sition of all the different parts of the universe, considered separately, because they may be compared with other parts; although we are unable to form any idea of the place or position of the universe considered as a whole, because we have then no other body with which we can compare it. If it were possible for us to know all worlds and things at once, to comprehend the universe with a glance, we could not assert, with all our knowledge of it, that it is here, or there, or yonder, or tell where it would be.

But if place express a relative notion, then it follows that all words which involve or imply the place or position of an object are of a similar character. Such are the words high and low, superior and inferior, (when used in respect to the position of objects,) near and distant, above and beneath, further, nearer, hither, yonder, here, there, where, beyond, within, around, without, and the like.

§ 134. (V.) Of relations of time.

Another source of relative perceptions or judgments is TIME. Time holds nearly the same relation to duration as position does to space. The position or place of objects is but space marked out and limited; time, in like manner, is duration set off into distinct periods; and as our notions of the place of bodies are relative, so also are our conceptions of events considered as happening in time. It is true, that the notions of duration and space are in themselves original and absolute; they are made known to us by Original rather than by Relative Suggestion; but when they are in any way limited, and events are thereby contemplated in reference to them under the new forms of place and time, certain new conceptions arise which are relative.

All time is contemplated under the aspect of past, present, or future. We are able, chiefly in consequence of the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, to form a distinct notion of portions of time, a day, a month, a year, &c. ; we can contemplate events, not only as existing at present, but as future or past. But always when we think or speak of events in time, (in other words, when we speak

of the date of events,) there is a comparison and a perception of relation.

What, therefore, is the import of our language when we say, the independence of the North American colonies was declared July fourth, 1776.-The meaning of these expressions may be thus illustrated. We assume the present year, 1838, as a given period, and reckon back to the year one, which coincides with the birth of our Saviour; then the year 1776 expresses the distance between these two extremes, viz., one, and eighteen hundred thirty-eight. This seems to be all we learn when we say, the Independence of the United States was declared at the period above mentioned.-Again, we obviously mean the same thing, and convey the same idea, whether we say that the Saviour was born in the year ONE of the Christian era, or in the year 4004 from the creation of the world. But, in the last case, the year 4004 expresses the distance between these two extremes, viz., the beginning of the world and the present time; while, in the first instance, the event itself forms the beginning of the series.-So that all dates appear to be properly classed under the head of ideas of relation; and also all names whatever, which are in any way expressive of the time of events, as a second, a minute, day, week, hour, month, year, cycle, yesterday, to-morrow, to-day, &c.

135. (VI.) Of ideas of possession.

Another class of relations may be called relations of POSSESSION. Every one knows, that not unfrequently, in his examination of objects, there arises a new feeling, which is distinct from, and independent of, the mere conceptions of the objects themselves; and which, as it differs from other feelings of relation, may be termed the relation of possession or belonging to. This is one of the earliest feelings which human beings exercise. When we see the small child grasping its top and rattle with joy, and disputing the claims of another to a share in them, we may know that he has formed the notion of possession. It is not only formed in early life, but experience fully shows that it loses neither activity nor strength by the lapse of years.

The application of the Judgment, or that power by which we perceive the relations of things, is frequent in this particular form; and we find here a fruitful source of words. The whole class of possessive pronouns, which are to be found in all languages, have their origin here; such as MINE, THINE, YOUR, HIS, HER, &c. The relation of possession is imbodied also in the genitive case of the Greeks, Latins, Germans, and whatever other languages express relations in the same way; in the construct state of nouns in the Hebrew and the other cognate dialects; and in the preposition of, which is the substitute for the genitive termination in English, and the articles DE, DU, DE'L, and DE LA in French.

The verbs TO BE in English, ESSE in Latin, ETRE in French, (and the same may undoubtedly be said of the corresponding verb of existence in all languages,) are often employed to express the relation of possession or belonging to. To say that the rose is red or the orange yellow, is as much as to say that the qualities of yellowness and redness are the possession of, or belong to, the rose and orange. But it will be observed, that the relation is not indicated by the name of the subject, nor by the epithet expressive of its quality, but by the verb which connects the subject and predicate. And similar remarks will apply to some other verbs.

