at least of being more perfect and distinct in our minds, than those of substances; because it is commonly hard to know all the simple ideas which are really in any substance, but for the most part easy enough to know the simple ideas that make up any relation I think on, or have a name for; v. g. comparing two men, in reference to one common parent, it is very easy to frame the idea of brothers without having yet the perfect idea of a man. For significant relative words, as well as others, standing only for ideas; and those being all either simple, or made up of simple, ones, it suffices, for the knowing the precise idea the relative term stands for, to have a clear conception of that which is the foundation of the relation; which may be done without having a perfect and clear idea of the thing it is attributed to. Thus having the notion that one laid the egg out of which the other was hatched, I have a clear idea of the relation of dam and chick, between the two cassiowaries in St. James's Park; though, perhaps, I have but a very obscure and imperfect idea of those birds themselves.

§ 9. Relations all terminate in simple ideas.-Thirdly, Though there be a great number of considerations wherein things may be compared one with another, and so a multitude of relations; yet they all terminate in, and are concerned about, those simple ideas, either of sensation or reflection, which I think to be the whole materials of all our knowledge. To clear this, I shall shew it in the most considerable relations that we have any notion of; and in some that seem to be the most remote from sense or reflection; which yet will appear to have their ideas from thence, and leave it past doubt, that the notions we have of them are but certain simple ideas, and so originally derived from sense or reflection.

§ 10. Terms leading the mind beyond the subject denominated, are relative.-Fourthly, That relation being the considering of one thing with another, which is extrinsical to it, it is evident, that all words that necessarily lead the mind to any other ideas than are supposed really to exist in that thing to which the word is applied, are relative words; v. g. a man black, merry, thoughtful, thirsty, angry, extended; these, and the like, are all absolute, because they neither signify nor intimate any thing, but what does, or is supposed really to, exist, in the man thus denominated; but father, brother, king, husband, blacker, merrier, &c. are words, which, together with the thing they denominate, imply also something else separate, and exterior to the existence of that thing.

§ 11. Conclusion.-Having laid down these premises concerning relation in general, I shall now proceed to shew, in some instances, how all the ideas we have of relation are made up, as the others are, only of simple ideas; and that they all, how refined or remote from sense soever they seem, terminate at last in simple ideas. I shall begin with the most comprehensive relation, wherein all things that do or can exist, are concerned, and that is, the relation of cause and effect. The idea whereof, how derived from the two fountains of all our knowledge, sensation and reflection, I shall in the next place consider.

CHAP. XXVI.

OF CAUSE AND EFFECT, AND OTHER RELATIONS.

§ 1. Whence their ideas got.-In the notice that our senses take of the constant vicissitude of things, we cannot but observe, that several particular, both qualities and substances, begin to exist; and that they receive this their existence from the due application and operation of some other being. From this observation we get our ideas of cause and effect. That which produces any simple or complex idea, we denote by the general name cause; and that which is produced, effect. Thus finding, that in that substance which we call wax, fluidity, which is a simple idea, that was not in it before, is constantly produced by the application of a certain degree of heat, we call the simple idea of heat, in relation to fluidity in wax, the cause of it; and fluidity, the effect. So also finding that the substance of wood, which is a certain collection of simple ideas so called, by the application of fire, is turned into another substance, called ashes, i. e. another complex idea, consisting of a collection of simple ideas, quite different from that complex idea which we call wood; we consider fire, in relation to ashes, as cause, and the ashes, as effect. So that whatever is considered by us to conduce or operate to the producing any particular simple idea, or collection of simple ideas, whether substance, or mode, which did not before exist, hath thereby in our minds the relation of a cause, and so is denominated by us.

§2. Creation, generation, making alteration. Having thus, from what our senses are able to discover in the operations of bodies on one another, got the notion of cause and effect, viz., that a cause is that which makes any other thing, either simple idea, substance, or mode, begin to be; and an effect is that which had its beginning from some other thing; the mind finds no great difficulty to distinguish the several originals of things into two sorts:

First, When the thing is wholly made new, so that no part thereof did ever exist before; as when a new particle of matter doth begin to exist, in rerum natura, which had before no being, and this we call creation.

