276 



follows, some other event, improperly styled cause. This sounds abstruse ; yet 

 I believe, by homely illustration it may be made intelligible ; and it is a most 

 important point for the Mind to seize, and keep firm hold of. 



Suppose some one watching, in a mill or factory, the slow revolution of a 

 huge wheel, or endless band ; and that he could, from his stand-point, command 

 a view of but a small part of the entire revolution, the rest being screened from 

 him. Let one point on the tire, or revolving circumference, be supposed to 

 bear some distinguishing mark, say a number, and other points at certain 

 distances other consecutive numbers. After watching for a time the move- 

 ment before him, the spectator of course becomes aware of the order in rotation 

 of these numbers ; and at the return of No. 1, will confidently expect that 

 No. 2 will come into his field of view, at some calculable interval, according to 

 the speed of the machine. No. 2 he will know, and may predict, will be 

 followed by Nos. 3, 4, and the rest in regular succession to the end of the 

 series. Now, this is exactly like our observation of Nature. We become 

 aware that physical phenomena follow one another in a certain, invariable 

 order ; so that the appearance of a known antecedent phenomenon prepares us 

 to expect, and enables vis to predict, the appearance in due course of the regular 

 consequent. Or it may be that two phenomena occur together, in which case 

 we know, that when one is perceived the other also is present. But, more than 

 this Physics can never teach us. They can never warrant us in declaring that 

 one phenomenon is the true, that is, the efficient, cause of some other of which 

 it is the precursor, or companion. In the case of the revolving wheel, we 

 never for one moment suppose that the emergence of the first marked point 

 causes the emergence of that which we know is next to follow. True, in this 

 example, the Mind is not tempted into such a fallacy ; since it is known that 

 the i-eal source of the succession we behold is the motive power of the 

 machinery. But the forces which actuate Nature's great machine are beyond 

 our ken. What they do we know, not what in themselves they are. We are 

 not behind the scenes of that great show, and hence are tempted by that law 

 of our Mental structure which will demand a cause for everything, to attribute 

 casuality to what, as far as we know, is a mere antecedent. Nor does it 

 signify, that in Nature force seems to be transmitted in each of her operations. 

 Each physical event is but a link in the infinite chain of like events ; seeming 

 to stand as a cause of those that follow, but, in truth, itself, but the effect of 

 all that have preceded it — so carrying back the mind " with a never ending 

 regress," in vain search for something which may be rightly called a cause. It 

 is as if we should see the balls upon the table, but not the player ; and so 

 should foolishly be moved to attribute to mere ivory impinging upon ivory a 

 power which lies not in dead matter, but in some living Will giving the primal 

 impulse. 



That Physical Science, apart from mental experience, tells nothing what- 

 ever of the cause of Physical events, but merely ascertains their sequences, is a 

 truth admitted by both the great opposing schools into which all modern 

 Philosophers may be divided. Since Hume, all agree that Natural Science is 

 conversant only with the invariable succession of antecedent and consequent, 

 and must disclaim all knowledge of efficient causes, and all idea of necessary 

 connection between cause and effect. Uniform experience leads us to expect 

 that one phenomenon ivill be followed by a certain other, but gives us no right 

 to affirm that it must be so followed. Physics in short, have no concern at all 

 with efficient causes ; which are indeed explained away, or quite ignored, by 

 the Positive School of Metaphysics. Those Philosophers to whom the 

 Materialist would make his appeal as the only trustworthy authorities, Hume, 

 Brown, Comte, the two Mills, Bain, concur in this ; which is the very corner- 

 stone of their Philosophy. The last argument of the Materialist is then as 



