latter is applicable, is a doctrine which I deny.  And if the second is the higher of the two, because it is higher than the first; is it not also the highest of the two, because it completes the number? (5.) It is to be observed, too, that as our ordinal numeral first, denoting the one which begins a series, and having reference of course to more, is an adjective of the superlative degree, equivalent to foremost, of which it is perhaps a contraction; so last likewise, though no numeral, is a superlative also. (6.) These, like other superlatives, admit of a looser application, and may possibly include more than one thing at the beginning or at the end of a series:  as, “The last years of man are often helpless, like the first.” (7.) With undoubted propriety, we may speak of the first two, the last two, the first three, the last three, &c.; but to say, the two first, the two last, &c., with this meaning, is obviously and needlessly inaccurate. “The two first men in the nation,” may, I admit, be good English; but it can properly be meant only of the two most eminent. In specifying any part of a series, we ought rather to place the cardinal number after the ordinal. (8.) Many of the foregoing positions apply generally, to almost all adjectives that are susceptible of comparison.  Thus, it is a common saying, “Take the best first, and all will be best.”  That is, remove that degree which is now superlative, and the epithet will descend to an other, “the next best.”

OBS. 8.—­It is a common assumption, maintained by almost all our grammarians, that the degrees which add to the adjective the terminations er and est, as well as those which are expressed by more and most, indicate an increase, or heightening, of the quality expressed by the positive.  If such must needs be their import, it is certainly very improper, to apply them, as many do, to what can be only an approximation to the positive.  Thus Dr. Blair:  “Nothing that belongs to human nature, is more universal than the relish of beauty of one kind or other.”—­Lectures, p. 16.  “In architecture, the Grecian models were long esteemed the most perfect.”—­Ib., p. 20.  Again:  In his reprehension of Capernaum, the Saviour said, “It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom, in the day of judgement, than for thee.”—­Matt., xi, 24.  Now, although [Greek:  anektoteron], more tolerable, is in itself a good comparative, who would dare infer from this text, that in the day of judgement Capernaum shall fare tolerably, and Sodom, still better?  There is much reason to think, that the essential nature of these grammatical degrees has not been well understood by those who have heretofore pretended to explain them.  If we except those few approximations to sensible qualities, which are signified by such words