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 