This class of relations is involved in many complex terms, which imply definite qualities and affections of mind, as friend, enemy, lover, hater, adorer, worshipper. These terms not only indicate certain individuals, to whom they are applied, but assert the existence of certain mental affections as their characteristics, and as belonging to them.

We will

§ 136. (VII.) Of relations of cause and effect. There are relations also of Cause and Effect. not delay here to explain the origin of the notions of cause and effect, any further than to say that the notion of cause, as it first exists in the mind, includes nothing more than invariable antecedence. When the antecedence to the event, or the sequence of whatever kind, is our own volition (and probably in two other cases,

see § 118,) we have the new idea of power. The idea of invariable antecedence, therefore, which of course supposes some sequence, when it is combined with that of Power, constitutes the full notion of CAUSE. When the sequence is found invariably to follow, and its existence cannot be ascribed to anything else, it is called the EFFECT. Accordingly, men usually give the name of events, of occurrences, or facts, to those things which from time to time fall under their notice, when they are considered in themselves. They are the mere facts, the mere events, and nothing more. But when, in the course of their further experience, such events are found to have certain invariable forerunners, they cease to apply these terms, and call them, in reference to their antecedents, EFFECTS. And, in like manner, the antecedents are called CAUSES, not in themselves considered, but in reference to what inva riably comes after.

Cause and effect, therefore, have certainly a relation to each other; it is thus that they exist in the view of the mind and in the nature of things, however true it may be that men are unable to trace any physical connexion between them. We cannot conceive of a cause, if we exclude from the list of our ideas the correlative notion of effect, nor, on the other hand, do we call anything an effect without a reference to some antecedent. These two notions, therefore, involve or imply the existence of each other; that is, are relative.

137. Of complex terms involving the relation of cause and effect.

The suggestion of the relation of Cause and Effect exists on occasions almost innumerable; and in all languages gives a character to a multitude of words. This relation is imbodied, for instance, in a multitude of names which are expressive of complex objects, such as printer, farmer, sculptor, warrior, writer, poet, manufacturer, painter.

This may be thus illustrated. When we look at any interesting piece of statuary, the sight of it naturally suggests its author. But when our mind is thus directed from the statue to the sculptor, it is evident we do not think of him as we do of a thousand others, but we com

bine with the conception of the individual a reference to what he has done. We unite with the mere complex notion of man that of a cause, and this combination evidently alters its character, making it relative instead of absolute. In like manner, when we look at a fine portrait or historical painting, we are naturally reminded of the artist, whose ingenuity has been displayed in its proportions and colouring. But the word painter, which we apply to him, expresses not merely the man, but comprises the additional notion of the relation of cause, which he holds to the interesting picture before us.

§ 138. Connexion of relative suggestion with reasoning.

It may be profitable to notice here the connexion which relative suggestion has with reasoning in general. The suggestions of relation (or elementary judgments, as they may perhaps properly be called) are, in some respects, to a train of reasoning, what parts are to the whole. But they evidently do not of themselves include all the parts in a train of reasoning, and are distinguished by this peculiarity, that their office in a great measure is to connect together other subordinate parts in the train. In the combination of numbers, and in the various applications of demonstrative reasoning, the relations of PROPORTION and the relations of IDENTITY and DIVERSITY, (otherwise called of AGREEMENT and DISAGREEMENT,) find a conspicuous place. Moral reasoning embraces all kinds of relations, those of degree, time, place, possession, and cause and effect, as well as of agreement and disagreement, and of proportion. Relative feelings, sometimes of one kind and sometimes of another, continually unfold themselves as the mind advances in argument. So that, although there are elements in reasoning besides perceptions of relation, it is evident that it cannot advance independently of their aid. Facts may be accumulated, having close and decisive relations to the points to be proved, but those facts can never be so bound together as to result in any decisive conclusion, without a perception and knowledge of the relations.