and so in different societies, virtues and vices were changed: yet, as to the main, they, for the most part, kept the same every where. For since nothing can be more natural, than to encourage with esteem and reputation, that wherein every one finds his advantage; and to blame and discountenance the contrary; it is no wonder that esteem and discredit, virtue and vice, should, in a great measure, every where correspond with the unchangeable rule of right and wrong, which the law of God hath established; there being nothing that so directly and visibly secures and advances the general good of mankind in this world, as obedience to the laws he has set them, and nothing that breeds such mischiefs and confusion, as the neglect of them. And, therefore, men, without renouncing all sense and reason, and their own interest, which they are so constantly true to, could not generally mistake in placing their commendation and blame on that side that really deserved it not. Nay, even those men, whose practice was otherwise, failed not to give their approbation right; few being depraved to that degree as not to condemn, at least in others, the faults they themselves were guilty of: whereby even in the corruption of manners, the true boundaries of the law of nature, which ought to be the rule of virtue and vice, were pretty well preserved. So that even the exhortations of inspired teachers have not feared to appeal to common repute : "Whatsoever. is lovely, whatsoever is of good report, if there be any virtue, if there be any praise," &c. Phil. iv. 8.

§ 12. Its enforcement, commendation, and discredit.-If any one should imagine, that I forgot my own notion of a law, when I make the law whereby men judge of virtue and vice, to be nothing else but the consent of private men, who have not authority enough to make a law; especially wanting that which is so necessary and essential to a law, a power to enforce it; I think I may say, that he who imagines commendation and disgrace, not to be strong motives to men, to accommodate themselves to the opinions and rules of those with whom they converse, seems little skilled in the nature or history of mankind: the greatest part whereof he shall find to govern themselves chiefly, if not solely, by this law of fashion; and so they do that which keeps them in reputation with their company, little regard the laws of God or the magistrate. The penalties that attend the breach of God's laws, some, nay, perhaps most, men, seldom seriously reflect on; and amongst those that do, many, whilst they break the law, entertain thoughts of future reconciliation, and making their peace for such breaches: and as to the punishments due from the laws of the commonwealth, they frequently flatter themselves with the hopes of impunity. But no man escapes the punishment of their censure and dislike, who offends against the fashion and opinion of the company he keeps, and would recommend himself to. Nor is there one of ten thousand, who is stiff and insensible enough to bear up under the constant dislike and condemnation of his own club. He must be of a strange and unusual constitution, who can content himself to live in constant disgrace and disrepute with his own particular society. Solitude many men have sought, and been reconciled to: but nobody, that has the least thought or sense of a man about him, can live in society under the constant dislike and ill opinion

of his familiars, and those he converses with. This is a burden too heavy for human sufferance: and he must be made up of irreconcileable contradictions, who can take pleasure in company, and yet be insensible of contempt and disgrace from his companions.

§ 13. These three laws, the rules of moral good and evil.-These three then, First, The law of God; Secondly, The law of politic societies; Thirdly, The law of fashion, or private censure; are those to which men variously compare their actions and it is by their conformity to one of these laws, that they take their measures, when they would judge of their moral rectitude, and denominate their actions good or

bad.

§ 14. Morality is the relation of actions to these rules. Whether the rule, to which, as to a touch-stone, we bring our voluntary actions, to examine them by, and try their goodness, and accordingly to name them; which is, as it were, the mark of the value we set upon them; whether, I say, we take that rule from the fashion of the country, or the will of the law-maker, the mind is easily able to observe the relation any action hath to it; and to judge whether the action agrees, or disagrees, with the rule; and so hath a notion of moral goodness or evil, which is either conformity or not conformity, of any action to that rule; and, therefore, is often called moral rectitude. This rule being nothing but a collection of several simple ideas, the conformity thereto is but so ordering the action, that the simple ideas belonging to it, may correspond to those which the law requires. And thus we see how moral beings and notions are founded on, and terminated in, these simple ideas we have received from sensation or reflection. For example, Let us consider the complex idea we signify by the word murder; and when we have taken it asunder, and examined all the particulars, we shall find them to amount to a collection of simple ideas derived from reflection or sensation, viz. First, From reflection on the operations of our own mind, we have the ideas of willing, considering, proposing before-hand, malice, or wishing ill to another; and also of life, or perception, and self-motion. Secondly, From sensation, we have the collection of those simple sensible ideas which are to be found in a man, and of some action, whereby we put an end to perception and motion in the man; all which simple ideas, are comprehended in the word murder. This collection of simple ideas being found by me to agree or disagree with the esteem of the country I have been bred in, and to be held by most men there, worthy praise or blame, I call the action virtuous or vicious: if I have the will of a supreme, invisible, Law-giver for my rule; then, as I supposed the action commanded or forbidden by God, I call it good or evil, sin or duty and if I compare it to the civil law, the rule made by the legislative power of the country, I call it lawful or unlawful, a crime or no crime. So that whencesoever we take the rule of moral actions, or by what standard soever we frame in our minds the ideas of virtues or vices, they consist only, and are made up of collections of simple ideas, which we originally received from sense or reflection, and their rectitude or obliquity consists in the agreement or disagreement with those patterns prescribed by some law.

