30° 
give present attention to that single sentence which has the remotest 
relevancy to my criticism. Let us get the state of the question (Review 
article, p. 206): According to the Doctor, the Theistic Evolutionist 
“holds that God evolves the world by an unbroken process of mediate 
creation.” Thence the Doctor infers that ‘‘no mediate creation could be 
miraculous;” yet the creation of Adam’s body was very likely “miracu- 
lous,” certainly (per Dr. Girardeau) not natural, and certainly was me- 
diate, seeing, according to the Doctor, it was ‘formed out of the dust ;” 
yet the creation of Isaac’s body and of the Messiah’s was certainly ‘mir- 
aculous,” and as certainly “mediate.” Although, therefore, it should 
be true, “that God evolves the world by an unbroken process of mediate 
creation,” still it does not follow that “no mediate creation could be 
miraculous ;” for “mediate” and ‘miracle’ are not mutual exclusives. 
Therefore at this point the Doctor’s argument against the Theistic Evo- 
lutionist breaks down; the conclusion does not follow from the premises, 
his argument therefore is a non sequitur. 
Then, in the next place, the astute logician supposes that the theistic 
evolutionist defends himself by appealing “to the miracle of creation 
from nothing in the first instance:” 7. €., the theistic evolutionist replies 
to the Doctor by claiming to believe in the most stupendous of all 
miracles—original creation. This the Doctor seeks to evade, by laying 
down the proposition: “Creation from nothing cannot be a miracle.” 
The futility of the Doctor’s argument to prove this proposition, has been 
abundantly shown in the Pamphlet. As, therefore, the Doctor failed 
to prove that “creation from nothing cannot be a miracle ;’’ so the con- 
clusion he draws from that premise as against the theistic evolutionist, is 
a non sequitur. Still the Doctor is generous: even granting that it has 
oecurred [7. @., granting that the original act of exnihilation is a 
miracle], that miracle ‘contradicts his theory’’—1. e., the theory of the 
“theistic evolutionist.” Let us see the contradiction: the theistic evo- 
lutionist in “his theory’ embraces the idea of the miracle of exnihila- 
tion, as the very starting point of his theory, because that miracle 
“begins the order of nature ;” there is no contradiction here certainly. 
Therefore the Doctor’s inference—‘‘He [theistic evolutionist] cannot 
therefore admit the existence of the miracle’—is a non sequitur; the 
theistic evolutionist not only does admit miracle, but admits it “‘in the 
very beginning” of his theory. To argue, therefore, that because the 
theistic evolutionist denies miracle subsequent to the original act of ex- 
nihilation, therefore to admit miracle in the very original act of exnihi- 
lation, “contradicts his theory,” is certainly to argue with the utmost 
incoherency. 
