9 
tion for logic of the Westminster divines. Is it not manifest, that the 
framers of the Catechism did not intend to give a logical ‘‘definition, by 
proximate genus and specific difference,” of the term “justification,” but 
a scriptural explanation of the justification of a senner under the cove- 
nant of grace? Is it not equally manifest, that under the one single 
question—“ What is justification ?”—the Assembly answers several dis- 
tinct but consecutive questions, e. g., (1) What isit? An act. (2) 
Whose act? God’s. (3) What class of God’s acts? Free grace. (4) 
What does God do in this act? Pardons. (5) Pardons what? Sins. 
(6) How many sins? All. (7) Whose sins? Ours. (8) What else 
does he do in this act? Accepts. (9) Whom? Us. (10) As what? 
Righteous. (11) In whose sight? His sight. (12) Upon what 
ground? Righteousness of Christ. (13) Upon what principle? Im- 
putation. (14) What instrument? Faith alone. (15)What class of 
creatures are thus justified? The “ungodly.” (16) With or without 
works of their own? ‘Without works.” (17) Under what covenant ? 
Covenant of Grace. Surely not thus do Logicians define by genus 
and species. The lover of the Catechism therefore will look with 
apprehension to Columbia, not to Memphis, when grieving ‘over 
the wreck of the Shorter Catechism.’’ 
There necd be no difficulty in determining the scope of the term defi- 
nition. /inis—end, terminus—a boundary line. Definition marks out 
the end of a term, points out its boundary lines, up to which it does go, 
beyond which it must not go. Definition discriminates severely and 
exactly between this term and all other terms—it individualizes an idea; 
puts the term in such clothing that no other term can wear it; or in 
such shape that it will fit into no other encasement. Whatever, then, of 
course, is necessary to accomplish this severe and cast-iron limitation— 
whether it be one word, or a thousand words—is legitimate. But there 
is nothing in all this that contradicts what I quoted from Hamilton : 
“Definition in the stricter sense must afford at least two, and properly 
only two original characters, viz.: that of the genus (proximum) and 
that of the difference by which it is itself marked out from its co-ordi- 
nates as a distinct species.” The “invariable rule’ which I mentioned 
was: “The less you put in your definition, the wider its application ; 
the more you put in your definition, the narrower its application.” 
(Pamphlet, p. 1.) This the “Reply” does not and cannot dispute. The 
careful reader will note, in this connection, that the ‘‘Reply” has fur- 
nished no defence against the charge: that the Doctor “has given in his 
premise the definition of some miracle, and drawn his conclusion as if 
