Newton, Leibnitz, and Boscovick to the Atomic Theory. 53 



It: - .- .-J 

 quick, is also eager to know the cause of every phenomenon which strikes 

 him. And this is right. For if there be anything of an objective nature 

 that is certain, it is the existence of God ; and let it be but granted, 

 that to Him, as First Cause, the material universe stands in the relation 

 of a creation or effect, and then the doctrine of causation in Nature is 

 secured in its integrity. Whether we make use of the terms parent 

 and offspring, producer and production, cause and effect, or any others 

 of the same kind, there enters essentially into the relation between the 

 two terms the affirmation of a certain continuity or resemblance between 

 them ; and that to which an Almighty Being, acting as a great First 

 Cause, has awarded existence, can scarce be other than a system of 

 causation itself At all events, we are logically bound to hold it to be 

 so imtil the contrary appears. Such, therefore, is the point of view in 

 which nature is regarded in the following pages — as a system of causa- 

 tion, a dynamic system. 



As to the METHOD by which the author obtained the first principles, 

 which have led to the results, of which a few are here communicated, it 

 was that which has just been hinted, namely, the doctrine of causal conti- 

 nuity and resemblance, implying in a Cause not only a productive, but also 

 an assimilative power, the Effect being not only produced, but produced 

 so as to bear also the signature of the cause which evolved it ; so that 

 the creation not only exists, but bears upon its bosom the signature 

 of the Creator's attributes ; by a reference to which, therefore, Nature 

 may be investigated in regions where the senses fail, and hypotheses 

 framed, which being pursued logically onwards and outwards till we 

 reach the region of the palpable, may be verified or rejected by com- 

 paring their consequences with the data of observation. Is it said 

 that such a speculation, even though based in reason and rehgion, 

 and though explaining phenomena innumerable which no other hypo- 

 theses can explain, while contradicted by none, is still but a hypothesis 

 after all — let that be granted ; but let it also be remembered, that there 

 is nothing better for us, call it by what name we please. 



There may indeed be much that is against a hypothesis, though its 

 power of explaining phenomena be very great ; as for instance its 

 lengthiness or its obscurity, or the fact that it requires additional compli- 

 cations or limitations the more it is applied to explain phenomena. But 

 a hypothesis is free from every logical objection when its terms are 

 reduced to two, viz., one fact, postulated as substance to work upon, and 

 one law, which shall determine the phenomena and functions of that 

 substance. Any hypothesis that is more complicated than this does 

 not fully satisfy the demand of intelligence for unity in first principles. 

 And no hypothesis that is simpler than this can belong to the philo- 