15. To conceive rightly of moral actions, we must take notice

may as

of them under this two-fold consideration. First, As they are in themselves each made up of such a collection of simple ideas. Thus drunkenness or lying, signify such or such a collection of simple ideas, which I call mixed modes; and in this sense, they are as much positive absolute ideas, as the drinking of a horse, or speaking of a parrot. Secondly, Our actions are considered as good, bad, or indifferent; and in this respect, they are relative; it being their conformity to, or disagreement with, some rule, that makes them to be regular or irregular, good or bad and so, as far as they are compared with a rule, and thereupon denominated, they come under relation. Thus the challenging and fighting with a man, as it is a certain positive mode, or particular sort of action, by particular ideas distinguished from all others, is called duelling which, when considered in relation to the law of God, will deserve the name sin; to the law of fashion, in some countries, valour and virtue; and to the municipal laws of some governments, a capital crime. In this case, when the positive mode has one name, and another name as it stands in relation to the law, the distinction easily be observed, as it is in substances, where one name, v. g. man, is used to signify the thing; another, v. g. father, to signify the relation. § 16. The denominations of actions often mislead us.-But because very frequently the positive idea of the action, and its moral relation, are comprehended together under one name, and the same word made use of to express both the mode or action, and its moral rectitude or obliquity; therefore, the relation itself is less taken notice of; and there is often no distinction made between the positive idea of the action, and the reference it has to a rule. By which confusion of these two distinct considerations under one term, those who yield too easily to the impressions of sounds, and are forward to take names for things, are often misled in their judgment of actions. Thus, the taking from another what is his, without his knowledge or allowance, is properly called stealing but that name being commonly understood to signify also the moral pravity of the action, and to denote its contrariety to the law, men are apt to condemn whatever they hear called stealing, as an ill action, disagreeing with the rule of right. And yet, the private taking away this sword from a madman, to prevent his doing mischief, though it be properly denominated stealing, as the name of such a mixed mode; yet, when compared to the law of God, and considered in its relation to that supreme rule, it is no sin or transgression, though the name stealing ordinarily carries such an intimation with it.

17. Relations innumerable.-And thus much for the relation of human actions to a law, which, therefore, I call moral relation.

It would make a volume to go over all sorts of relations it is not therefore to be expected, that I should here mention them all. It suffices to our present purpose, to shew by these, what the ideas are we have of this comprehensive consideration, called relation: which is so various, and the occasions of it so many (as many as there can be of comparing things one to another), that it is not very easy to reduce it rules, or under just heads. Those I have mentioned, I think, are some of the most considerable, and such as may serve to let us see from whence we get our ideas of relations, and wherein they are founded.

But before I quit this argument, from what has been said, give me leave to observe :

