle," because that attribute which differentiates miracle from all other phenomena is totally absent from "creation." The contradiction is so palpable, that it is painful to contemplate it. (4) The fourth and last specimen of self-con- tradiction is found on page 205. "But if a single man is raised from the dead. Who is not designed to originate a new species, that would be entirely contranatural. . . The resur- rection of Lazarus and of Jesus were events of that sort [i. e., entirely contranatural]. . . . They, with other instances of resurrection, stand alone, conspicuous examples of an ex- traordinary and suPEENATUEAL intervention of Almighty God." So then the resurrection of Lazarus and of Jesus are (by the Doctor's own explicit statement, at one and the same time) both "entirely oonteanatueal" and yet also "conspicuous examples of an extraordinary and stjpeenatueal' event. So then, either (1) these two events are not miracles ; if so, the Doctor contradicts himself: (2) or else they are miracles ; if so, then miracles are indifferently either supernatural or contranatural; but if so, then the Doctor has contradicted himself; for elsewhere he maintains that "creation from nothing cannot be a miracle," because it can- not be contranatural : whilst now he maintains these two are ' conspicuous examples' ' of the genuine miracle; whilst on the one hand they are "entirely contranatural," and yet, at the same time, on the other hand, they are con- spicuously "supernatural." If this be not self- contradiction, then Atheism does not contra- dict Theism. If these chosen specimens of miracle are toth contra and super, with what self-consistency can the Doctor say "creation from nothing cannot be a miracle"; because it is super and therefore cannot be contra. You could as easily say a horse is both an animal and a quadruped: but here is an animal which can- not be a horse; because since it is quadruped, therefore it cannot be an animal. Still the Doctor may contradict himself and yet, by the law of non-contradiction and ex- cluded middle, he may be right in one or other of the contradictories. There is one passage in the Doctor's article, which is such an anomalv, that we cannot well classify it under any one of the heads of criticism which we have selected, and so, as we do not desire to introduce a new head for its especial accommodation, we shall, before passing to the last criticism, introduce it here as one born out of due time and treat it ac- cordingly. The reader of the Review article, must be struck with the manifest fondness of the Doctor, in settling the doctrine of Evolu- tion by Scripture, for avoiding the common place sobrieties of Science, and for dealing rather with the marvelous events of revelation , e. 9,, Original "creation" (206): "General res- —12- urrection of the dead" (206); and "Universal conflagration" (188). It is to this last we now refer: the first has, we trust, received sufficient attention; and the second shall be noticed under our sixth and last head of criticism. The first "objection," to his doctrine of the miracle, mentioned by him is that, it "repre- sents God as acting inconsistently with him- self." (180.) His third general answer to this objection, is addressed to 'Christian writers who urge" it. He proposes to settle forever their objection by "one clear concrete instance of the violation ot the known course of nature . . . established By the authority of the Bible." Then having passed by all the /act Jesus . . . from whence also we look for the Savior, . . who shall chan);e our vile body, that itmay ^e fashioned like unto His glorious body." Philip, iii; io_ li. 20, 21. Surely here again we have proof of a "new species" accomplished by the "general resurrection." "Naked came I out of my [natural] mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither ' [to the womb of mother earth}. "If a man die shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my chanje come." '-We shall not all sleep, [i. e., die] but we shall all be changed." Job. i: 21; xiv: 14: 1 Cor. xv: 51. Born from the "dust" at first; born of the "flesh '—a "natural" body; returned tothedust of death: in the morning of the resurrection "born again ' from the dust, a "spiritual" body, surely man will then be a new 'species — ■ fashioned like unto His glorious body." The resurrection, theretore, actually accom- plishes the introduction of a 'new species." It was "designed" so to do: for it is abundant- ly declared in the passages quoted above and abundantly elsewhere throughout the 'Scrip- tures. See also Mat. xxii: 30 compared with Gen. i: 28, ii: 18-25. But, according to the Doctor's canon, resur- rection is a "miracle;' therefore (1) "no* de- signed to originate a new species,' (2) must ' e the "revival" of an "extinct" species. ' The general resurrection of the dead absolute- ly contradicts' it [i. e., Evolution] for it [i. c, final resurrection] will involve [1] the revival of an extinct species Irom their dust, [2] nor will it he (a) the transmutation of one species into a new and diflferent one, but (6) the per- sistence of the very same species." 