AN EXAMINATION OF MR. MILL’S THREE ESSAYS 
ON RELIGION. By the Rev. W. J. Irons, D.D., Pre- 
bendary of St. PauPs, Bampton Lecturer for 1870, &c. 
CONTENTS. 
A general anxiety as to the subject of Mr. Mill’s views. 
The charge of Atheism against the candidate for Westminster proved this. 
(His refusal to meet the charge was a surprise.) 
The interest in his views was enhanced by his reputation, 
And by his expected treatment of the logical arguments as to Theism. 
Mr. Mill’s book now issued seems to have disappointed all parties. 
The three Essays to be examined are defective in arrangement : 
But have a rough kind of unity. 
Essay I. — “Nature.” 
“ Nature of a particular object,” according to Mr. Mill : 
And also, “ Nature in the abstract.” 
The definition of the “Nature of each particular object ” fails ; 
Not providing for “common Natures.” Hence the first dilemma. 
“ The abstract idea of Nature,” as expressed by Mr. Mill, also fails to serv 
the purpose of the argument, 
And lie finds that it needs subdivision ; 
And cannot even then be used in Moral inquiry. 
Hence his second dilemma. 
Mr. Mill’s failure compared with “ Socratic analysis.” 
(Its philosophic crudity.) 
Comparison of Mr. Mill’s treatment of Nature, and its treatment by Science. 
(Illustrations — ) Cuvier. 
Bacon. 
Mr. Mill’s confusion of his own definitions. 
A double definition seems forced upon him by the argument. 
Without it Mr. Mill could not proceed to his object in this Essay. 
The “Sequi Naturam ” is the thesis denied by Mr. Mill. 
And that in both his senses of “ Nature.” 
His further dilemma as to those two senses of “ Nature.” 
His two senses of Nature prove incoherent as hypotheses : 
Yet he opposes them to all previous philosophy in discussing “ Sequi 
Naturam ” ; and next, logically fails. 
Still further modifications of his definition of Nature ; but in vain. 
Philosophy, science, and even poetry, all love and “follow Nature.” 
Mr. Mill now brings his indictment against Nature as Evil ; 
And he would vindicate this by considering “ attributes of the Creator.” 
Mr. Mill here confuses the Pne-phenomenal with the Phenomenal, in dis- 
cussing God’s Power. He does not give his own idea of Power. 
He also mis-states the rule “ Sequi Naturam.” 
(Yet he is himself better than his argument : 
