6 
But has the “Reply” really disproved the “redundancy”? On the 
contrary, it makes a great parade of forces—marching round in a cir- 
cle—and then concludes the review by this surrender: ‘The question is 
not, whether if one: specific mark renders the definition adequate, one 
only ought to be inserted. That is admitted.” On the other hand— 
what the Doctor claims ‘is not the question,” was and is precisely the 
very question. The scope of my remarks, the point of my criticism— 
“redundancy’’—the illustrations I used, all furnish sufficient proof of’ 
this. Even the references to Burgersdyck, Porphyry, and Hamilton 
furnish no disproof of anything asserted by me. 1. Burgersdyck: what 
his actual definition of Logic is, we are not informed in the “Reply,” 
only the “genus,” and then the sources from which the “difference” is 
taken, viz., “end; office; matter or object.” It would have been bet- 
ter had the Doctor given the very words of the definition itself, and not 
the sources “from” which. Again, I must call the Doctor’s attention to 
the fact, that my criticism of his definition was not, because it embraced 
two or more specific marks, but because they rendered his definition 
“redundant”; not because he embraced “‘office,” but because embracing 
“office” in this instance introduced “redundancy.” Turning to Pam- 
phlet, p. 1, he will find my language to be: ‘We may again demand 
that he shall not include in the abstract ‘definition’ of ‘miracle’ not only 
the ‘nature,’ but also the ‘office’ of the miracle ; unless he can first prove 
that there cannot possibly be in nature or in thought any such thing as 
miracle apart from its office; (and in the case of Ais definition) apart 
from the particular ‘office’ which he has assigned to it.” If I should 
propose to define “Cow,” the term “milk” would be “redundant” ; but 
should I propose to define Dairy Cow, the term “milk,” if omitted, would 
be a very essential defect, and render the definition inadequate. Because 
Burgersdyck used “office” in the definition of “Logie,” ergo, the Doctor 
may use “office” in the definition of “miracle” !! 2. Porphyry. I see 
nothing here militating against my position. As explained by Porphyry 
himself, the one term mortale was essential to differentiate between man 
and God; just as much so as the one term rationale was essential to 
differentiate between the brute and man. ‘True, I would not, any more 
than the learned Doctor, ‘defend the material truth of the definition.” 
For, to my mind, under existing circumstances, the term “animal” not 
only includes mortale, but already sufficiently discriminates man as such 
from God; just as the term “rationale” not only includes immortal, but 
already sufficiently discriminates man as such from the brutes. Whilst 
on this point let me say, that I may prevent any possible misunderstand- 
