be remembered, indeed, that they are mental and not material laws; but making allowance for this, they may be regarded as operating very much like the great physical or physiological laws of chemical affinity, of nervous irritability, or of the reflex nervous system. As they act in an analogous manner, so they may be discovered in much the same way as the laws of the material universe, that is, by the method of induction.

The laws of matter are discovered by the observation and generalization of their individual operations. With the exception of a few metaphysicians of the schools of Schelling or Hegel, no one now maintains that these laws can be discovered by a priori speculation. Nor can they be detected by mere sense,—by eye, or touch, or ear; no man ever yet saw, or handled, or heard, a law of nature. All that falls under the perception of the senses are individual facts, and those generally concrete or complex; that is, the object is presented as exhibiting more than one quality at the same time, or the effect is the result of a variety of causes. In order to reach the law by an observation of the facts, there is need first of all of a judicious analysis, or, as Bacon calls it, the necessary "rejections and exclusions," or the separation and setting aside of the extraneous matter of the mixed phenomenon-that is, the matter which does not belong to the law or agent we are seeking to discover. Having made these appropriate rejections, we now generalize the facts-that is, find out wherein they agree-and thus arrive at the discovery of the physical law.

It is much in the same way, mutatis mutandis, that we discover the laws of our original and native convictions. I boldly affirm that it is as impossible to determine them as it is to settle the laws of the external universe by a priori cogitation or logical division and dissection. As they cannot be elaborated by speculation on the one hand, so neither do they fall under the immediate cognizance of consciousness on the other. All that comes under the consciousness is individual: it is an object now present; it is the mind in some state or mode. But the modifications of mind at any given moment are always more or less complex; that is, there is more than one property in exercise, though of course combined in the unity of the mind. But by a sharp analysis it is always

phys.laws?

possible to separate the different elements, and fix the attention exclusively on that which alone pertains to the law or property we are seeking to evolve. Examining carefully the nature of the acts which › seem to flow from the same principle, we generalize them; and if we do so accurately, we obtain the exact nature of the principle, and can embody it in a verbal expression.

The principle thus discovered and enunciated is properly a metaphysical one; it is a truth above sense, a truth of mind, a truth of reason. It is different in its origin and authority from the general rules reached by experience, such as the law of gravitation, or the law of chemical affinity, or the law of the distribution of animals over the earth's surface. These latter are the mere generalizations of an experience necessarily limited,-they hold good merely in the measure of our experience; and as experience can never reach all possible cases, so the rule can never be absolute,—we can never say that there may not be exceptions. Laws of the former kind are of a higher and deeper nature, they are the generalization of convictions carrying necessity with them, and a consequent universality in their very nature. They are entitled to be regarded as in an especial sense philosophic principles, being the ground to which we come when we follow any system of truth sufficiently far down, and competent to act as a basis on which to erect a superstructure of science. They are truths of our original nature, having the sanction of Him who hath given us our constitution, and graven them there with His own finger.

It is ever to be borne in mind, however, that the detection and exact expression of these intuitive principles is always a delicate, and is often a most difficult, operation. Did they fall immediately under the eye of consciousness, the work would be a comparatively easy one; we should only have to look within in order to see them. But all that consciousness can notice are their individual exercises mixed up one with another, and with all other actings of the mind. It requires a microscopic eye, and much analytic skill, to detect the various fibres in the complex structure, and to follow each through its various windings and entanglements to its source.

BOOK II.

CHARACTERS OF OUR INTUITIONS AND METHOD OF EMPLOYING THEM.

CHAPTER I.

MARKS AND PECULIARITIES OF INTUITION

SECT. I.-TESTS.

BUT how are we to distinguish a primitive conviction which does not need probation, and which we may not even doubt, from propositions which we are not required to believe till evidence is produced? Are we entitled to appeal, when we please and as we please, to supposed first truths? Have we the privilege, when we wish to adhere to a favourite opinion, to declare that we see it to be true intuitively, and thus at once get rid of all objections, and of the necessity for even instituting an examination? When hard pressed or defeated in argument may we resort, as it suits us, to an original principle which we assume without evidence, and declare to be be-yond the reach of refutation? It is one of the aims of this treatise to limit the confidence we put in our supposed intuitions, and lay a stringent restraint on the appeal to truths which are represented as above probation. There can be tests propounded sufficient to determine with precision what convictions are, and what convictions are not, entitled to be regarded as intuitive, and these tests are such that they admit of an easy application, requiring only a moderate degree of careful consideration of the maxim claiming our assent.

