10 
he had given the definition of adi miracle. From a particular premise 
he has drawn a wniversal conclusion.” (Pamphlet, p. 2.) I reiterate, 
therefore, with emphasis the criticism: “Dr. Girardeau’s definition of 
miracle—pure and simple—proceeds not only by genus and by species, 
but also by variety, etc.’ (Pamphlet, p. 2.) To profess, e. g., to de- 
fine Dog—‘pure and simple’—and yet include in that definition not 
only marks which differentiate between dogs and all other animals—not 
dogs, which, of course, would be essential; but also to add marks which 
differentiate not only between different species of dogs, but also between 
different varieties, would certainly be illogical. If you profess to be 
defining a particular ‘species’ of dog, then, of course, give in addition 
the specific mark of that species; if you propose to give the definition of 
a particular “variety,” then, of course, add the differentiating mark of 
that variety. But, in the name of all sound reasoning, do not define a 
particular “species” or “variety,” and then insist that a certain animal 
cannot be “Dog,” because it lacks the marks peculiar to this species or 
that variety. Thus to do would be to “ignore the rule laid down by Sir 
William Hamilton (Logic, p. 342)”; and also to “violate a fundamental 
rule of the syllogism.” + 
In the next place, the “Reply” seeks refuge from my criticisms in the 
fact that ‘“Logicians divide definitions into two kinds—the narrower 
(angustior) and the wider (latior).” And then he proceeds strangely 
to argue as if I had denied that his definition was any definition at all. 
“Of course, then,” (he argues) “the wide are definitions as well as the 
narrow.’ But this was never denied ; the point was and is, the Doc- 
tor’s definition is “redundant,” and his argument a ‘non sequitur.” The 
charge was not that it was something minus “definition ;” but that it 
was ‘‘definition” plus something else: surplusage was the point of my 
objection ; and I indicated, by brackets, the overlargeness. (Pamphlet, 
p- 1.) Now, a “wider’’ definition may be superfluous, no less than a 
“narrower” one. There is nothing here for the Doctor, then, but a 
roofless refuge. 
Neither does the Doctor claim that, in his Aeview article he was 
defining in the “wider” sense; his native honesty would not permit him 
to set up this claim. His language is: “I did not say that I was fur- 
nishing a narrow definition. I may have had the benefit given ‘me of 
the supposition that I intended to use the wide, even if the critic held 
that it could not be the narrow.” He does not even now say that he 
intended his definition to be of the ‘‘wider’’ specics; nor even now does 
he demand this construction ; but only pleads that since he “did not say 
