In spite of this identity of belief and perception, it is necessary for the perspicuity of discussion to discriminate the two, and I propose therefore to restrict the term belief to the assent to propositions, and demarcate it from those direct inferences which are made in the presence of objects and have reference to them. I would say, we believe in the proposition "Fire burns," but know the fact that the paper about to be thrust into flame will ignite. Such a discrimination of terms will be found useful in discussing causation. We shall thus see in what respect assent to a proposition, complex in its elements, differs from the "practical belief" of mankind in particular facts-we shall separate the belief of the philosopher in the proposition "Every effect must have a cause," from the belief of the child that the fire, which yesterday burned paper, will burn it to-day. Both beliefs are grounded on and limited by experience; but the experience of the philosopher is distinguished from that of the child by its greater accumulation of analogous facts. The "necessity" and "universality" which, according to Kant and Dr. Whewell, distinguish the philosophical conception, and raise it above experience, will be considered hereafter. For the present it is enough if we have reduced belief in causation (or in power) to experience of a direct kind, not separable from any other intellectual act, but allied to all other acts in being the mental re-presentation of phenomena formerly present in experience. And this will help us, perhaps, to reconcile the combatants who quarrel over the idea of "power" in causation.

Thus while it will be admitted by the one party that between two events, named respectively cause and effect, no nexus is perceived by us, over and above the mere fact of antecedence and sequence; and that therefore Hume is right in saying—we only perceive this antecedence, and do not perceive the causal link; on the other hand it must be maintained, that between those two events there is a specific relation, a something which makes the one succeed the other, causing this particular effect rather than another; and this subtle link it is which is the nexus con

tended for; this relation it is which distinguishes a casual act from one of accidental sequence. There must be a peculiar relation, or property, existing between oxygen and metals, otherwise metals never could be oxidized. The oxidation of iron is an effect like the ignition of paper; but it is an effect producible only through a specific relation or cause. To say that we cannot know this cause, cannot perceive this relation, and that antecedence and sequence are all that we can perceive, is only saying that we cannot penetrate beyond phenomena and their successions; but this is no more a ground for the denial of a causal nexus, than it is for the denial of an external world.

All things necessarily stand related to all other things: sometimes these relations are obtruded on our notice, because they pass from relations of coexistence into relations of succession, and we name them causes and effects; at other times they remain in the background of unremarked coexistence, and our unsolicited attention overlooks them; we do not then name them cause and effect. The carbonate of lime, which I see before me as marble, suggests to me in its inaction, no conception of power, or causation, because my attention is not solicited by any successive relations; yet, if I had witnessed the action of the carbonic acid on the lime, which originally caused the two substances to unite and form marble, the passage from one state to another would have suggested the idea of some power at work. It is clear that there must be relations existing between the carbonic acid and the lime, which cause the two to remain united, as we see them in marble. We do not see these relations-we do not, therefore, see the cause--but we know the cause must be in operation all the while, although, in consequence of no changes taking place, we are not solicited to observe the operation. Hence it is that only successive phenomena are named causal; and hence is it that Hume was right in saying that en dernière analyse, invariableness of antecedence and sequence is all that experience tells us of causation; although he did not, I think, state his position clearly, nor discern its real basis.

This conception of causation, as the direct relation between. any two phenomena, whether coexistent or successive, accords with the fact that what is called the effect is itself but the union of two causes-the oxygen and the metal co-operate to form an oxide; the group of facts which we designate as the antecedent, combines with the group of facts called the sequent; as when we say that "Henry I. died of eating lampreys;" by which we mean, that in a certain condition of his organism the introduction of lampreys was the antecedent to a whole series of sequences terminating in death; although we are perfectly aware that the salmon was not the "cause," but only one integer in the sum of causes. The difficulty in fixing upon a true cause is this very complexity of relations: only when we can be said to know all the elements of a group, can we isolate one to estimate its influence.

66

I have endeavored to reconcile the two contending parties on this perplexing question, and for all further discussion must refer to John Mill's chapter in his System of Logic, where, however, there is a passage which seems to me quite contrary to the doctrine he upholds. I allude to his strictures on the dogma cessante causâ cessat et effectus. A coup de soleil gives a man a brainfever will the fever go off as soon as he is moved out of the sunshine? A sword is run through his body: must the sword remain in his body in order that he may continue dead?"* Surely this argument is tenable only by those who confound a cause with the whole group of conditions which precede, and the effect with the whole group of conditions which succeed; and is not tenable by those who hold that cause and effect are simply antecedent and sequent. The solar rays striking on the man's head produce a disturbance in the circulation, which in its turn. becomes the antecedent to a congestion of the blood-vessels in the brain, which becomes a brain-fever; instead of one succession of cause and effect, we have here a series of such successions; and

* Vol. i. p. 413.

if we could analyze the various stages of the sun-stroke, we should find that each effect did cease on the cessation of the cause; indeed, if an effect be nothing but the sequent of an antecedent--and not the product of some creative power in the cause it must depend for its existence on the presence of the antecedent.

Hume's theory of causation set Kant speculating on the constituent elements of cognition; but before we follow out the development of Philosophy in that direction, it will be necessary to trace the further development of Locke's influence in other directions.

SIXTH EPOCH.

THE ORIGIN OF KNOWLEDGE REFERRED TO SENSATION BY THE CONFUSION OF THOUGHT WITH FEELING: THE SENSATIONAL SCHOOL.

CHAPTER I.

CONDILLAC.

§ I. LIFE OF CONDILLAC.

ETIENNE DE CONDILLAC was born at Grenoble, in 1715. His life was passed mainly in study, and was not varied by any of those incidents which give interest and romance to biography. He published his first work, Essai sur l'Origine des Connoissances Humaines, in 1746. Three years after, his Traité des Systèmes. His other works followed rapidly; and established for him such a reputation, that he was appointed tutor to the Prince of Parma, and for whose instruction he wrote the Cours d'Etudes. In 1768 the capricious doors of the Académie Française were opened to him; but once elected a member, he never after attended any of its sittings. He published his Logique in his old age, and left behind him his Langue des Calculs. He died in 1780.

§ II. CONDILLAC'S SYSTEM.

We have seen how Idealism and skepticism grew out of the doctrines respecting the origin of knowledge. We have now to see the growth of the "Sensational School."

The success which Locke met with in France is well known.