16 
“miracle.” 2. Non-contra natural: 7. e., not ‘‘miracle,” 7. e., “Creation 
ex nihilo in the first instance.” II. Natural: i. e., according to “the 
known course of nature.” This analysis the “Reply” defends thus: 
“T do not know, and I fancy Dr. Martin does not know, that all which 
is supernatural is contra-natural, but I do know that all which is contra- 
natural is supernatural.” On the contrary, however, that is just what 
the Doctor’s critic fancies he does know. It was this conviction which 
induced me to lay down this proposition, viz.: ‘It makes no particle of 
difference whether you say an event or a creation, is super-natural, or 
contra-natural. very thing or event is either (1) natural, or (2) non- 
natural—it makes no shadow of difference whether you say super, or 
contra, or preter, or how many changes you may choose to ring on the 
Latin prepositions. If it is non-natural, it is miracle; if it is natural, it is 
not: miracle.” (Pamphlet, p. 2.) \ 
Why is not every supernatural event contra-natural? It seems to us 
that the mere accepted force of language sustains the affirmative of this 
question. All events are either natural or non-natural: 1. The super- 
natural therefore is non-natural; 2. The contra-natural therefore is non- 
natural. Every non-natural event is a ‘Miracle’: 1 Every supernat- 
ural event therefore is a miracle; 2. Every contra-natural event there- 
fore is a miracle. The steps of this argument would seem to be intui- 
tive. If they are valid, then the Miracle is indifferently super or con- 
tra. Therefore, that analysis, which furnishes two species of the super- 
natural [(1) miracle—because it is supero-contra-natural; (2) non- 
miracle—because it is supero-non-contra-natural] is an illogical analysis. 
Evidently, according to the Doctor’s own analysis he will need to 
amend the title of his Review article, so as to read: “The Supero-con- 
tra-natural character of the miracle, as contrasted with Natural. 
Events, and with the supero-non-contra-natural character of Crea- 
tion from. nothing in absolutely the First Instance.” To this revised 
statement of the Doctor's doctrine of “a miracle,” the curious might 
append several questions; e. g., Since you do not hold that Creation 
super, and Creation contra, are mutually exclusive, why may not the 
“super” be contra, and the “contra” super, if not in the whole, at least 
in the part? Why did you not define miracle to be a supero-contra- 
natural event? If miracle is an event—supero-contra-natural, what is 
an event “super” but not contra? what an event—“contra’”’ but not 
super? what an event,“super” but neither contra nor non-contra? 
Since you claim to range “Creation ex nihilo in the first instance,” co- 
ordinately with miracle as Contra-natural, under the genus Supernatural, 
