42 
2. Miracle, then, is a specific credential—not merely a species, but a 
variety. Miracle is “‘credential”—specific mark; but not credential in 
general, but in particular—i. e., variety; not credential after it has oe- 
curred, but at the time of its occurring, i. ¢., a sub-variety ; and creden- 
tial of a divine message, 1. ¢., a sub-sub-variety. Yet, on this principle, 
all the Bible miracles would cease to be miracles to us; for we were not 
“witnesses of their occurrence ;” to us they are credentials after they 
occurred ; therefcre not miracles! 
3. But he expressly allows that Creation, though not credential at the 
time of its occurring, would be “now evidential of (rod’s existence and 
almighty power ;” 
witnessed it save the Almighty. Judged by this criterion, we are almost 
compelled to conclude that “creation ex nihilo in the first instance’’ is 
the only real miracle. Yet the Doctor’s language (206), ‘‘Creation from 
nothing cannot be a miracle,” was absolute, it hinted of no exception. 
Now, however, it appears that it was not a miracle “when it occurred,” 
because then it could not be ‘evidential of God’s existence and almighty 
although we never witnessed it; and no one else ever 
power ;” and not even now ‘evidential of a divine message or revela- 
tion ;” and in the “‘first instance not evidential of anything.” But 
“Now—I admit it is evidential of God’s existence and almighty power.’’ 
Once the testimony was, it “cannot be a miracle.” Again, the testi- 
mony changes: “it is evidential,” therefore we may conclude it can 
be a miracle; not only because it is ‘evidential,’ but because it 
proves that ‘“‘creation ex nihilo in the first instance” is “‘contra-natural.” 
When we inquire of the Doctor why he testifies differently on these 
two occasions—‘cannot be; can be a “miracle,” he may reply: 
Not because of the exigency of the argument; but because of the 
accident of time—i. ¢., the difference between “then and now.” The 
accidental circumstances of time and place are so potent that they change 
the radical essence of the same identical phenomenon from that which 
cannot be miracle to that which can be. The inner essence has changed, 
but the outward form remains identically the same; and that because in 
this particular instance, circumstances (of time and place) alter the essen- 
tial nature of a phenomenon. This, it will be perceived, is the reverse 
of the effect of “wonderful.” By “wonderful” that which was a mir- 
acle in the days of Moses and of Christ would cease to be a miracle now ; 
by “evidential’’ that which could not be a miracle “in the beginning’ 
becomes a miracle “in these last days.” Certainly in the Doctor's 
hands logic has proven “evidential” of a most “wonderful” event—it 
has wrought the Non-Contra-Natural into the Contra-Natural, et vice 
versa. 
