Universal Terms. ~ QT 
jects severally pass—man, dog, horse ; while his brother of four will 
repeat the proper names—there is Mr. Smith, see Jowler, look at 
father’s horse ; and their progress as they go through life, will be to: 
acquire more and more the discernment to distinguish the individuals 
of these natural classes ; but nothing is ever added by reflection to 
connect more closely in. one class these objects, which, before the. 
dawn of reason, they felt and knew to be things of the same sort. In 
fact, do we not all feel, even in our maturity, that we know many ob-. 
jects as classes before we know them individually? Look at a flock 
of sheep; you do not know their particular marks, yet the farmer 
who owns them knows every one; from the grave patriarch of the 
flock, to the least lamb which bounds from the hillock. 
“In this question then, whether terms expressing individuals or gen- 
erals were first invented, we think the probability clearly is, that in 
instances of such natural classes, as from their size and position the 
savage had seen together, and instantly recognized as of the same 
sort, he would first invent a name representing the class, and particu- 
lar appellations afterwards; but, in cases of such cee as are sey’ 
Jarge, and not to be seen together, he aNgeoes follow out 
described by Mr. Smith. 
Finally, then, recurring to the point from swine we “tbo: our 
departure, the doctrine which we have mainly sought to establish is, 
that ideas or images are commonly the subject of our thoughts, when, 
in the case of natural classes, we employ general terms, in that o 
artificial classes, rather words, claiming our attention something in 
the manner of algebraic characters, or arithmetical figures. 
- Names of artificial classes do however sometimes call up ideas or 
images ; but when this is the case it is from a different principle of 
our nature than that of a felt resemblance among the objects; ordinari- 
Ty, from the associating principle of contiguity in time and place. The 
botstat tells us that in one respect the currant and the pumpkin are 
to be classed together. ‘The word by which he designates them 
may bring them both to my mental view, but it is only as the name of 
a friend’s parlor recals the chairs, the pictures and the sofa. Take 
this sentence—* the stars of the sky and the flowers of the field are 
alike the subjects of God’s creating power.” Here the term subjects, 
evidently expressing an artificial Elsserication, comprehends two nat- 
ural classes, stars and flowers. ‘The word subjects seen in another 
situation, might then suggest them, from my having seen it in this’ 
connexion ; but the mind does not therefore recognise stars and 
