19 



is the property of every thing to which our question can be applied, 

 which of course does not respect non-entities. The analogy then is 

 perfect? It must be granted, in all instances? an exception is im- 

 possible. And the conclusion which is transferred upon the ground 

 of this perfect analogy, as far as our knowledge goes, is also with- 

 out an exception ? it must be allowed. Then the general pro- 

 position, viz. that nothing can exist without a cause, is one esta- 

 blished upon the first order of inferential proof; which in point of 

 authority has been shewn to be but little below (scarcely a definable 

 inferiority) the direct testimony of the senses. 



This is a point upon which we must be very scrupulous : it is 

 not to be admitted \vithout undeniable evidence, and that adduced 

 it cannot be cast aside. It is an important conclusion: a single 

 axiom founded upon it is equal to a volume of principles, in the 

 extent of its application ; on this account I think it right on one 

 occasion to be a little prolix. 



16. If the hour-hand of a watch now points at the figure 

 twelve, and presently stands opposite to the figure four, would any 

 one doubt but the hour-hand of the watch had moved? no. But 

 was the motion of it seen or felt ? is it known by a direct testimony 

 of the senses ? no : the progression is too slow to be perceptible. It is, 

 notwithstanding, concluded that there has been progression ? certain- 

 ly, there is no doubt of it. How is this firm conviction attained ? thus, 

 when a body changes its place, the course of its progression in 

 other examples may be perceived; it may be seen to move (changing 

 the place is the point of analogy}: when therefore a body has 

 changed its place, though, as in the instance of the hour-hand of 

 the watch, it proceeds too slowly, or, in the case of a musket-shot, 

 it goes with too great velocity, to be seen ; yet the body has 

 changed its place in either instance ; and this is a point of analogy 

 between the latter instances and those of bodies whose progression 

 is perceptible, upon which we found an inference that it would be 

 absurd to doubt. Yet there is no other testimony of its truth, but 

 the universality of the occurrence of motion in bodies which are 

 seen to move when they do change their place. This is a parallel 

 with the basis of our first principle of causation ; and many others 

 may be cited, some hundreds or perhaps thousands, all of them 

 affording, according to common sense and received opinion, indu- 

 bitable inferences. 



17. But in addition to the proof of analogy upon which our 

 first principle has been shewn to rest, and which is on other oc- 

 casions rather less abstract, considered sufficient, there are not 

 wanting other proofs. I would ask, does not our experience in 

 those which are called elements, prove that they are not elements? 

 A supposed elementary particle of matter, for instance: does it not 

 possess weight? does it not exhibit a power of attraction? Inde- 

 pendently of these common properties of matter, has it not some 

 nature? has it not some chymical properties, perhaps some vital 

 ones, or properties holding with life an additional relation? all of 