Secondly, When a thing is made up of particles which did all of them before exist, but that very thing so constituted of pre-existing particles, which considered all together, make up such a collection of simple ideas, as had not any existence before, as this man, this egg, rose, or cherry, &c. And this, when referred to a substance, produced in the ordinary course of nature, by an internal principle, but set on work by, and received from, some external agent, or cause, and working by insensible ways, which we perceive not, we call generation; when the cause is extrinsical, and the effect produced by a sensible separation, or juxta position of discernible parts, we call it making; and such are all artificial things. When any simple idea is produced, which was not in that subject before, we call it alteration. Thus a man is generated, a picture made, and either of them altered, when any new sensible qua

lity, or simple idea, is produced in either of them, which was not there before; and the things thus made to exist, which were not there before, are effects and those things which operated to the existence, causes. In which, and all other cases, we may observe that the notion of cause and effect has its rise from ideas received by sensation or reflection; and that this relation how comprehensive soever, terminates at last in them. For to have the idea of cause and effect, it suffices to consider any simple idea, or substance, as beginning to exist by the operation of some other, without knowing the manner of that operation.

§3. Relations of time.-Time and place are also the foundations of very large relations, and all finite beings at least are concerned in them. But having already shewn, in another place, how we get these ideas, it may suffice here to intimate, that most of the denominations of things received from time, are only relations; thus, when any one says that Queen Elizabeth lived sixty-nine, and reigned forty-five years, these words import only the relation of that duration to some other, and mean no more but this, that the duration of her existence was equal to sixtynine, and the duration of her government, to forty-five, annual revolutions of the sun; and so are all words answering how long. Again, William the Conqueror invaded England about the year 1066, which means this: that taking the duration from our Saviours's time, till now, for one entire great length of time, it shews at what distance this inva sion was from the two extremes; and so do all words of time, answering to the question when, which shew only the distance of any point of time, from the period of a longer duration, from which we measure, and to which we thereby consider it as related.

§ 4. There are yet, besides those other words of time that ordinarily are thought to stand for positive ideas, which yet will, when considered, be found to be relative; such as are young, old, &c., which include and intimate the relation any thing has to a certain length of duration, whereof we have the idea in our minds. Thus having settled in our thoughts the idea of the ordinary duration of a man to be seventy years, when we say a man is young, we mean that his age is yet but a small part of that which usually men attain to; and when we denominate him old, we mean, that his duration is run out almost to the end of that which men do not usually exceed. And so it is but comparing the particular age or duration of this or that man, to the idea of that duration which we have in our minds, as ordinarily belonging to that sort of animals; which is plain in the application of these names to other things; for a man is called young at twenty years, and very young at seven years old: but yet a horse we call old at twenty, and a dog at seven, years; because in each of these, we compare their age to different ideas of duration, which are settled in our mind as belonging to these several sorts of animals, in the ordinary course of nature. But the sun and stars, though they have out-lasted several generations of men, we call not old, because we do not know what period God hath set to that sort of beings. This term belonging properly to those things which we can observe in the ordinary course of things, by a natural decay, to come to an end in a certain period of time; and so have in our minds, as it were, a standard to which we can compare the several parts of their duration; and by

the relation they bear thereunto, call them young, or old; which we cannot therefore do to a ruby, or diamond, things whose usual periods we know not.

§ 5. Relations of place and extension.—The relation also that things have to one another, in their places and distances, is very obvious to observe; as above, below, a mile distant from Charing Cross, in England, and in London. But as in duration, so in extension and bulk, there are some ideas that are relative, which we signify by names that are thought positive; as great and little, are truly relations. For here also having, by observation, settled in our minds the ideas of the bigness of several species of things, from those we have been most accustomed to, we make them, as it were, the standards whereby to denominate the bulk of others. Thus we call a great apple, such a one as is bigger than the ordinary sort of those we have been used to; and a little horse, such a one as comes not up to the size of that idea which we have in our minds to belong ordinarily to horses; and that will be a great horse to a Welchman, which is but a little one to a Fleming; they two having, from the different breed of their countries, taken several sized ideas to which they compare, and in relation to which they denominate, their great and their little.

