7 
ing, that it is noticeable, confining the attention to man and brute, tha 
the highest analysis of man furnished by human philosophy is—rational 
animal. The term rational does not express all the difference between 
man and the lower animals, but it sufficiently discriminates, and there, 
therefore, the definition stops. If, however, as some claim, there is proof 
that the brute has not only intellect, but the faculty, however feeble, of 
reasoning, then, as soon as this shall be admitted, the term rational will 
no longer differentiate, and as common to brute and man will disappear 
(as a specific mark) from the definition of man. Some higher quality, 
say moral, found in man and not found in brutes, will take the place of 
rational. Should the moral sense—distinction between right and wrong— 
be subsequently discovered to exist (however feebly) in the brute, then, 
of course, that term would disappear from the definition of man. Some 
higher quality (say spiritual), found in man and not found in the brute, 
will take the place of moral. Even now we (some of us) discriminate 
between men and men by affirming ‘‘carnal”’ as indicating the death of 
the spiritual nature in man; and “spiritual” as indicating the regener- 
ated man in whom the spiritual nature has been restored to life again by 
the Holy Ghost. So that it is not whether one or a dozen specific marks 
may be inserted if necessary, but whether in the case of the definition 
by the Doctor such elements were inserted as rendered it “redundant.”’ 
3. Hamilton. The above remarks leave little to be said under this 
head. Of course, if we choose to conceive of men existing elsewhere 
than on this earth, then to distinguish these from those we shall have to 
append “terrestrial—or, of this earth.” But just how this quotation 
from Hamilton proves Hamilton to have violated his own rule; or how 
it relieves the Doctor's definition from ‘“redundancy,’’ or his argument 
from “incoherency,” would overtax the logical acumen of Ayistotle him- 
self. So likewise with the other quotations—from Bowen and from 
Jevons ; the ‘Reply’ has rendered the critique upon his Review arti- 
cle good service. All the authorities quoted in the “Reply” are either 
irrelevant or else they confirm the criticism. 
I shall make no defence if any one shall charge me with superfluity for 
proceeding, in the next place, to notice what the Professor of Theology 
has said regarding the answers to the Shorter Catechism. To offend as 
little as littie as possible, I shall call attention to but one of the Profes- 
sors specimens. He claims, e. g., that the answers in the Shorter Cate- 
chism are specimens of logical definition by genus and species; but 
many of those answers give more than one specific mark; what then? 
Why then the Doctor's critic is reduced to this dreadful dilemma: either 
