8 
he must retract the charge of redundancy against the Professor, or else 
he must consent to fasten the same charge upon the Shorter Catechism, 
i.¢., against the Westminster Assembly; they and the Doctor must 
sink or swim together. But this identification I cannot perceive. ‘The 
Shorter Catechism frequently furnishes more than one specific mark ; 
therefore the Doctor’s definition of miracle is not redundant; and his 
anti-evolution argument is logically consequential.’ Iam not ashamed 
to confess, that in my judgment this is another specimen of the Doctor’s 
incoherent argumentation. Is there no other escape from this dilemma 
than that indicated by him? I think we have no dilemma at all con- 
fronting us. There is nothing before us but a broad open path. The 
“Reply” has placed the Catechism in an awkward dilemma; and I 
shall rescue this standard from the charge “illogical,” by proving that 
its answers are not to be considered in the light of logical definitions. 
Take, e. g., the answer to the question, What is justification? Take 
the analysis of this answer furnished in the “Reply”: Proximate genus: 
“act of God's free grace.” Since, however, adoption belongs to the 
same genus, how is justification to be distinguished therefrom? What 
are the specific differences? (1) Pardon; (2) acceptance of the person 
as righteous; (3) imputation of Christ’s righteousness; (4) reception 
of Christ’s righteousness by faith alone.” Such is his analysis; and he 
insists that it is an instance of “the definition of justification” by genus 
and species. If so, let us test it. The whole of the genus must be 
found in each of the species. What is the genus? ‘Act of God’s 
free grace.” What is the fourth specific mark? “Reception of 
Christ’s righteousness by faith alone.” “Faith,” then, according to this 
analysis must be an “act of God's free grace”; whereas in reality, and 
according to the Catechism’s own explanation of “faith,” it is not an 
“act of God” at all, but solely an act—gracious act—of the believer. 
The Catechism, therefore, no less than the Bible, needs to be rescued 
from the Professor's logic. But is this answer in any sense a logical 
definition of the term “justification” ? If so, how would it apply to the 
justification of Adam, if he had stood during the term of his probation? 
How would it apply to the justification of an innocent man falsely 
charged (say) with murder? How would it apply to the justification of 
the angels who fell not? How would it apply to the justification of 
the Second Adam upon his performing the conditions of the covenant 
of Redemption? It is perfectly manifest, therefore, that the “proximate 
genus of justification” is not an “act of God’s free grace.” Surely the 
Professor's language must needs be revised in order to save the reputa- 
