131 
into it and gone further round the mountain than I have, and he may be 
quite right and I quite wrong, but at present I do not see it. You may 
depend upon it, that if I had the last word, I should have something to say 
in defence of my position as to the existence of a radical distinction between 
science and thought. There may be thought with a great lack of science. 
Then Mr. Mitchell says (section 13): — 
“ And yet, somehow or other, that universe that knows no God, has formed 
the conception of God and given it to us ; has formed the conception of 
something greater than itself, and imbedded that conception deep in our 
nature, so that reason refuses to pause at that universe as its resting-place, 
while it has the thought of a centre grander and more glorious.” 
Now I hope not to be misunderstood. Let me say, that with the general 
, ope and design of that 13th section I am thoroughly in accord : I am 
thoroughly opposed to the doctrine of Professor Huxley that is there quoted 
in order to be refuted. All I question is the form in which the sentence I 
have read is put. Separate it from the context, and Mr. Mitchell makes the 
affirmation that the universe has formed and given to us the conception of 
God. Now I do not think that affirmation, as it stands, was in Mr. Mitchell’s 
mind. I cannot stand between his own interpretation of his own thoughts 
and himself, but I feel sure we are agreed on this point, and what I appre- 
hend him to say is, that we have derived a certain conception of God from 
what we have perceived of the manifestations of mind in the universe. As 
it is, he has deified the universe itself. I have now done with the ungracious 
task of picking holes in a work which I like so much ; and, when we turn to 
the obverse of the shield, we find that some of the things Mr. Mitchell has 
said in refutation of the authorities are really admirable. For instance, in 
section 16, he says: — 
“In connection with mental science, John Stuart Mill tells us that there 
may be worlds in which two and two are not four.” 
I refer to that in order to remind the meeting, and through the 
meeting to remind the mass of people who, whether they have 
science or not, have not enough thought when they repeat Mr. Mill’s 
statements, that Mr. Mill has said something which I want them to judge 
and to weigh, so that they may give such credence as should be given 
to a man who says that a thing which is a contradiction in terms may be 
reasonable. Mr. Mill has said that the morality of the New Testament is 
capable of. improvement. I would have that statement weighed by the credit 
attaching to that other statement. There is just one other point. Mr. 
Mitchell has spoken of Mr. Bain and the “ Ego,” and has quoted Mr. Bain’s 
remark (section 25) : — “ I am not able to concede the existence of an inscru- 
table entity,” &c. I will not attack the writer on that subject — I take 
the things on which we are thoroughly in accord — but- still hope I may say, 
for the sake of those present, that a most delightful paper was con- 
tributed some years ago to Macmillan’s Magazine, by Miss Emily 
