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 be that 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.” 