1. The primary mark of intuitive truth is self-evidence. It must

(31)

› be evident, and it must have its evidence in the object. The mind, on the bare contemplation of the object, must see it to be so and so, must see it to be so at once, without requiring any foreign evidence or mediate proof. That the planet Mars is inhabited, or that it is not inhabited, is not a first truth, for it is not evident on the bare contemplation of the object. That the isle of Madagascar is inhabited, even this is not a primary conviction; we believe it because of secondary testimony. Nay, that the three angles of a triangle are together equal to two right angles, is not a primitive judgment, for it needs other truths coming between to carry our conviction. But that there is an extended object before me when I look at a table or a wall, that I who look at these object exist, and that two marbles added to two marbles here will be equal to two marbles added to two marbles there, these are truths that are evident on the bare contemplation of the objects, and need no foreign facts, or considerations derived from any other quarter, to establish them.

But, it may be asked, can we certainly know what truths are selfevident? Are we not liable to be deceived, especially by education and prepossessions? Have not some declared propositions to be self-evident, which have afterwards been positively disproved? The reply is, that if we devote our minds earnestly to the object, we cannot readily go astray. No doubt, it is possible to fall into error in the application of this test, as in the application of any other; but this can take place only by negligence, by refusing to go round the object to which the conviction refers, and to look upon it as it is in itself, and in all its aspects. In specifying this test as the fundamental one, I do not mean that it can be applied without much and careful inspection. It is fortunate that we have a secondary test to determine the presence of the primary characteristic.

2. Necessity is a secondary mark of intuitive truth. I am not inclined to fix on this as the original or essential characteristic. I shrink from maintaining that a proposition is true because we must believe it. A proposition is true as being true, and certain propositions are seen by us to be self-evidently true. I would not ground the evidence on the necessity of belief, but I would ascribe the irresistible nature of the conviction to the self-evidence. As the neces

sity flows from the self-evidence, so it may become a test of it, and a test not difficult of application.

When an object of truth is self-evident, necessity always attaches to our convictions regarding it. And according to the nature of the conviction, so is the necessity attached. We shall see that some of our original convictions are of the nature of knowledge, others of the nature of belief, a third class of the nature of judgments, in which we compare objects known or imagined or believed in. In the first our cognition is necessary, in the second our belief is necessary, in the third our judgment is necessary. I know self as an existing thing: this is a necessary cognition; I must entertain it, and never can be driven from it. That space exceeds my widest imagination of space: this is a necessary belief; I must believe it. That every effect has a cause: this is a necessary judgment; I must decide in this way. Wherever there is such a conviction, it is a sign of an intuitive perception. Necessity too may be employed in a negative form, and this is often the most decisive form. If I know immediately that there is an extended object before me in the book which I read, I cannot be made to know that there is not an extended object before me. If I must believe that time has had no beginning, I cannot be made to believe that it has had a beginning. Necessitated as I am to decide that two parallel lines cannot meet, I cannot be made to decide that they can meet. Necessity as a test may thus assume two forms, and we may take the one best suited to our purpose at the time. In the use of a very little care and discernment, this test will settle for us as to any given truth, whether it is or is not self-evident.

3. Catholicity may be employed as a tertiary test. By catholicity is meant that the conviction is entertained by all men, or at least by all men possessed of intelligence, when the objects are presented. I am not inclined to use this as a primary test. For in the first place it is not easy to ascertain, or at least to settle absolutely, what truths may claim this common consent of humanity; and even though this were determined, still it might be urged in the second place that this does not prove that it is necessary or original, but simply that it is a native property,-like the appetite for food among all men,-and would still leave it possible for opponents to maintain that there may

3

1