64 
spurred,” and did injustice to his friend. This alone throws the argu- 
ment of his first article, as the printers say, ‘into pi.” 
It wili not answer for Dr. Martin to say that he only defended Dr. 
Woodrow in regard to a point at which he agrees with the pure 
theistic evolutionist, namely, the miraculous character of creation out 
of nothing in the first instance; for, first, he has not proved that Dr. 
Woodrow maintains that view; and, secondly, if that were so, he 
would still leave him exposed to the charge of admitting no other mir- 
acle but that, for such was my argument touching the evolutionist 
assailed in the paragraph in question. ‘That would be to misrepre- 
sent both Dr. Woodrow and my argument. That argument was briefly 
this: If a miracle, as contra-natural, has occurred, it contradicts the 
position of the theistic evolutionist, for he admits no miracle but that 
of creation out of nothing in the first instance, but that cannot be a 
miracle. 
WAS CREATION A MIRACLE? 
Now, a few last words as to the position that creation out of nothing 
in the first instance was not a miracle. 
(1) I expressly spoke of “creation from nothing in the first instance,” 
and the whole paragraph limits the argument to that act of creation. 
The attempt, therefore, to involve me in self-contradiction, because I had 
admitted that creation out of nothing, as in the creation of Lazarus’s 
animal life, may be miraculous, is utterly vain. Creation out of nothing 
originating a course of nature, and creation out of nothing during a 
course of nature, are very different things. The argument ad hominem 
is irrelevant. Dr. Martin misconceived, and therefore unintentionally 
misrepresented my position. 
(2) That creation out of nothing in the first instance could not have 
been a miracle, was a conclusion from an argument in which I had vin- 
dicated the contra-natural character of the miracle. Manifestly, if the 
miracle be contra-natural, this conclusion is true, for, according to the 
supposition of creation from nothing in absolutely the first instance, there 
could have been no nature to be contradicted. It behooved Dr. Martin, 
therefore, to have refuted the argument for the contra-natural character 
of the miracle before he could fairly invalidate the conclusion. This, 
however, he has not done. To say that creation from nothing in the first 
instance was supernatural, is not enough. He must have shown that 
every supernatural event is miraculous. He did not show this, and, I 
imagine, cannot. So, also, in denying that creation out of nothing in 
