130 
scious experience, and arrives, I will not say at a conclusion, but at un- 
questionable knowledge of that external world. I felt very grateful to Mr. 
Mitchell for adhering to that old distinction of philosophy which I feel 
sure has never yet been set aside, — I mean Plato’s plain doctrine — and I 
am also thankful to him for his refutation, in some slight degree, so far as 
his limits allowed, of the doctrine of Dr. Mansel as to regulative truth. 
I cannot help thinking that that doctrine was most painful and mischievous. 
But the passages which Mr. Mitchell has selected from other writers, in 
order to comment upon, in this essay, are really touchstone passages. The 
great value of the paper is that it does select from one philosopher after 
another, and from one infidel after another, the particular points on which 
they have gone wrong ; for if any one will master the points which Mr. 
Mitchell has selected, he will at once have a key to those several philosophies 
to which the essay stands opposed. There are one or two passages in the 
essay which I cannot exactly accept, but it is so useful and complete as a 
whole, that I will not be ungrateful enough to offer the smallest hostile 
criticism. (Cheers.) 
The Rev. S. Wainwright, D.D. — Allow me to say, at starting, that I am 
second to no gentleman in this room in appreciation, or, rather, in ad- 
miration, of the paper with which we have just been favoured ; but I am 
much too candid to attempt to conceal the fact that I was not so well satisfied 
with it, in its earlier portions, for I met several things there which I was 
inclined to question ; perhaps, however, that arose from the fact that the 
writer of the paper was anxious to get on to other matter. When Mr. 
Mitchell got farther on, he had more room, and then he got the hornets in 
his mailed glove, and crushed some of them, and I was very glad to witness 
the operation. I think that has been done most effectively, and 
I concur with Dr. Irons in the opinion that the extent to which it has 
been done, constitutes, in no small degree, the special value of the paper; 
but, with all that, I should like to see some of those earlier passages, the 
accuracy of which I rather question, supplemented with, perhaps in some 
instances not more than a word, and in others possibly a clause, just to take 
off their edge. In reference to the observations of Mr. Titcomb, I think 
Mr. Mitchell is right in maintaining that consciousness is a valid witness, 
but then I am thoroughly with Mr. Titcomb too. Mr. Titcomb made a just 
and valuable remark when he said that he believed Mr. Mitchell’s 
intention was to speak of rational animals — of human consciousness, and, if 
that word “human” had been put in, I do not suppose Mr. Titcomb would 
have taken the least exception to the remark. If any man can inform me 
fully as to what consciousness is, in irrational animals, I shall be prepared to 
admit or deny any affirmation he may make in respect thereof ; but at 
present I do not know what the consciousness of an irrational animal may 
be, and therefore I cannot admit that the consciousness of an irrational 
animal is a valid testimony. Now let me mention another point which to me 
is hardly plain or consistent. Mr. Mitchell says (section 5), “ Science is 
thought.” I say “No.” I am inclined to suppose that he has seen further 
