280 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



realities in some other world ; and_the difference 

 between ideal and real is too wide for any con- 

 text to bridge over. Besides, I will ultimately 

 give reasons for holding that Mill's text cannot 

 be safely interpreted by the context, because 

 there is no certainty that in his writings the 

 same line of thought is steadily maintained for 

 two sentences in succession. 



Mill's " Essays on Religion " have been the 

 source of perplexity to numberless readers. His 

 greatest admirers have been compelled to admit 

 that in these essays even Mill seems now and 

 then to play with a word, or unconsciously to 

 mix up two views of the same subject. It has 

 been urged, indeed, by many apologists, including 

 Miss Helen Taylor, their editor, that Mill wrote 

 these essays at wide intervals of time, and was 

 deprived, by death, of the opportunity of giving 

 them his usual careful revision. This absence of 

 revision, however, applies mainly to the third 

 essay, while the discrepant definitions of religion 

 were quoted from the second essay. Moreover, 

 lapse of time will not account for inconsistency 

 occurring between pages 103 and 109 of the 

 same essay. The fact simply is, that these es- 

 says, owing to the exciting nature of their sub- 

 jects, have received a far more searching and 

 hostile criticism than any of his other writings. 

 Thus inherent defects in his intellectual charac- 

 ter, which it was a matter of great difficulty to 

 expose in so large a work as the " System of 

 Logic," were readily detected in these brief, can- 

 did, but most ill-judged essays. 



But, for my part, I will no longer consent to 

 live silently under the incubus of bad logic and 

 bad philosophy, which Mill's works have laid 

 upon us. On almost every subject of social im- 

 portance — religion, morals, political philosophy, 

 political economy, metaphysics, logic — he has ex- 

 pressed unhesitating opinions, and his sayings are 

 quoted by his admirers as if they were the oracles 

 of a perfectly wise and logical mind. Nobody 

 questions, or at least ought to question, the force 

 of Mill's style, the persuasive power of his words, 

 the candor of his discussions, and the perfect 

 goodness of his motives. If to all his other great 

 qualities had been happily added logical accurate- 

 ness, his writings would indeed have been a source 

 of light for generations to come. But in one way 

 or another Mill's intellect was wrecked. The 

 cause of injury may have been the ruthless 

 training which his father imposed upon him 

 in tender years ; it may have been Mill's own 

 life-long attempt to reconcile a false empiri- 

 cal philosophy with conflicting truth. But, how- 



ever it arose, Mill's mind was essentially illogi- 

 cal. 



Such, indeed, is the intricate sophistry of 

 Mill's principal writings, that it is a work of much 

 mental effort to trace out the course of his falla- 

 cies. For about twenty years past I have been a 

 more or less constant student of his books : dur- 

 ing the last fourteen years I have been compelled, 

 by the traditional requirements of the University 

 of London, to make those works at least partially 

 my text-books in lecturing. Some ten years of 

 study passed before I began to detect their fun- 

 damental unsoundness. During the last ten years 

 the conviction has gradually grown upon my mind 

 that Mill's authority is doing immense injury to 

 the cause of philosophy and good intellectual 

 training in England. Nothing, surely, can do so 

 much intellectual harm as a body of thoroughly 

 illogical writings, which are forced upon students 

 and teachers by the weight of Mill's reputation, 

 and the hold which his school has obtained upon 

 the universities. If, as I am certain, Mill's phi- 

 losophy is sophistical and false, it must be an in- 

 dispensable service to truth to show that it is so. 

 This weighty task I at length feel bound to under- 

 take. 



The mode of criticism to be adopted is one 

 which has not been sufficiently used by any of his 

 previous critics. Many able writers have defended 

 what they thought the truth against Mill's errors ; 

 but they confined themselves for the most part to 

 skirmishing round the outworks of the Associa- 

 tionist Philosophy, firing in every here and there 

 a well-aimed shot. But their shots have sunk 

 harmlessly into the sand of his foundations. In 

 order to have a fair chance of success, different 

 tactics must be adopted ; the assault must be 

 made directly against the citadel of his logical 

 reputation. His magazines must be reached and 

 exploded ; he must be hoist, like the engineer, 

 with his own petard. Thus only can the discon- 

 nected and worthless character of his philosophy 

 be exposed. 



I undertake to show that there is hardly one 

 of his more important and peculiar doctrines 

 which he has not himself amply refuted. It will 

 be shown that in many cases it is impossible to 

 state what his doctrine is, because he mixes up 

 two or three, and, in one extreme case, as many 

 as six different and inconsistent opinions. In 

 several important cases, the view which he pro- 

 fesses to uphold is the direct opposite of what he 

 really upholds. Thus, he clearly reprobates the 

 doctrine of Free-Will, and expressly places him- 

 self in the camp of Liberty; but he objects to 



