15 
view article will doubt. But, equally, no reader of the ‘‘Reply”’ will 
perceive in it any proof of the correctness of what the Doctor holds. 
Therefore this part of the “Reply” may safely be left to take care of 
itself. 
2. That the miracle is evidential of “divine communications, is .. . 
universally, or at least well-nigh universally, conceded.” But this was 
not the point of my criticism ; and the affirmation, therefore, does not 
relieve the Doctor’s position. That all writers on miracles have treated 
them as “evidential,” is one proposition—a proposition I have never 
denied ; that all (or nearly all) writers on miracle have “incorporated 
credential of divine communications” in their definition of ‘a miracle” — 
miracle in the abstract—all miracles, is a very different proposition—a 
proposition which, even could the Doctor demonstrate, would fall very 
fof short of proving that the incorporation of it did not render the defi- 
nition “redundant.” 
3. “Dr. Thornwell did not formally incorporate it [evidential] in his 
definition.” This is very manifest; and equally manifest is it, that Dr. 
Girardeau did “incorporate it in Ais definition.” 
“Be [Dr. Thornwell] treats it as essential to the miracle.” ‘‘Essen- 
tial” to what “of the miracle’ ?—(1) the definition of it ?—or (2) the 
exhaustive treatment of the subject—Miracies” ?—the unmodified 
title of his discourse. The latter, of course, not the former: for, let it 
never be forgotten, not till Dr. Thornwell had settled the “EssENCE’— 
that which is ‘‘essential”—did he feel “prepared to investigate its apolo- 
getic worth,” that is, the “credential” division of his subject. It is, 
therefore, not only manifest that ‘Dr. Thornwell did not incorporate it 
in his definition,” but no less clearly manifest, that he did not “treat it 
as essential to the [definition of ] miracle.” 
Now let us turn our attention to the defence, made in the ‘Reply,’ * 
to the criticism, that the Doctor’s argument is contra-logical, 1. ¢., 
non sequitur, 7. €., incoherent. 
1. The “Reply” objects to my analysis of the Doctor’s views. “As 
we understand the drift of his argument there is an implicit claim, that 
since all ‘events’ must fall under one of these heads, viz.: 1. Super- 
natural, 7. e., ‘Creation’ ex nihilo; 2. Contra-natural, 7. é., ‘miracle;’ 
or 3. Natural, 7. e., according to ‘the known course of nature’; there- 
fore there is no standing room left for Evolution.” (PampdAlet, p. 3.) 
This analysis, the “Reply” objects, opposes ‘‘supernatural and contra- 
natural as mutually exclusive,” and as such is “mistaken.” The “Reply” 
furnishes this analysis: I. Supernatural: 1. Contra-natural, 7. e., 
