PR0P0SITI0N3. 57 



applicable to propositions ; of this foma — " an inference from so anJ 

 so." A fresh instance is hero aflordod of the remark, tliat all particles 

 are abbre\'iations ; since "Z/" A is J3, C is D," is found to be an abbre- 

 \-iation of the following : " Tlie proposition C is D, is a legitimate 

 inference from the proposition A is B." 



The distinction, therefore, between hypothetical and categorical 

 propositions is not so great as it at first appears. In the conditional, 

 as well as in the categorical form, one predicate is affirmed of one sub- 

 ject, and no more : but a conditional propositicm is a proposition con- 

 cerning a proposition ; the subject of the assertion is itself an assertion. 

 Nor is this a property peculiar to hypothetical propositions. There 

 are other classes of assertions concerning propositions. Like other 

 things, a proposition has attributes which may be predicated of it. 

 The attribute predicated of it in an hypothetical propasition, is that 

 of being an inference from a certain other proposition. But this is 

 only one of many attributes that might be predicated. We may say, 

 That the wliole is gi-eater than its part, is an axiom in mathematics : 

 That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone, is a tenet of 

 the Greek Church : The doctrine of the divine right of kings was re- 

 nounced by Parliament at the Revolution : The infallibility of the Pope 

 has no countenance from Scripture. In all these cases the subject of 

 the predication is an entire proposition. That which these difterent 

 predicates are affiiTned of, is the proposition, " the whole is greater 

 than its part;" the proposition, "the Holy Ghost proceeds fi'om the 

 Father alone:" the proposition, " kings have a divine right;" tJie prop- 

 osition, " the Pope is infallible." 



Seeing, then, that there is much less difference between hypotheti- 

 cal propositions and any others, than one might be led to imagine 

 fi-om their form, we should be at a loss to account for the conspicuous 

 position which they have been selected to fill in treatises on Logic, if 

 we did not remember that what they predicate of a proposition, namely, 

 its being an inference fi'om something else, is precisely that one of its 

 attributes with which most of all a logician is concerned. 



§ 4. The next of the common divisions of Pi-opositions is into Uni- 

 versal, Particular, Indefinite, and Singular : a distinction founded 

 upon the degree of generality in which the name, which is the subject 

 of the proposition, is to be understood. The following are examples: 



All men are mortal — Universal. 



So)ne men are moital — Particular. 



Man is mortal — Indefinite. 



Julius Ccesar is mortal — Singular. 



The proposition is Singular, when the subject is an individual name. 

 The individual name needs not be a proper name. " The Founder of 

 Christianity was crucifieH," is as much a singular proposition as 

 " Christ was crucified." 



AVTien the name, which is the subject of the proposition, is a general 

 name, we may intend to affiiTn or deny the predicate, either of all the 

 things that the subject denotes, or only of some. When the predicate 

 is affirmed or denied of all and each of the things denoted by the sub- 

 ject, the proposition is universal; when of some non-assignable portion 

 of them only, it is particular. Thus, All men are mortal; l^^vcry man 

 is mortal ; are universal propositions. No man is immortal, is also an 

 H 