§ 6. Absolute terms often stand for relations. So likewise weak and strong are but relative denominations of power, compared to some ideas we have, at that time, of greater or less power. Thus when we say a weak man, we mean one that has not so much strength or power to move, as usually men have, or usually those of his size have; which is a comparing his strength to the idea we have of the usual strength of men, or men of such a size. The like when we say the creatures are all weak things; weak, there, is but a relative term, signifying the disproportion there is in the power of God and the creatures. And so abundance of words, in ordinary speech, stand only for relations (and, perhaps, the greatest part), which at first sight seem to have no such signification; v. g. the ship has necessary stores. Necessary and stores, are both relative words; one having a relation to the accomplishing the voyage intended, and the other to future use. All which relations, how they are confined to, and terminate in, ideas derived from sensation or reflection, is too obvious to need any explication.

CHAP. XXVII.

OF IDENTITY AND DIVERSITY.

§ 1. Wherein identity consists.—Another occasion the mind often takes of comparing, is the very being of things, when considering any thing as existing, at any determined time and place, we compare it with itself, existing at another time, and thereon, form the ideas of identity and diversity. When we see any thing to be in any place in any instant of time, we are sure (be it what it will) that it is that very thing, and not another, which at that same time exists in another place, how like and undistinguishable soever it may be in all other respects; and in this consists identity, when the ideas it is attributed to, vary not at all

from what they were that moment, wherein we consider their former existence, and to which we compare the present. For we never finding, nor conceiving it possible, that two things of the same kind should exist in the same place at the same time, we rightly conclude, that whatever exists any where at any time, excludes all of the same kind, and is there itself alone. When, therefore, we demand whether any thing be the same or no? it refers always to something that existed such a time in such a place, which, it was certain, at that instant, was the same with itself, and no other; from whence it follows, that one thing cannot have two beginnings of existence, nor two things one beginning, it being impossible for two things of the same kind, to be or exist in the same instant, in the very same place, or one and the same thing, in different places. That, therefore, that had one beginning, is the same thing; and that which had a different beginning in time and place from that, is not the same, but diverse. That which has made the difficulty about this relation, has been the little care and attention used in having precise notions of the things to which it is attributed.

§ 2. Identity of substances.-We have the ideas but of three sorts of substances; 1, God. 2, Finite intelligences. 3, Bodies. First, God is without beginning, eternal, unalterable, and every where; and, therefore, concerning his identity, there can be no doubt. Secondly, Finite spirits having had each its determinate time and place of beginning to exist, the relation to that time and place will always determine to each of them its identity, as long as it exists. Thirdly, The same will hold of every particle of matter, to which no addition or subtraction of matter being made, it is the same. For though these three sorts of substances, as we term them, do not exclude one another out of the same place; yet we cannot conceive but that they must necessarily, each of them, exclude any of the same kind out of the same place; or else the notions and names of identity and diversity would be in vain, and there could be no such distinction of substances, or any thing else, one from another. For example: could two bodies be in the same place at the same time; then those two parcels of matter must be one and the same, take them great or little; nay, all bodies must be one and the same. For, by the same reason that two particles of matter may be in one place, all bodies may be in one place; which, when it can be supposed, takes away the distinction of identity and diversity of one and more, and renders it ridiculous. But it being a contradiction, that two or more should be one, identity and diversity are relations and ways of comparing well founded, and of use to the understanding.

Identity of modes. All other things being but modes or relations ultimately terminated in substances, the identity and diversity of each particular existence of them too, will be, by the same way, determined; only as to things whose existence is in succession, such as are the actions of finite beings, v. g. motion and thought, both which consist in a continued train of succession, concerning their diversity, there can be no question; because each perishing the moment it begins, they cannot exist in differerent times, or in different places, as permanent beings can, at different times, exist in distant places; and, therefore, no motion