Mozley: A Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of

326
Note V.
but an idea which all mankind have, an instinct, or indis
tinct perception ?
NOTE V. p. 25.
MR. MILL S argument in favour of the doctrine of necessity
consists of two parts : one the proof of the doctrine ; the
other an answer to an objection to it.
His proof of the doctrine is an inductive one. What
do we mean by necessity, he asks, but causation ; that, the
antecedents supposed, a certain consequent will follow ?
Now, we observe, he says, this law of causation in every
other department : we must therefore suppose it to exist
in the department of the human will. For the proof of
the existence of this law in other departments he refers
us to facts, and simply appeals to observation. Between
the phenomena which exist at any instant, and the
phenomena which exist at the succeeding instant, there is
an invariable order of succession .... To certain facts
certain facts always do, and, as we believe, will continue
to, succeed. The invariable antecedent is termed the
cause; the invariable consequent the effect. And the
universality of the law consists in this, that every conse
quent is connected in this manner with some particular
antecedent or set of antecedents. Let the fact be what
it may, if it has begun to exist it was preceded by some
fact or facts with which it is invariably connected. For
every event there exists some combination of object or
events, some given concurrence of circumstances, positive
and negative, the occurrence of which is always followed
by the phenomenon. We may not have found out what
this concurrence of circumstances may be ; but we never
doubt that there is such a one, and that it never occurs
without having the phenomenon in question as its effect
or consequence. On the universality of this truth depends
the possibility of reducing the inductive process to rules.
Vol. i.
p. 338.
Here is an appeal to our observation for a proof of the
law of causation. Mr. Mill does not go to any a priori