43 
” 
4, One would suppose, from the Doctor’s “Reply,” that the question 
between us is: He affirms that miracle is “contra,” and I deny; I afirm 
that miracle is “super,” and he denies. This, however, 1s not the state 
of the question and cannot be unless he shall change his base. The real 
state of the question is: He affirms, and J also affirm, that miracle is 
“eontra-natural ;” he affirms, and 7? deny, that original exnihiiation can- 
not be a miracle. We both affirm exnihilation in the second instance 
to be a miracle. The Doctor says original exnihilation cannot. be contru 
natural; his critic affirms that exnihilation, whether (1) originating a 
course of nature, or (2) during a course of nature, is like all other mir- 
acles, “indifferently super natural or contra natural.” 
In order to invalidate the Doctor’s argument against Evolution, there 
was no attempt, neither was there any necessity, to “refute the argument 
for the contra-natural character of the miracle.” What was attempted 
(and successfully) was to “refute’’ the proposition—that miracle was 
contra natural as against supernatural, only contra natural, nothing but 
contra natural. There is a vast difference between the proposition— 
Miracle cannot be anything but contra natural as distinguished from 
supernatural; and the proposition—Miracle is contra-natural. The 
Doctor holds the former; his critic the latter proposition. His “Reply” 
therefore fails to defend. ‘ 
5. So, too, one would suppose from the “Reply,” that because I main- 
tained that exnihilation is “miracle,” therefore I maintained that it was 
“evidential” ulso. In truth, however, I affirmed nothing on this latter 
point. My only interest was to point out the connexiov between the 
Doctor’s inclusion of “evidential of a divine messenger” in his definition, 
and his conclusion therefrom, that original exnihilation cannot be a mir- 
acle. His /nclusion involved a conclusion that involved an ezclusion. 
He will search in vain for even the remotest hint that ever I claimed 
original exnihilation was ‘evidential of a divine message.” He seems to 
have mixed his premise and my conclusion; he holds that nothing is 
“miracle” that is not “evidential of a divine message ;’’ I hold that orig- 
inal exnihilation is a “miracle; therefore he concludes that I hold that 
exnihilation is ‘evidential of a divine message.” Surely this is logic run 
mad. Still pursuing the same logical method—mixing his premise and 
my conclusion—twirling around and around his notion and mine till he 
seems to have forgotten “which is which” —no wonder he says, “neither 
can I see how in the first instance it was evidential of anything.” Where 
have J ever claimed that any miracle is essentially “evidential”? Only 
thus could he logically demand of me to find ‘‘evidential” in that which 
