LECTURE II.

THE CRITERION OF TRUTH.

ECCLESIASTES XI. 7, 8.

Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun: But if a man live many years, and rejoice in them all; yet let him remember the days of darkness; for they shall be many.”

WE were occupied last Sunday with a consideration of the fluctuations and differences of belief which are found to prevail in various directions, but more especially in religious matters. It may serve to illustrate the nature and import of these characteristics of belief if I point out that they may be assigned to three distinct periods or stages, which in most cases might be said, roughly speaking, to succeed one another in historical order.

There is first of course the primitive stage, in which all men think alike so far as they think at all. On isolated matters of fact, and about the details of ordinary life, differences of opinion must always exist, but on higher subjects the most per

fect unanimity prevails. So far as men actually believe, there is conscious agreement; so far as the saying is true that "he that has never doubted yet has never yet believed," we can at least say negatively that there is no difference of opinion.

But this stage is followed by one in which differences of opinion have become so numerous and obstinate, and have advanced to such important subjects, that they can no longer be neglected. It is to this stage that Logic appropriately belongs; Logic, I mean, of the formal or syllogistic type. The conditions favourable to the full development of this art seem to be these:-There must, for one thing, be a considerable difference of belief; otherwise the art would be needless, as there would never be any occasion to resort to it. But there must, at the same time, be substantial agreement on other points, that is on certain general or ultimate truths, or the art would be impossible. There would in that case be no common ground from which to start. Such conditions existed pre-eminently during the time of speculative activity in the middle ages. The progress of inquiry was then multiplying the occasions of disagreement; the stern control of the Church provided at the same time, directly or indirectly, an abundance of general principles to which appeal could be made without fear of denial. Under such circumstances, also, we should naturally look at a later period for an age of Evidences; they are appropriate to a time when, in spite of many differences and doubts

but

about religion, there is nevertheless a broad background of unanimity as to propositions which both parties will frankly and readily accept.

Sooner or later however there must come the stage in which that universal solvent, the modern spirit of criticism and inquiry, has begun to attack not derivative principles only, but also those which had hitherto been regarded as ultimate and beyond discussion. At this stage the common Logic is powerless. It has not a word to offer at such a conjuncture. For how can men argue to any purpose when they cannot find a basis of agreement from which to work? They can really do little more than state their own opinions each for himself, and trust that these will carry persuasion. Most persons will admit, I think, that many illustrations of this state of things are furnished by the present tone of religious discussion and controversy.

In the first of the three stages just indicated the problems with which these lectures are occupied could never arise, since people really have no differences of opinion of any fundamental character. In the second the resource would be, try to bring your opponent over to your own opinion, either indirectly by acting on the feelings, or directly by persuading the judgment. Work upon him, that is, by logical arguments. In the third we have begun to lose some of our respect towards, and perfect reliance in, these resources. It is hard for the disputants to find any common principles, which both

sides will frankly and fully accept, and from which

they can argue.

Now as these differences are thus spreading and intensifying, you will see that a very important distinction begins to emerge and at last acquires remarkable prominence and importance. The distinction is that between a belief being generally entertained, and its being true.

In the primitive stage, when there really are no differences worth mentioning, it is clear that no such distinction as this could ever be thought of. But as differences of opinion multiply, those two properties of belief, namely general prevalence and actual truth, begin to become loosened in their mutual cohesion in men's minds, until at last they are entirely split asunder.

At the present day the separation between them is in fact so complete that they are constantly treated apart from one another. Take up, for instance, a history of opinions such as Mr Lecky's recently published volumes on "Rationalism in Europe," and what do we find there? One belief seems to follow another like the pictures in a magic lantern. Each of them was held in turn in full conviction, and many of them with passionate attachment; but which of them were true? Were any of them true? What is the test of their truth? A particular answer to such questions is doubtless intended to be suggested, but for an articulate assertion of it we must seek elsewhere'.

1 "The speculative opinions which are embraced by any large body of men are accepted not on account of the arguments upon which they

Take up, again, any work on Psychology, and what do we find? Even there the question of truth is sometimes overlooked or little regarded. Abundant explanations are given as to the disturbing influence of various circumstances upon the value and accuracy of our judgments; how passion blinds the reason, how self-interest exerts a bias, and so on. Most true; but when we recollect that our beliefs are not like mere states of feeling, but may be, in fact must be, right or wrong; the question again recurs, Are they true or are they false? We do not want to be put off by being told the order in which beliefs have succeeded or will succeed one another, nor yet by being told that belief is a sentiment engendered by such or such causes.

Of the two classes of questions therefore which now meet us in reference to belief, the first, namely -How do they arise? where do they prevail? in what order do they succeed one another?-we pass

rest, but on account of a predisposition to receive them. This predisposition depends with many persons entirely upon the circumstances of their position, that is to say, upon the associations of childhood, friendship, or interest, and is of such a nature as altogether to dispense with arguments; with others it depends chiefly upon the character of their minds, which induces them to embrace one class of arguments rather than another. The intellectual character, again, results partly from natural and innate peculiarities, and partly from the totality of influences that act upon the mind." The Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe, Vol. II. p. 107.

Such a statement as this is quite appropriate on the part of any one who has already decided that the opinions in question are groundless; but it is as well to remind the reader that over the whole field embraced by this sort of historical criticism every conviction is soon rotted through and sinks into nothing more than a taste or sentiment, or it may be a passion. A history of religious or political convictions conducted on this system had better be entitled, A history of prejudices.