11.  I proceed to examine what can be alleged in defence of the doctrine of abstraction, and try if I can discover what it is that inclines the men of speculation to embrace an opinion so remote from common sense as that seems to be.  There has been a late deservedly esteemed philosopher who, no doubt, has given it very much countenance, by seeming to think the having abstract general ideas is what puts the widest difference in point of understanding betwixt man and beast.  “The having of general ideas,” saith he, “is that which puts a perfect distinction betwixt man and brutes, and is an excellency which the faculties of brutes do by no means attain unto.  For, it is evident we observe no foot-steps in them of making use of general signs for universal ideas; from which we have reason to imagine that they have not the faculty of abstracting, or making general ideas, since they have no use of words or any other general signs.”  And a little after:  “Therefore, I think, we may suppose that it is in this that the species of brutes are discriminated from men, and it is that proper difference wherein they are wholly separated, and which at last widens to so wide a distance.  For, if they have any ideas at all, and are not bare machines (as some would have them), we cannot deny them to have some reason.  It seems as evident to me that they do, some of them, in certain instances reason as that they have sense; but it is only in particular ideas, just as they receive them from their senses.  They are the best of them tied up within those narrow bounds, and have not (as I think) the faculty to enlarge them by any kind of abstraction.”  Essay on Human Understanding, II. xi. 10 and 11.  I readily agree with this learned author, that the faculties of brutes can by no means attain to abstraction.  But then if this be made the distinguishing property of that sort of animals, I fear a great many of those that pass for men must be reckoned into their number.  The reason that is here assigned why we have no grounds to think brutes have abstract general ideas is, that we observe in them no use of words or any other general signs; which is built on this supposition—­that the making use of words implies the having general ideas.  From which it follows that men who use language are able to abstract or generalize their ideas.  That this is the sense and arguing of the author will further appear by his answering the question he in another place puts:  “Since all things that exist are only particulars, how come we by general terms?” His answer is:  “Words become general by being made the signs of general ideas.”—­Essay on Human Understanding, iv. iii. 6.  But [Note. 1] it seems that a word becomes general by being made the sign, not of an abstract general idea, but of several particular ideas [Note. 2], any one of which it indifferently suggests to the mind.  For example, when it is