if 
_ Universal Terms. 21 
doctrine of the Nominalists, that we can neither speculate nor reason 
concerning universals without words, is erroneous. 
Artificial classifications are composed of objects which, not resem- 
bling each other in appearance, are yet ranked together from some 
principle of resemblance, or'some resembling relation. Such words 
as subjects, things, articles, agents, and generally the technical terms 
of the sciences, express artificial classifications. In the use of these 
words, we believe, with the Nominalists, that no image in the mind 
corresponds to them, that when we reason or speculate by their aid 
our attention is occupied with the words themselves, much in the 
manner in which it is given to the signs and letters of an algebraical 
process; and with regard to these, we also consider the theory of the 
Nominalists concerning the formation of universals true; and that the 
third step of the process introduced by Dr. Brown is here incorrect. 
To invent, arrange and define, in this department, constitutes no 
inconsiderable portion of the labors of science and philosophy. That 
man is endowed with a capacity to go on forming classifications more 
and more general, in one of the most wonderful and useful parts of 
his nature, contributing perhaps more than any other faculty; as Mr. 
Stewart has s ably shown, = wee continual advancement of t fo ee 
Bo re | Pe eb os era See 
es ieppelels ; the system of Jussieu expressing the naturel, that of of 
Linneus the artificial. How could Linnzus have made his classifi- 
cation, unless he had invented terms? Or who can say, that in refer- 
ence to calling up ideas, it is the same thing whether we use the words 
Monandria, Diandria, &c. or mention roses, grape-vines and oaks. 
We now bring forward what we consider incontestible proof that 
we have, with regard to natural classes, general conceptions. - Con- 
ception is, by definition, a transcript of perception, and we think it 
can be shown that we have general perceptions. A‘hawthorn bush 
is before me. Who will say that every oné’ of its white’ blossoms 
and green leaves is to me an individual subject of consideration? and 
that the reason of their being ranked under the'samé head is because 
that in the infancy of language some person, happening to become ac~ 
quainted with one hawthorn blossom’or leaf gave it this name, and 
afterwards finding others which agreed in appearance with it he call- 
ed them by the same name? 
On the contrary, nature preneets these objects before us, not sin- 
gle, but in groups, and we see’ them generally, as many objects of 
the same kind, and’as such ‘erst conceive of them. ‘The'same 
thing occurs in numberless classes of objects, especially in things con 
