214 REV. H. C. M. WATSON 



There is a well-known argument of similar construction and 

 force, which runs as follows : — 



Mendon says that all Cretans are liars. 



But Mendon is a Cretan. 



Therefore Mendon is a liar. 



Therefore the Cretans are not liars. 



Therefore Mendon is not a liar. 



Therefore the Cretans are liars, &c. 

 Thrown into the same form the argument would run thus : — 



If Mendon the Cretan's statement is true, the Cretans are 

 liars. 



If the Cretans are liars, Mendon the Cretan is a liar. 



If Mendon is a liar, the Cretans are not liars. 



If the Cretans are not liars, Mendon is not a liar. 



If Mendon is not a liar, the Ci'etans are liars. 



If the Cretans are liars, Mendon is a liar, &c. 



An argument that can be so exhibited does not deserve 

 serious refutation. It is obviously fallacious. 



The fallacy of the original argument consists in the ambiguous 

 use of the term " miracle.^' A miracle in the argument is as- 

 sumed to include a change in the habits of the men of the age 

 in which it is alleged to have occurred. " A sufficiently great 

 change,^' to effect a transformation in men's nature that would 

 remove them from the operation of principles and motives 

 which now obtain, and leave them to the sport of chance, 

 would, indeed, invalidate testimony. Instead of testimony 

 having, as it is, an orderly phenomenon, it would be a por- 

 tentous event due to we know not what, and would, therefore, 

 be untrustworthy. But a miracle does not imply any such 

 change in the course of nature. Men and women in the past 

 came into the world just as men and women come into the 

 world now ; they were educated and trained then very much 

 as they are now ; they were actuated then by principles and 

 motives which actuate men and women now, and, therefore, 

 their testimony is trustworthy. When Mendon said that the 

 Cretans were liars, he meant that some Cretans were un- 

 truthful ; not that all were. When we say that the uni- 

 formity of nature has been broken, we mean not that that 

 uniformity in all its range has been violated, but that it 

 has been disturbed within a limited sphere. No change in 

 men's principles and motives of action is implied. 