206. In one place (205) if ' designed ' to introduce a 'new species" then the resurrection of L>)zarus and of Jesus would be no miracle. In another place (204) it must be to revive an "extinct" species, that would be required to make it a miracle: (for • creation of the new species would be natural '). But, if It be the revival of an extinct species that is necessary to make it a miracle, then the final resurrec- tion will be no miracle; for it will not be the revival of an "extinct" species; for the species will not have become 'extinct' previous to the "general resurrection;" for all the individuals of the species will not have died; for 'We shall not all sleep " "And the dead in Christ shall rise first : then we which are alive and re- -15— main shall be caught up," etc. 1 Cor. xv: 51; and 1 Thess. Iv: 16, 17. Therefore the "species ' according to the Scriptures will not have become "extinct," the general resurrec- tion will not he the revival of an "extinct" species. But, according to the Doctor, since the general resurrection is a simon-pure "miracle," it will be the revival of an extinct species. They mutually contradict. But a^ain: the ' general resurrection, ' ac- cording to the Scriptures will be designed to originate a new species of human beings. Ac- cording to the Doctor, however, since it is a •'miracle, ' it is "not designed to originate a new species." Thus again emerges the contra- diction between the Scriptures and the Doctor. The statement therelore on i age' 206, will need amendment: For, according to the Bible, the general resurrection will be (1) not the re vival of an "extinct' species, 1 Cor. xv: 51. (2) but the transmutation, and not the "per- sistence of the very same species." 1 Cor. xv: 4;i-50. Scarcely could we imagine anything more contradictory of Scripture than this para- graph, wliich he has written to confound the "professed Christian Evolutionist. ' And this sad posture is the direct result of his faulty definition, and the practical application of his own criteria. His revealed fact ' theiefore, turns out to be no revealed fact: in fact, neither ^ revelation nor a fact. The final res- urrection will revive the 'extinct ' individuals o( a yet "remaining" species, and then all the individuals of the "species," having been "changed," will have resurrection bodies: some to "everlasting life, ' fitted to 'inherit the kingdom of God," some alas! to "shame and everlasting contempt, ' fitted to dwell in "everlasting fire." 3. In like manuer let us test the ' Resurrec- tion of Jesus." So intimately associated in the Bible are "Jesus and His people," that the Scriptures, already quoted, to a large extent involve the.assertion of the "design" of the resurrection ol Jesus— so far as introducing the "new species" is concerned. We refer to 1 Cor. XV : 1 Thess. iv: Philip, iii: Johuiii: Job i:- 14: also Job xiz: 25-27 "But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the first fruits of them that sleep. . . . For as in Adam all die even so in Christ shall all be made alive. . . . And so it is written. The first man Adam was made a living soul, (psuchun, in the Greek, corresponding to "natural" in r. 44.) the last Adam was made a quickening spirit " {pneuma, in the Greek, corresponding to "spiritual" in v. 44). So then, that which is "sown" is our "body" which is like unto the 'first Adam's;' that which is ' raised ' is our "body" which is like unto the body of the 'Second Adam' — "His glorious body." Thus "Christ is the first fruits." V. 23. "The first man is of the earth earthy: the second Man is the Lord from heaven. . . And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.' 1 Cor. xv: 20, ^2, 23 45, 47, 49. Evidently, therefore, the resurrection of Jesus accomplished the 'origination of a new species:' of which He Himself is the "first fraits. ' and they that are "Hisy are of the same "new species;" for they bear 'His image' as they have borne "the image ' of the "first Adam.' But now, according to Dr. Girardeau, the Resurrection of Christ is a "miracle" — even a 'conspicuous example" of the "entirely contra natural ' miracle: even of "that sort, ' which is "not designed to originate a new species." (205.) According to the Scriptures, however, the resurrection of Jesus was the ' first fruits" of the new species, and moreover the pledge of the introduction of an innumerable progeny of this ■ new species ' born again in the "image ' of Jesus. Had therefore the Doctor consulted the Scriptures, orawaited the "logicof events," he would have been saved this contradiction. He will surely "find the miracle' of the 'general resurrection, ' and the particular "resurrection of Jesus," "difficult of adjust- ment to his theory:" for these "revealed facts," and the inspired commentary upon them, "absolutely contradict it," i. e., his "theory. ' "They are mutually contradictory, and one must be true, the other false." (206.) 4. In the last place let us test the Doctor's "theory" by the I'irth of Christ. Ever since the birth of Jesus, we have had a "new species" of man: and His appearance on earth was to the end of peopling the earth with a "new species of human beings" i. e., having "spiritual ' bodies like His, instead of 'natural" bodies like the "first Adam. ' ICor. xv;44. cf. Matt, v: 5. Rev. xxi: 1-3. Heb. ii: 13. 'And again. Behold 1 and the cbil- DEEN wnich God hath given me." By the miracle of "extraordinary genera- tion" Christ the "first fruits" of the new species was introduced, Lu. i: 31-35; as did also the miracle of the "resurrection" restore Him back again from the womb of "mother earth, ' 1 Cor. xv: 20. So also His "brethren" and His "children" are introduced into the' kingdom' of God His Father, by the miracle of "regeneration ' — supernatural — spiritual — birth: Jno. iii: 3-8; as also they, like their prototype, are brought, (as to the bodies of some) into God's kingdom of glory from the embrace of death, by the miracle of the 'general resurrection;" and as to the bodies of others by the miracle of the final "change" which shall take plase in those bodies, 1 Cor. iv : 51-54. —16- The birth ot UKrist, therefore, wa3 intended to 'originate" a new species; was an example of it: was "designed" to introduce a new species. "Now it is admitted that the creation of the new species would be UATunAi." (204) so says Dr. Girardeau: whereas the Bible, as interpreted in our standards classifies the con- ception and birth of Jesus, as super-nntuviil or conera-natural, i. e., as a miracle seeing it was by a generation, not