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 allow'd hitherto never 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 learnt 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 satisfy'd 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 vast Importance. Can I do better than propose the Difficulty to the Public, ⟨even tho', 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.
I Must confess, that a Man is guilty of unpardonable Arrogance, who concludes, because an Argu-ment
