47 
they should die, it never becomes evidential), therefore regeneration of 
infants cannot be a miracle; 7. e., contra-natural. 
2dly. Creation, because of the “absence of human witnesses, when it 
occurred,’ cannot be a miracle. 
Regeneration—of infants, e. g.—because of the absence of human 
witnesses, whereby the wonder-element was lacking “when it occurs,” 
cannot be a miracle. 
Thus the Doctor’s argument will not stand the test; it proves too 
much, viz., That the contra-natural is not miracle. 
2. In one point (besides that mentioned on a previous page) it 
affords gratification to note that the Doctor and his critic are agreed : 
As it has been proven “that I contradict logic, the Confession, standard 
writers, the Bible—everything, the proof that I contradict myself may 
be proof that I have got right.” The “Reply” should have mentioned 
that this was distinctly granted in my former criticism. On page 11 of 
my Pamphlet I had said, “Still the Doctor may contradict himself, and 
yet, by the law of non-contradiction and excluded middle, he may be 
right in one or other of the contradictories.” 
3. Not the least remarkable specimen of Professor Girardeau’s logic 
is found in these words: “It was the out-and-out theistic evolutionist 
whom I fought . . . and as Dr. M. fights me for so doing, it is clear as 
day that he fights for the out-and-out theistic evolutionist.” It seems 
to me, however, that the impartial reader will discover that “it is clear 
as day” that I was fighting not the Doctor, but his logic; fighting not 
for the theistic evolutionist, but waging a warfare in the interest of 
sound reasoning. When I entered an exception (Pamphlet, pages 
12-13) to the Doctor's defence of the ‘‘Contra-Natural character of the 
Miracle,” against the objection made by some “Christian writers,” did I 
thereby endorse that objection and reject the contra-natural character of 
the miracle? Certainly not. I simply refused to endorse the Doctor’s 
line of defence. So, regarding “the out-and-out theistic evolutionist,” 
surely every calm and disinterested reader will see it thus. Does the 
Professor endorse every argument for the existence of God he has ever 
read? Does he endorse every answer against atheistic objections to the 
existence of God he has ever read? If not, will he consent to be 
classed, on that account, as an atheist ? 
4. Still another specimen of. logic: Because Dr. M. criticised Dr. 
Girardeau’s argument against theistic evolutionism, therefore, (1) Dr. M. 
identifies Dr. Woodrow “with the thorough-paced theistic evolutionist.” 
(2) Since, in fighting for the theistic evolutionist, Dr. M. thinks he is 
