his Review of the Philosophy of Locke, to which I would specially refer the student. But to what conclusion are we led by this brief examination of the theory of Locke? We have seen that, on the supposition that all our ideas are derived from perception and consciousness, a large portion of the most important ideas of which the human soul is conscious must be abandoned as the groundless fictions of the imagination, having no foundation in the true processes of the understanding. On the other hand, we know from our own consciousness that these ideas are universally developed in the human intellect as soon as it begins to exercise independent thought. We must, therefore, conclude, that the theory of Locke is imperfect, and that it does not recognize some of our most important sources of original knowledge. It is, then, our business to inquire for some other sources besides those recognized by Locke. REFERENCES. Sources of our knowledge-Locke, Book 2, chap. 1, sec. 3, sec. 4, sec. 5; Book 2, chap. 12, sec. 8, chap. 22, sec. 1, 2, 9. Suggestion a power of the mind - Reid, Inquiry, chap. 2, sec. 7; Int. Powers, Essay 3, chap. 5; Essay 2, chap. 10, 12. Examination of Locke's Theory-Stewart, vol. i., chap. 1. Before all others. 1, 2, 3, 4. Cousin's Examination of Locke's Philosophy, chap. SECTION II. THE NATURE OF ORIGINAL SUGGESTION, OR LOCKE has truly stated that all the substances to which in our present state we are related are matter and mind. By perception we obtain a knowledge of the qualities of the one, and by consciousness a knowledge of the operations of the other. Each is distinct and complete within itself, and each terminates definitely at its own appropriate limit. The thought, however, thus awakened, does not thus terminate. The mind of man is endowed not only with a receptive, but also with what may be called a suggestive power. When the ideas of perception and consciousness terminate, or even while they are present, a new series of mental phenomena arises by virtue of the original power of the intellect itself. These phenomena present themselves in the form of intuitive cognitions, occasioned by the ideas of consciousness and perception, but neither produced by them nor in any respect similar to them. They may be considered acts of pure intellection. To the ideas of perception or consciousness there by necessity belongs an object either objective or subjective. To those ideas of the intellect I think no such object belongs. Hence they could not be cognized originally either by perception or consciousThey could not exist within us except we were endowed with a different and superior intellectual energy. We can give but little account of these intellections, nor can we offer any proof of their verity. As soon as they arise within us, they are to us the unanswerable evidence of their own truth. As soon as we are conscious of them, we know that they are true, and we never offer any evidence in support of them. So far as our powers of perception and consciousness are concerned, the mind resembles in many respects a sheet of white paper. Here, however, the analogy terminates. There is nothing in the paper which in any respect resembles this power of intuitive knowledge of which we here speak. ness. What we here refer to may, perhaps, be best illustrated by a familiar example. A child, before it can talk, throws a ball and knocks down a nine-pin. By perception aided by memory, it derives no other ideas besides those of a rolling ball and of a falling ninepin. This is all that the senses could give it. It might be all that would be apparent to the mind of a brute. But is this the case with the child? Far otherwise. There arises in his mind, by virtue of its own energy, the notion of cause and effect; of something in the ball capable of producing this change, and of something in the ninepin which renders it susceptible of this change. He instinctively cognizes a most important relation existing between these two events. Still more, he has an intuitive belief that the same event can be produced again in the same way. Relying on this belief, he sets up the ninepin again, and throws the ball in the confident expectation that it will produce the same result as at first. There has thus been created in his mind, not only the relation of cause and effect, but the important conviction that like causes will produce like effects. In consequence of the relations which have thus been revealed to him, he sets a value upon his toys which he did not before. The same idea is developed as soon as the infant puts his finger in the candle. He will not try the experiment a second time. He immediately obtains a knowledge of the relation of cause and effect, and that the same cause will again produce the same effect. He does not see this relation; it is not an object of perception, nor is it an operation of the mind. He does not feel it when he is burned. As soon, however, as he cognizes the relative ideas, the relation in which they stand to each other presents itself to him as an intuitive cognition. I have here used an illustration from external objects. I, however, by no means assert that in this manner we first arrive at the knowledge of cause and effect. The same idea is evidently suggested by every act of voluntary motion. A child wishes to move his hand; it moves, but perhaps not in the right direction. He tries again with better success. At last he accomplishes his object. Here is, perhaps, the most striking instance of this relation which he ever witnesses, and it is brought home directly to his own consciousness. He is conscious of the act of volition, he knows that he wills; this mental act is followed by a change of position in his hand, and by motion in something with which his hand comes into contact. This succession of events, the former of which is within the cognition of his own consciousness, and the latter of his perception, would be sufficient to give occasion to this intuitive knowledge at a very early period. It may be proper to observe, that although this power of original suggestion is developed and perfected with advancing years, yet it commences with the first unfolding of the intellect. Both the perceptive and the suggestive powers belong to the essential nature of a human mind. Were a child destitute of the power of intuitive cognition, even at a very early age, we should know that it was an idiot. If, for instance, it manifested no notion of cause and effect," but would as soon put its fingers into a candle the second time as the first, we should be convinced that it was not possessed of a normal understanding. Nay, we form an opinion of the mental capacity of a child rather by the activity of its suggestive than of its perceptive powers. may be blind or deaf, or may suffer both of these afflictions together; that is, its perceptive powers may be at the minimum, and yet we may discover that its intellect is alert and vigorous, and that it discovers large powers of acquisition and combination. Such a case occurs in the instance of Laura Bridgman, a blind mute, whose suggestive powers are unusually active, and who has, with admirable skill, been taught to read and write, so that she is at present able to keep a journal, and correspond with her friends by letter. With respect to these ideas of suggestion, or intuition, two It 1 important remarks are made by Cousin. I give his ideas here, rather than his words. 1. "Unless we previously obtained the idea of perception and consciousness, we could never originate the suggested or intuitive cognitions. If, for instance, we had never observed the fact of a succession, we could never have obtained the idea of duration. If we had never perceived an external object, we should never have obtained the idea of space. If we had never witnessed an instance of change, we should have had no idea of cause and effect. As soon, however, as these ideas of perception and consciousness are awakened, they are immediately either attended or followed by the ideas of suggestion. We perceive, then, that, chronologically considered, the ideas of perception and consciousness take precedence. They appear first in the mind, and, until they appear, the others could have no existence. It was this fact which probably gave rise to the error of Locke. Because no other ideas could be originated except through means of the ideas of perception and consciousness, He inferred that our knowledge could consist of nothing but these ideas, either in their original form, or else united or added to each other. The fact, on the contrary, seems to be, that our suggested ideas are no combination or modification of our receptive ideas; they form the occasions from which the mind originates them by virtue of its own energy. We are so made, that, when one class of ideas is cognized, the other spontaneously arises within us, in consequence of the constitution of the human intellect. 2. "But, secondly, when we have thus obtained these ideas of suggestion, we find that their existence is a necessary condition of the existence of the very ideas by which they are occasioned. Thus, as I have said, the notion of an external world is the occasion in us of the idea of space; but, when we have obtained the idea of space, we see that |