41 
absolutely the first instance’ takes the lead. He must needs prove, in 
order to validate his conclusion, not only that miracle is contra-natural 
(that his critic believes as firmly as he docs, and the whole course of my 
criticism abundantly proves it), but he must prove, in the second place, 
that original exnihilation cannot be contra natural. To argue that it 
cannot be contra natural, because there was ‘no nature there to be con- 
tradicted,” is after all but reasoning in a circle; or, if the Doctor prefers 
it, to introduce a fourth term into his syllogism, and thus to be guilty of 
what is called in logic “illicit process.’’ If miracle is contra natural, and 
contra natural excludes super natural, and original exnihilation is super- 
natural ; then, of course, miracle and original exnihilation are mutual 
contradictories. But the “Reply” denies that “contra” excludes “super ;” 
and insists that “super” includes “contra.” So, then, what is granted 
in the premise is forgotten in the conclusion. It should be seriously 
weighed by him, that the logical sequence of “Contra-Natural,” as ex- 
pounded and applied by its author, excludes from the category of mir- 
acle, original exnihilation—the very “beginning of all miracles.” To 
most minds this will prove, (1) either that the Doctor's text was corrupt ; 
or, (2) that his exposition of the text is illogical. 
The “Reply” insists that to say original creation ‘‘was supernatural is 
not enough.” But then no such claim was set up; the criticism did 
not stop there; it proceeded to show that both supernatural and contra- 
natural are alike miracle. Every super is non natural; every non nat- 
ural is miracle ; every miracle is contra natural; original exnihilation is 
super; therefore non natural ; therefore miracle; therefore contra natural. 
‘So also” (the -‘Reply” continues), “in denying that creation out of 
nothing in the first instance was evidential, and concluding that there- 
fore it could not be a miracle, I meant to deny that it was a credential 
of a divine message or revelation. Now that we are certified of the fact, 
T admit that it is evidential of God’s existence and almighty power. But 
that it was either when it occurred, or now, evidential of’ a divine mes- 
sage or revelation, I cannot see. Neither can I see how, in the first in- 
stance, it was evidential of anything, since, ex hypothesi, there were no 
recipients of evidence in existence.” 
1. All that the above may prove is, that in the Doctor’s own hands 
his theory of the miracle is so defective as to rule out the very ‘“begin- 
ning of all miracles.” Most men will judge his theory and condemn it, 
because of this defect. Creation from nothing in absolutely the first in- 
stance is the “one powerful negative,” which, according to Bacon’s canon, 
will consign the Doctor’s theory to the category of a “disproved hypo- 
thesis.” 
