DEFINITION. 105 



equally good and useful religions (making the term general], the third hold 

 ing the existence of only one true religion (making the term singular], 



Similar doubts and differences exist, in regard to denotation and its 

 proper sphere, in the case of &quot; Christian Religion &quot; and &quot; Christian Church &quot; ; 

 some, who admit that Christ founded a Religion, denying that He instituted a 

 Church ; and those who admit that He founded one or both differing among 

 themselves as to what or where it is, or by what marks it is to be identified 

 differing, therefore, as to identification of the object or objects denoted by 

 these terms. Such differences as to denotation arise of course from different 

 convictions as to the essential characteristics of the Church or Religion estab 

 lished by Christ (and hence, as to the connotation of the terms). 



About the denotation of &quot;The Catholic Church&quot; there is usually no 

 ambiguity. Notwithstanding the fact that Anglicans call themselves &quot;Catho 

 lics &quot; and members of &quot; a branch of the Catholic Church,&quot; the term &quot; Catholic 

 Church &quot; is commonly understood to denote the Church whose visible head 

 is the Pope and whose centre of authority is at Rome, and the term 

 &quot; Catholic &quot; to denote a member of this latter society. The divergence of 

 view commences with all attempts to enumerate the essential characteristics 

 of this particular religious society, to determine whether it actually possesses 

 the features understood to be essential to constitute it &quot;The True Church 

 of Christ,&quot; both by those who defend and by those who impugn the claims 

 of the Catholic Church to this latter title. 



From these examples it will be seen that agreement as to the application 

 of a term does not exclude, but often only clears the way for, disputes about 

 the nature of the object referred to (and hence about the intensive defini 

 tion of the term) ; while agreement as to the implication or intensive de 

 finition of a name leaves open to dispute the question whether or in what 

 sphere there exists an object that will verify the definition (i.e. what is the 

 denotation of the term, or where we are to look for it). 



The second doubt suggested above as to what, de facto, is the test 

 applied by those logicians who recognize the distinction between nominal and 

 real definition will perhaps be best cleared up by enumerating those classes 

 of definition which are usually accepted as nominal. We shall see at the 

 same time whether or to what extent they will fall into the classes suggested 

 under (a] and (b] above (52). 



55. SOME NOMINAL DEFINITIONS. Among nominal defini 

 tions are enumerated, firstly, those which explain the meaning 

 of a word according to its etymology, e.g. ( l Sycophant,&quot; a skewer 

 of figs (CTVKOV, faiva) ) ; &quot; Angel,&quot; a messenger (ofyyeXo?) ; &quot; Pagan,&quot; 

 a villager. This meaning may or may not be the commonly 

 accepted meaning ; and the definition may seek to connect both 

 meanings by considerations of a philological character. 



Secondly, translating for another a word from a language 

 unknown to him, to the language he knows ; or, explaining to 

 him the meaning of a word he does not understand, by means ox 

 a simpler synonym which he does understand : these processes 



