DR. GIRARDEAU’S ANTI-EVOLUTION: 
THE LOGIC OF HIS REPLY. 
“First pure, then peaceable, ... without partiality.” JAMEs iii. 17. 
Encouraged by the friendly spirit of Dr. Girardeau’s “Reply,” I 
make this second attempt.* Thus may each of us promote, not only 
our mutual edification, but that of the Church at large; and by advanc- 
ing her purity secure her peace, and at the same time give all due encour- 
agement to sound learning, whether derived from the works or from the 
word of God. Let it be borne in mind, that both formerly and now, my 
attack is not against Dr. Girardeau—the logician—but against his logic ; 
not his knowledge of the principles of logic, but his application of these 
principles, he being not infallible. My argument, therefore, if it be in 
any sense a “‘torpedo’”’ (the Dr.’s simile), is intended not ‘for blowing 
up an argument and its author,” but for blowing up the ‘argument,’ 
and thereby saving the ‘“‘author.”’ To this task I address myself all the 
more cheerfully because, as I trust, both he and I desire to seck after, 
to know, and to “walk in the truth.” 
There are many sources of error, such as prejudice, passion, sloth, 
and pride, even where the knowledge of the laws of Logic may be 
perfect. Logic is blind—it is “necessary” thinking—it must, if true 
to itself, go whithersoever its premises lead; it can only conclude from 
the given premises. If, therefore, the ‘“Regulative’ (or any other) 
faculty be at fault, whilst this would seriously cripple (not theoretically 
but practically) the success of the “Hlaborative” faculty, still it would 
not necessarily prove the ignorance or even the false application of the 
rules of Logic. #. g., All men are quadrupeds; Czesar is a man ; there- 
fore Caesar is a quadruped. Here the Logic is perfect; but the man 
who accepts the major premise would thereby prove that his Regulative 
faculty was sadly disjointed. Logic determines, in and of itself, not the 
truth or falsity of the premises, but the validity or invalidity of the con- 
clusion. The insane reason logically : their regulative-faculty is.at fault ; 
not their elaborative. Hence inconsistency is sometimes a proof of 
feigning insanity, and consistency a proof of real insanity. 
The Doctor complains against me, because as his critic I proceeded to 
* For the full text of Dr. Girardeau’s “Reply,” see the Appendix. 
