of opinion that he can: and this may serve as a proof that the
simple ideas are not always, in every instance, derived from the
correspondent impressions; though this instance is so singular, that
it is scarcely worth our observing, and does not merit that for it
alone we should alter our general maxim.

  17. Here, therefore, is a proposition, which not only seems, in
itself, simple and intelligible; but, if a proper use were made of it,
might render every dispute equally intelligible, and banish all that
jargon, which has so long taken possession of metaphysical reasonings,
and drawn disgrace upon them. All ideas, especially abstract ones, are
naturally faint and obscure: the mind has but a slender hold of
them: they are apt to be confounded with other resembling ideas; and
when we have often employed any term, though without a distinct
meaning, we are apt to imagine it has a determinate idea annexed to
it. On the contrary, all impressions, that is, all sensations,
either outward or inward, are strong and vivid: the limits between
them are more exactly determined: nor is it easy to fall into any
error or mistake with regard to them. When we entertain, therefore,
any suspicion that a philosophical term is employed without any
meaning or idea (as is but too frequent), we need but enquire, from
what impression is that supposed idea derived? And if it be impossible
to assign any, this will serve to confirm our suspicion. By bringing
ideas into so clear a light we may reasonably hope to remove all
dispute, which may arise, concerning their nature and reality.*

  * It is probable that no more was meant by those, who denied
innate ideas, than that all ideas were copies of our impressions;
though it must be confessed, that the terms, which they employed, were
not chosen with such caution, nor so exactly defined, as to prevent
all mistakes about their doctrine. For what is meant by innate? If
innate be equivalent to natural, then all the perceptions and ideas of
the mind must be allowed to be innate or natural, in whatever sense we
take the latter word, whether in opposition to what is uncommon,
artificial, or miraculous. If by innate be meant, contemporary to
our birth, the dispute seems to be frivolous; nor is it worth while to
enquire at what time thinking begins, whether before, at, or after our
birth. Again, the word idea, seems to be commonly taken in a very
loose sense, by Locke and others; as standing for any of our
perceptions, our sensations and passions, as well as thoughts. Now
in this sense, I should desire to know, what can be meant by
asserting, that self-love, or resentment of injuries, or the passion
between the sexes is not innate?

  But admitting these terms, impressions and ideas, in the sense above
explained, and understanding by innate, what is original or copied
from no precedent perception, then may we assert that all our
impressions are innate, and our ideas not innate.

  To be ingenuous, I must own it to be my opinion, that Locke was
betrayed into this question by the Schoolmen, who, making use of
undefined terms, draw out their disputes to a tedious length,
without ever touching the point in question. A like ambiguity and
circumlocution seem to run through that Philosopher's reasonings on
this as well as most other subjects.

                Sect. III. Of the Association of Ideas

  18. IT is evident that there is a principle of connexion between the
different thoughts or ideas of the mind, and that, in their appearance
to the memory or imagination, they introduce each other with a certain
degree of method and regularity. In our more serious thinking or
discourse this is so observable that any particular thought, which
breaks in upon the regular tract or chain of ideas, is immediately
remarked and rejected. And even in our wildest and most wandering
reveries, nay in our very dreams, we shall find, if we reflect, that
the imagination ran not altogether at adventures, but that there was
still a connexion upheld among the different ideas, which succeeded
each other. Were the loosest and freest conversation to be
transcribed, there would immediately be observed something which
connected it in all its transitions. Or where this is wanting, the
person who broke the thread of discourse might still inform you,
that there had secretly revolved in his mind a succession of
thought, which had gradually led him from the subject of conversation.
Among different languages, even where we cannot suspect the least
connexion or communication, it is found, that the words, expressive of
ideas, the most compounded, do yet nearly correspond to each other:
a certain proof that the simple ideas, comprehended in the compound
ones, were bound together by some universal principle, which had an
equal influence on all mankind.

  19. Though it be too obvious to escape observation, that different
ideas are connected together; I do not find that any philosopher has
attempted to enumerate or class all the principles of association; a
subject, however, that seems worthy of curiosity. To me, there
appear to be only three principles of connexion among ideas, namely,
Resemblance, Contiguity in time or place, and Cause or Effect.

  That these principles serve to connect ideas will not, I believe, be
much doubted. A picture naturally leads our thoughts to the original:*
the mention of one apartment in a building naturally introduces an
enquiry or discourse concerning the others:*(2) and if we think of a
wound, we can scarcely forbear reflecting on the pain which follows
it.*(3) But that this enumeration is complete, and that there are no
other principles of association except these, may be difficult to
prove to the satisfaction of the reader, or even to a man's own
satisfaction. All we can do, in such cases, is to run over several
instances, and examine carefully the principle which binds the
different thoughts to each other, never stopping till we render the
principle as general as possible.*(4) The more instances we examine,