5 
based upon his definition 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.” (Pamphlet, p 1.) 
The “Reply” professes to limit itself to the criticism in my “first arti- 
cle’ *—viz.: “Contradicts Logic (1) in his redundant definition; (2) 
in his incoherent argument.” Then, in the next to the last paragraph, 
he says: “If his [Dr. M.’s] charge that I have contradicted Logic has 
been proved to be inconclusive, it is likely that the charge of contra- 
diction to the Confession of Faith, standard authors, and the Bible is 
in the same category.’ The wary sophist would have left this sophisti- 
cal train of reasoning to suggest itself to the unsophisticated mind of the 
unwary reader; but the Doctor suggests it himself, and claims it to be 
of force—‘an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile.” Sound in 
Logic, ergo, sound in Confession of Faith, Bible, ete. He must there- 
fore be held accountable for the logic of this suggestion: ‘I have vindi- 
cated myself from the charge of contradicting logic ; therefore I am vin- 
dicated from thé charge of contradicting (1) the Confession of Faith, 
(2) standard authors, and (3) the Bible.’ There were six separate and 
independent charges, each built upon an independent base; the Doctor 
imagines he has thrown down the first column of argument, and then 
politely bowing to the public he says, ‘The fall of one is the fall of six.” 
The curtain drops, but the six columns remain in their original integ- 
rity ; and as the audience retire they whisper: ‘‘Another sample of the 
Doctor’s anti-evolution logic.” 
Those (some at least) who have known the learned Professor for many 
years, and have often witnessed his valiant assaults upon those who depart 
from the Confession and the Bible, have been surprised and pained to 
discover such a radical change between the present and the past—to 
be so earnest in defending himself against the charge of anti-logical, and 
so indifferent to the far graver charges—anti-Confessional and anti- 
Biblical. 
In that first article to which he proposed to confine himself, there 
were two distinct criticisms: ‘“(1) redundant; (2) incoherent.” He 
attempts to justify himself against the first; but seems to have forgotten 
that the fullest success here would not have vindicated him from the 
second. “Granting his definition, still Evolution is not disproved.” 
(Pamphlet, page 3.) The argument (as against Evolution) is a non 
sequitur upon either supposition. 
* My criticisms appeared first in four articles in the St. Louis Presbyterian and 
in the Southern Presbyterian, afterwards in pamphlet form as one article. 
