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 