§ 18. All relations terminate in simple ideas —First, That it is evident, that all relation terminates in, and is ultimately founded on, those simple ideas we have got from sensation or reflection: so that all we have in our thoughts ourselves (if we think of any thing, or have any meaning), or would signify to others, when we use words standing for relations, is nothing but some simple ideas, or collections of simple ideas, compared one with another. This is so manifest in that sort called proportional, that nothing can be more. For when a man says, honey is sweeter than wax, it is plain, that his thoughts in this relation, terminate in this simple idea, sweetness, which is equally true of all the rest; though, where they are compounded, or decompounded, the simple ideas they are made up of, are, perhaps, seldom taken notice of; v.g. when the word father is mentioned: First, There is meant that particular species, or collective idea, signified by the word man. Secondly, Those sensible simple ideas signified by the word generation: and, Thirdly, the effects of it, and all the simple ideas signified by the word child. So the word friend, being taken for a man who loves, and is ready to do good to another, has all these following ideas to the making of it up: First, All the simple ideas comprehended in the word man, or intelligent being. Secondly, The idea of love. Thirdly, The idea of readiness, or disposition. Fourthly, The idea of action, which is any kind of thought or motion. Fifthly, The idea of good, which signifies any thing that may advance his happiness, and terminates at last, if examined, in particular simple ideas, of which the word good, in general, signifies any one; but if removed from all simple ideas quite, it signifies nothing at all. And thus also all moral words terminate at last, though, perhaps, more remotely, in a collection of simple ideas: the immediate signification of relative words, being very often other supposed known relations; which, if traced one to another, still end in simple ideas.

§ 19. We have ordinarily as clear (or clearer) a notion of the relation, as of its foundation.-Secondly, That in relations, we have for the most part, if not always, as clear a notion of the relation, as we have of those simple ideas wherein it is founded: agreement or disagreement, whereon relation depends, being things whereof we have commonly as clear ideas as of any other whatsoever: it being but the distinguishing simple ideas, or their degrees, one from another, without which we could have no distinct knowledge at all. For if I have a clear idea of sweetness, light, or extension, I have too, of equal, or more, or less, of each of these: if I know what it is for one man to be born of a woman, viz. Sempronia, I know what it is for another man to be born of the same woman, Sempronia; and so have as clear a notion of brothers, as of births, and perhaps clearer. For if I believed that Sempronia digged Titus out of the parsley-bed (as they use to tell children), and thereby became his mother; and that afterward in the same manner she digged Caius out of the parsley-bed, I had as clear a notion of the relation of brothers between them, as if I had all the skill of a midwife; the notion that the same woman contributed, as mother,

equally to their births (though I were ignorant or mistaken in the manner of it), being that on which I grounded the relation, and that they agreed in that circumstance of birth, let it be what it will. The comparing them then in their descent from the same person, without knowing the particular circumstances of that descent, is enough to found my notion of their having or not having the relation of brothers. But though the ideas of particular relations are capable of being as clear and distinct in the minds of those who will duly consider them, as those of mixed modes, and more determinate than those of substances; yet the names belonging to relation, are often of as doubtful and uncertain signification, as those of substances or mixed modes; and much more than those of simple ideas: because relative words being the marks of this comparison, which is made only by men's thoughts, and is an idea only in men's minds, men frequently apply them to different comparisons of things, according to their own imaginations, which do not always correspond with those of others using the same names.

§ 20. The notion of the relation is the same, whether the rule and action to be compared is true or false.-Thirdly, That in these I call moral relations, I have a true notion of relation by comparing the action with the rule, whether the rule be true or false. For if I measure any thing by a yard, I know whether the thing I measure be longer or shorter than that supposed yard, though, perhaps, the yard I measure by, be not exactly the standard; which, indeed, is another inquiry. For though the rule be erroneous, and I mistaken in it, yet the agreement or disagreement observable in that which I compare with, makes me perceive the relation. Though measuring by a wrong rule, I shall thereby be brought to judge amiss of its moral rectitude, because I have tried it by that which is not the true rule, yet I am not mistaken in the relation which that action bears to that rule I compare it to, which is agreement, or disagreement.

CHAP. XXIX.

OF CLEAR AND OBSCURE, DISTINCT AND CONFUSED IDEAS.

§ 1. Ideas, some clear and distinct, others obscure and confused.Having shewn the original of our ideas, and taken a view of their several sorts; considered the difference between the simple and the complex, and observed how the complex ones are divided into those of modes, substances, and relations; all which, I think, is necessary to be done by any one who would acquaint himself thoroughly with the progress of the mind in its apprehension and knowledge of things, it will, perhaps, be thought I have dwelt long enough upon the examination of ideas. I must, nevertheless, crave leave to offer some few other considerations concerning them. The first is, that some are clear, and others obscure; some distinct, and others confused.

§2. Clear and obscure, explained by sight.-The perception of the mind being most aptly explained by words relating to the sight, we shall best understand what is meant by clear and obscure in our ideas,