58 
that I contradict the Bible. I shall limit my remarks to the criticism 
coutained in the first article—namely, that I contradict logic; and to 
the chief points of that criticism, without attempting to follow it into its 
forest of specifications. I shall not strictly observe Dr. Martin’s order of 
statement, because, begging his pardon, I cannot regard it as logical: he 
mixes proximate genus with specific difference. 
THE DEFINITION OF MIRACLE, 
I. Dr. Martin charges that my definition of a miracle is “redundant’’— 
a “fatal” defect, which’ makes him as ‘my friend,” “ashamed and sorry” 
for me. The definition he assails, briefly put, but not as clearly and 
fully as in the Quarterly article, is: A miracle is a wonder, contra- 
natural, accompanying a professed divine message. We are agreed 
that a definition proceeds by the proximate genus and the specific differ- 
ence. 
1. One of Dr. Martin’s proofs of redundancy is, that wonder is super- 
fluously inserted as a specific mark. He is entirely mistaken as to fact. 
I expressly assigned wonder, or wonderful event, as the proximate genus. 
I could not, therefore, have made it a specific mark. TI did include in the 
specific difference, two specific marks, contra-natural and evidential. I 
did not include wonderful. That was explicitly made generic. The cri- 
ticism stumbles badly at the outset. 
Tn the next place, Dr. Martin denies that I had the right to incorpo- 
rate anywhere in the definition the quality wonderful. For, if a 
miracle were repeated, it would cease to be wonderful. The pillar of 
cloud and fire, for instance, would not have been miraculous except at 
first. Dr. Martin narrowly limits the wonderful to the unexpected. 
Will he ever, in this world, cease to regard his conversion as wonderful ? 
If so, he would be an exception to the class—converted sinners. The 
criticism is captious. He makes me, in the sequel, contradict Dr. Thorn- 
well. But that great man upon this point says: 
The scriptural term which gives us the nearest insight into the real 
nature of the miracle is precisely the one of which Dr, Trench speaks 
most slightingly—the word wonder. It is true, that every wonder is 
not a miracle, but every miracle 1s a wonder. 
Evidently he made wonder the proximate genus under which miracle 
is included. But, perhaps, his logic and his analysis of the nature of a 
miracle were fatally defective, like mine. 
2. Dr. Martin reproaches me for redundancy, because I embrace, in 
the specific difference of the miracle, more specific marks than one. He 
