ll 
I was furnishing a narrow definition,” the generosity of the critic should 
have given his friend the “benefit” of the doubt. But then it must be 
remembered that critics [xpr7¢] like judges dispense not alms but jus- 
tice; they must never forget that they are servants of truth and of 
righteousness. None, more than I, would walk backward with the man- 
tle of charity to cover the Doctor’s faults, 4s I know none, more than 
he, would do so unto me. But then this kindly office must not be 
sought at my hands when I am sitting in judgment upon the Doctor, 
viewing with a ‘‘critic’s eye’ his offences against truth and sound learn- 
ing, to the detriment of the purity and peace of the Church. ‘He that 
justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both 
are abomination to the Lord.’ (Prov. xvii. 15.) 
Not to protract my remarks upon this division, let us note what Ham- 
ilton says about these different species of Definitions, in order that the 
Professor may enjoy the full ‘‘benefit” of the doubt. Let us briefly 
glance at Hamilton's analysis: ‘Formal Perfection” of thought: (1) 
Clearness; (2) Distinctness; (3) Harmony. Rules by which these are 
secured: (1) Definition; (2) Division; (3) Probation. Declaration: 
(1) Definition Proper—“where two of the essential and original attri- 
butes of the defined subject are given, whereof the one is common to it 
with the various species of the same genus, and the other discriminates 
it from these.” (2) Definitions in the wider sense: 1st. Explication ; 
2ndly. Exposition; 3rdly. Description. Now, under which one of these 
three sub-refuges will the Doctor seek shelter? Certainly we should 
always prefer, for the sake of ‘‘Clearness”—the end of ‘Definition’”’—to 
furnish, wherever possible, the Definition proper, ¢. e., the narrow 
(angustior). But, if we have not advanced far enough in our knowl- 
edge, as Hamilton suggests, why then, of course, Definition in the wider 
sense (latior) will prove a very useful and even necessary auxiliary. 
Consequently, under- these necessitous circumstances, very many privi- 
leges have been granted by Logicians to Definitions in the ‘wider’ sense. 
These tentative hypotheses—since they do not claim to be “Definitions 
Proper ;” since they are “only to be considered as a prelusory defini- 
tion; and as the mark of an incipient and yet imperfect knowledge; 
and since they “make no pretence to logical perfection ; and are only 
subsidiary to the discovery of more perfect definitions—are not to be 
very rigidly dealt with.” (Hamilton’s Logic, 340-349.) 
I shall not, therefore, be led astray by this false scent. It is not, 
whether he defined in ‘narrower or wider” sense; but whether, in what- 
ever sense, it was (1) “redundant”; and (2) disproved Hivolution; and 