ac.ording to nature. But now, according to the criteria laid down in the "theory" of Dr. Girardeau, since this event is a 'miracle" it was (1) "not designed to originate a new species;" (2) not designed to introduce a new species; but according to the Bible these two things are exactly what the birth of .Tesus was desisrned to do. and exactly what it Aoi.? accomplished and).s accomplishing. So asrain the contradiction between the Doctor and the Bible emerges. •But since he may admit, that, according to the Scriptures, Jesus, though "bone of our bone and fleih of our flesh; of the seed of Adam; and also the Son of God,"' is yet the "new creation" of God : then his theory' has "admitted that the creation of the new species would be NATURAL." (204.) But if so then the Doctor's theory contradicts in one t^reath both the Bible and the standards: for the standards teach, and the Bible proves, "that the creation of the new species is [not] natural' but purely supernatural, i. e., a miracle, en- tirely conSra-n at oral; yea, even a conspicuous example of an extraordinary and s?!per-natnral intervention of Almighty God. If, however, he shall deny that the extraordinary genera- tion of Jesus, by which the archetype of the "new species" was brought into being, is a "natnral'' event; then he will contradict him- self. (204). So then, he must either (1) abandon his "theory;" or (2) contradict (a) the Bi'le and the standards: or (6) contradict himself. It is manifest from the foregoing, that, so far as the Scriptures are concerned, the "creation" of the first mew species "nan" is a miracle: The first man was (whether mediate or immediate^ formed by miracnlons interven- tion; the same is true of the creation of the first woman: and these are the primeval parents of the human species. It is worthy of note, that the first three of the species each came by a different mode: (1) Adam, from the "dust;" (2) Eve, from the "rib;" (3) Cain from the "womb." Now, previous to the birth oi Abel, it would have been impossitile to tell which was God's nntnral method of "creating" the human species from the "dnsr.." As the first three bad each come bya different mode, natural expectancy would 'have created the presumption, either that the fourth would come by a fourth mode, or else by a reversion to one or other of the three preceding modes; but which one, could not be known, till by the birth of Abel the natural law began to reveal itself. So also in the creation of the second new species. The first man of this new species came by sapernntural generation from a virgin mother. He Himself revealed to Nicoderaiis, that the rest of the new spec'es as to their souls should come by a supernatural spiritual generation. His resurrection revealed a ' miracle ' as to His body's second birth. His Spirit (through Paul) revealed a ' miracle' as to the second '>ir hof the bodies of all His "chil- dren" — viz.: (I) 'resurrection from the dead"; (2) "change." Whether therefore we look at the first Adam, as the introduction of the species "man; ' or at the second Adam as the introduction of the species "new man," still we find them ushered in by "miracle." The creation of the new anecies then is not natural but SMpernatural. The Doctor says it is natural, the Bible says it is not We have hut the two instances — .Adam the "first man " and Christ the ' second man ' — both as to their bodies created by '"mir.icle", and the latter certainlv by mediate creation and by evolotion. Thp children of the first archetype createt^ by ordinary generfltion: the children of the second archetype hv supernatural generation. We might therefore infer, that in the introduction of new species, God always proceeds supernatiirally. We have, in respect to the original species of man, two distinct miracles: (1) formation- of Adam's body (2) formation of Eve's body: in respect to the in- troduction of the new species of man. we have five distinct miracles: (1) birth of .Tesna (2) His resurrection from the dead : (3) snpernatv^ ral birtb of His children: (4) their resurrection, i e.. of some: (5) "change' — of others. With what consistency then can it be said: "It is admitted that the creation of the new species would he natural?' (204). Now let it he understood once for all, that these Scriptures which have been quoted t^y us in this article and upon which we have commented are not produced as proofs from Scripture, that "Evolution" is true: but they have been quoted and expounded to prove only these two points, viz.: 1 That the Bible contradicts the teachings of T)r. Girardeau as set forth in the Review, in th"se particnlnrs which we have signalized. 2. That the Bible does not contradict Evolution. Therefore, it is not true, regarding the Bile and Evolution, that "they are mvt-iially con- tradictory, and one TOM.'S te true aiid the other p'lse. (206 ) On the contrary, the Bi^le and Evolution hold towards each other this atti- tude, viz.: The harmony of non contradiction. As independent witnesses neither oneoftliem contradicts the testimony of the other. So far- then they are neutrals in this warfare ^'etween some Theologians on the one hand, and some Scientists on the other. They refuse to take part with ci<7iw side- (1) either with those who sav. ""ecanse the Bible is true Evolution is. false; for the Bible contradicts Evolution:" (2) or with those wfin say, "because Evolution is true the Bible is false; for Evolution con- tradicts the Bible." Thus I have endeavored to rescue, and trust 1 have succeeded, in rescuing the Bible from the dilemma mtci lehich it has been ruthlessly thrust b.y Dr. Girardeau's argument. It is not necessary that I shall disprove or diahe- lifve the doctrine of Evolutioh, or else disbe- lieve the Bible: for 'they are" not 'mutually contradictory." (206.) Jas. L. Martin. Memphis, Tenn. Aug. 25, 1888.