Duality of Man in Court.
By J. H. W.
Recently I stepped into a court room to hear the closing plea on a criminal case. It appeared that the counsel for the defense had set up the fashionable plea of “temporary insanity” and in the argument had stated that man was a dual being; and that in this case one of his two natures had obtained the supremacy, and, by an uncontrollable impulse, the man committed the crime. The prosecutor remarked that God was considered a triune being, or a trinity, but he denied that man was a “biune” being, or a duality. Here he was interrupted by the defense, who asked if he had not read that man was made in the image of God. “Yes; but that does not meet the case,” the prosecutor replied. “I read that God made man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul; but I do not read that he made two of him. And I read further,” he continued, “that God made Eve to be with man because it was not good for man to be alone. Now if the doctrine of the defense is true, Eve could not have been created for such a reason; for, if there were two of Adam they might have been company for each other!” This may be looked upon as merely a happy turn, but I do not know why it is not, as a reply, as good as any argument which has ever been produced in favor of the duality of man.