different terms. The question still recurs, on what process of
argument this inference is founded? Where is the medium, the
interposing ideas, which join propositions so very wide of each other?
It is confessed that the colour, consistence, and other sensible
qualities of bread appear not, of themselves, to have any connexion
with the secret powers of nourishment and support. For otherwise we
could infer these secret powers from the first appearance of these
sensible qualities, without the aid of experience; contrary to the
sentiment of all philosophers, and contrary to plain matter of fact.
Here, then, is our natural state of ignorance with regard to the
powers and influence of all objects. How is this remedied by
experience? It only shows us a number of uniform effects, resulting
from certain objects, and teaches us that those particular objects, at
that particular time, were endowed with such powers and forces. When a
new object, endowed with similar sensible qualities, is produced, we
expect similar powers and forces, and look for a like effect. From a
body of like colour and consistence with bread we expect like
nourishment and support. But this surely is a step or progress of
the mind, which wants to be explained. When a man says, I have
found, in all past instances, such sensible qualities conjoined with
such secret powers; And when he says, Similar sensible qualities
will always be conjoined with similar secret powers, he is not
guilty of a tautology, nor are these propositions in any respect the
same. You say that the one proposition is an inference from the other.
But you must confess that the inference is not intuitive; neither is
it demonstrative: Of what nature is it, then? To say it is
experimental, is begging the question. For all inferences from
experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble
the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar
sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion that the course of
nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future,
all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or
conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from
experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since
all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that
resemblance. Let the course of things be allowed hitherto ever so
regular; that alone, without some new argument or inference, proves
not that, for the future, it will continue so. In vain do you
pretend to have learned the nature of bodies from your past
experience. Their secret nature, and consequently all their effects
and influence, may change, without any change in their sensible
qualities. This happens sometimes, and with regard to some objects:
Why may it not happen always, and with regard to all objects? What
logic, what process of argument secures you against this
supposition? My practice, you say, refutes my doubts. But you
mistake the purport of my question. As an agent, I am quite
satisfied in the point; but as a philosopher, who has some share of
curiosity, I will not say scepticism, I want to learn the foundation
of this inference. No reading, no enquiry has yet been able to
remove my difficulty, or give me satisfaction in a matter of such
importance. Can I do better than propose the difficulty to the public,
even though, perhaps, I have small hopes of obtaining a solution? We
shall at least, by this means, be sensible of our ignorance, if we
do not augment our knowledge.

  33. I must confess that a man is guilty of unpardonable arrogance
who concludes, because an argument has escaped his own
investigation, that therefore it does not really exist. I must also
confess that, though all the learned, for several ages, should have
employed themselves in fruitless search upon any subject, it may
still, perhaps, be rash to conclude positively that the subject
must, therefore, pass all human comprehension. Even though we
examine all the sources of our knowledge, and conclude them unfit
for such a subject, there may still remain a suspicion, that the
enumeration is not complete, or the examination not accurate. But with
regard to the present subject, there are some considerations which
seem to remove all this accusation of arrogance or suspicion of
mistake.

  It is certain that the most ignorant and stupid peasants- nay
infants, nay even brute beasts- improve by experience, and learn the
qualities of natural objects, by observing the effects which result
from them. When a child has felt the sensation of pain from touching
the flame of a candle, he will be careful not to put his hand near any
candle; but will expect a similar effect from a cause which is similar
in its sensible qualities and appearance. If you assert, therefore,
that the understanding of the child is led into this conclusion by any
process of argument or ratiocination, I may justly require you to
produce that argument; nor have you any pretence to refuse so
equitable a demand. You cannot say that the argument is abstruse,
and may possibly escape your enquiry; since you confess that it is
obvious to the capacity of a mere infant. If you hesitate,
therefore, a moment, or if, after reflection, you produce any
intricate or profound argument, you, in a manner, give up the
question, and confess that it is not reasoning which engages us to
suppose the past resembling the future, and to expect similar
effects from causes which are, to appearance, similar. This is the
proposition which I intended to enforce in the present section. If I
be right, I pretend not to have made any mighty discovery. And if I be
wrong, I must acknowledge myself to be indeed a very backward scholar;
since I cannot now discover an argument which, it seems, was perfectly
familiar to me long before I was out of my cradle.

               Sect. V. Sceptical Solution of these Doubts

                                PART I.

  34. The passion for philosophy, like that for religion, seems liable
to this inconvenience, that, though it aims at the correction of our
manners, and extirpation of our vices, it may only serve, by imprudent