12 
(3) proved the Bible and Evolution to be “mutual contradictories.” 
His refuge is no refuge. Granting the ‘‘wider sense,” still his definition 
is surcharged ; and still there isa missing link between his premise and 
his conclusion. 
The “Reply” presses me with this home-thrust: “How would Dr. 
Martin adequately define by a single specific mark evolution?” Let me 
commend the Doctor to a more careful perusal of my criticism. He will 
find (Pamphlet, p. 3) that I had already anticipated this kindly thrust : 
“Evolution—'DESCENT with modification.’ Surely this is an ade- 
quate definition. 
From what has been said, it seems perfectly clear that the first column 
anda half of the “Reply” is largely an ignoratio elenchi. The Doctor 
has endeavored to disprove what I have never affirmed; and to prove 
what I have never denied, viz., that logicians have subdivided defini- 
tions into two kinds: 1, narrow; 2, and wide; and that when necessary 
to adequacy a definition may contain more than one specific mark. But 
the real questions at issue between us, he has either neglected or ineffec- 
tually assaulted. 
The Doctor's “Reply” still insists, that “Wonderful” and ‘Eviden- 
tial” are so inherently the qualities of “Miracle,” that without them an 
event “cannot be a miracle.” Here is his own analysis: “I. Highest 
genus: Event. 1. Proximate genus: Wonderful event. (1) Specific 
marks, differentiating it from other wonderful events: 1st. Contraven- 
tion of the known course of nature; 2ndly. Accompanies, (a) the teach- 
ing of a person claiming to be commissioned by God; (0) or a revela- 
tion ; (2) professing to be divine; (y) and intended to promote human 
holiness.” Here is his own synthesis: “Miracle: I. Wonderful event: 
1. Contravening the known course of nature: 2. Accompanying: (1) 
the teaching of a person claiming to be commissioned by God; (2) ora 
revelation ; Ist, professing to be divine; 2ndly, and intended to promote 
human holiness. . . . Defined from 1, its nature; 2, and its office.” 
(179.) That is, in answering the question—‘ W hat, then, isa miracle?” 
he has really answered two questions, viz.: 1. What is? and 2. Why? 
or 1. What is ‘nature’ of miracle? 2. What is the “office” of mir- 
acle? Note, that he proposes the question concerning “A miracle,” that 
is, ALL miracle, pot SOME; 7. @., he furnishes this as the abstract defini- 
tion of the term “Miracle.” 
Now let us hear Dr. Thornwell: “What, then, 7s a miracle?” 
“Tt is an event either above or opposed to secondary causes.” Then 
several pages farther on, under a distinct head numbered ‘‘2,” he pro- 
