61 
brated Introduction to Aristotle’s Categories, defines man as animal, 
rationale, mortale. In relation to this definition, he says: 
The differences of rational and mortal are constitutive of man, but 
those of rational and immortal, of God, those, again, of mortal and irra- 
tional, of irrational animals. 
This definition was adopted by Abelard, Albertus Maguus, and Petrus 
Hispanus. I am not defending the material truth of the definition, but 
instance it to show that great logicians have incorporated more than one 
specific mark into a specific difference. But it may be said that modern 
logic has expurgated this defect. Let us, then, hear Sir William Ham- 
ilton. In regard to the far-famed definition of man, he says: 
If the definition, man is a rational animal, be adequate, we shall be 
able to say, Hvery rational animal is human—nothing which is not a 
rational animal is human. But we cannot say this ; for though this may 
be true of this earth, we can conceive in other worlds rational animals 
which are not human. The definition is, therefore, in this case too wide; 
to make it adequate, it will be necessary to add terrestrial, or some such 
term as—Man is a rational animal of this earth. 
I cannot multiply examples. How would Dr. Martin adequately de- 
fine, by a single specific mark, evolution? LeConte gives three ;—or 
creation ?—the Shorter Catechism gives four:—or a torpedo, either a 
fish, or a machine, or an article for blowing up an argument and its 
author? 
So far, as to the logical form of my definition of the miracle, I can see 
no reason for my sharing Dr. Martin’s shame and pity in view of my 
failure in that respect. 
THE OBJECT OF MIRACLES. 
II. AsI design to compress what I have to say into this communica- 
tion, but little room is left for the consideration of the criticism of the 
matter of the definition, and argumentative application. 
1. I hold that it is essential to the miracle and not accidental, that it is 
evidential. That it is a credential, and a credential of divine communica- 
tions, is the catholic doctrine both of the friends and foes of tha Bible. It 
never occurred to me to defend by strenuous argument what is universally, 
or at least well-nigh universally, conceded. Although Dr. Thornwell did 
not formally incorporate it in his definition, he treats it as essential to the 
miracle. But if the miracle be a credential, whether that feature of it is 
rightly or wrongly included in the definition, the use of that fact to 
prove that creation, in the first instance, was not a miracle, is relevant, 
whatever may be thought of the truth of the argument. 
