Universal Terms. 27 



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 objects as are very 

 large, and not to be seen together, he would follow out the process 

 described by Mr. Smith. 



Finally, then, recurring to the point from which we took 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 of 

 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- 

 ly, from the associating principle of contiguity in time and place. The 

 botanist 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 classification, 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 



