319 
Mr. Mill’s unconscious admissions, compared with St. Augustin against 
the Manichseans, c. xxxiii.) 
Again, What is Mr. Mill’s idea of Goodness ? 
Comparison of the ideas and method of Socrates with Mr. Mill’s. 
All must recognize Evil as a fact. 
How the Christian philosophy recognizes it. 
The theory of the uneducated is here ultimately unthinkable. 
Mr. Mill’s world imagined. 
The Christian treatment of the real facts of the world. 
Difficulty of the Moral science of the future. 
The philosophy of Volition must again be examined. 
Essay II. — “Utility or Religion.” 
How the writer comes to discuss this Utility. 
The question as stated by Mr. Mill ; 
With a possible exception in favour of a “ Religion of Humanity.” 
Bentham and Comte are followed by him. 
Du Coulanges gives a complete refutation of Mr. Mill’s supposed facts. 
Examples in opposition to Mr. Mill’s suppositions. 
Anterior necessity hinders not a subsequent utility ; but supports it. 
(The utility of Christianity specially.) 
The idea of “ Reward ” — its philosophy referred to. 
Essay III. — “Theism.” 
The tone of this Essay on Theism. 
Anecdote of Shelley. 
Story in Herodotus. 
Mr. Mill’s account of his own training. 
Arrangement of the Essay. 
Its introduction, — the calmness of tone : 
But it is not very hopeful. 
First Inquiry — Whether the idea of the will of a Creator contradicts 
Science ? 
Professor Tyndall and Mr. Morley here oppose Mr. Mill’s dogma. 
Second Inquiry : — What is the evidence for a will governing Nature? 
The d priori , as showing the contradiction implied in the “Second In- 
quiry ; ” 
And Mr. Mill’s ignoratio elenchi. 
“ Causation,” as belonging to the d priori. 
Mr. Mill’s mistake in stating the proposition. 
Further inaccurate use of “ Abstraction.” 
Self-contradiction of Mr. Mill’s argument here. 
The “ Consensus omnium ” — historical, yet partly d priori. 
Mr. Mill does not meet the difficulty of the fact. 
Consciousness, and the grounds of the d priori. 
(Grounds of the d priori implied in the Cartesian argument.) 
Moral character of thought, as right or wrong — also a priori. 
Views of Plato and Aristotle, how here related. 
The subject is at first metaphysical ; and as such not treated by Mr. Mill. 
“Argument from Design : the d posteriori.” 
Paley’s statement of it, Natural Theology , chap. iii. 
Recent objection to Design. Reply. 
Conclusion. 
The book. 
The writer. — The Subject. (Notes A, B, C.) 
z 2 
