14 
‘ 
measure is too small for the post bellum Professor’s wear. Hence the 
definition given by Dr. Thornwell excludes ‘‘wonderful,” but that given 
by Dr. Girardeau includes it. Perceiving, as Dr. Thornwell did, that 
“every wonder is not a miracle, but every miracle is a wonder,” he 
refused to incorporate the term “wonderful” in his definition ; he pre- 
ferred that which differentiated. From my criticism on this point the 
“Reply” sought two avenues: (1) “Dr. Martin narrowly limits the 
wonderful to the unexpected;’’ but escape by this route was already 
blocked; for I had distinctly said (PampAlet, p. 2), ‘‘Wonderful would 
have to be ranged under the second head, . . 7. e., the effect on the 
mind of the beholders.”” Now, “unexpected” is the state of mind before 
the miracle is wrought; “wonderful” is the ‘effect’’—state of mind 
after the miracle is wrought. It is something existing in the mind, not 
in the miracle ; taking place in the mind after the miracle has been 
performed, not before. (2) “I expressly assigned” (says the ‘“Reply’’) 
“wonder or wonderful event as the proximate genus. I could not there- 
fore have made it a specific mark.” But, is it essential in proving a 
definition to be “redundant,” that the term objected to should be the 
“specific mark”? How, then, can the fact, that the Doctor did not 
make “wonderful” one of the specific marks, relieve his definition of the 
charge of “redundancy”? Besides, I did not overlook the fact, but dis- 
tinetly recognised it, that in the Doctor's definition ‘wonderful’ was 
made the “proximate genus.” (Pamphlet, p. 9) There is another 
fact which, equally, I did not overlook, viz., that “proximate genus and 
specific difference” are related terms: the proximate genus is just as 
much a specific mark, differentiating in its sphere, as is the specific 
difference a mark differentiating in its sphere; these things are not im- 
movable, but movable; they are on a sliding scale; upwards—the spe- 
cific difference becomes proximate genus; downwards—and the proxi- 
mate genus becomes specific difference: take one principle of division 
and the scale slides upwards; take another principle of division, and 
it slides downwards. This (which the Doctor’s self-esteem will not 
suffer him to challenge) effectually blocks his passage through the sec- 
ond avenue. 
In the next place, let us see how the “Reply” defends the Review 
article from the charge of “redundancy” in introducing “evidential” as 
a specific mark of ‘a miracle.” 
The defence may be ranged under three heads: 
1. “I [the Doctor] hold that it is essential to the miracle, and not 
accidental, that it is evidential.” This, of course, no reader of the Re- 
