322 
to deal with the same matter, fitly divides the objects of 
Philosophy as “ God, Nature, Man,” the three comprehending 
the universe of thought, yet each being so far distinct ideally 
as to be capable of treatment per se. We feel at every turn, 
that many confusions, assumptions, and ambiguities, some antici- 
pations which ought to have been proved and apparent conces- 
sions which have often virtually to be recalled, might have been 
spared had Mr. Mill’s arrangement been more logical. Unhap- 
pily he begins with no precise premisses- Having to treat of 
“ Religion,” he felt obliged to look to “ Nature,” for he denied 
the Supernatural. He had Religion as an existing fact to deal 
with ; and so also to consider common arguments for God ; and 
the teaching of Christ. 
Comparing the book with the writer as known to us by his 
own Biography, there may indeed be recognized a kind of 
order in his course of thought. Born and brought up with no 
Religion, his father having relinquished even Presbyterian 
Calvinism, he seems to have been “ left to Nature ” by no fault of 
his own, while yet we see him feeling in thought for Religion of 
some kind, as his life wears on. Quite naturally, it may be, in 
such a position he scarcely came across Christianity as an Historical 
Revelation : it stood on one side. The discarded Presbyterianism 
of his father seems to have brought to a previous close anv real 
Christian examination. Mr. Mill began where his father left off, 
and never seriously turned back. Yet he found he could not 
but think of Religion, and write about it in some way. It seemed 
as if he were not able to help it. It was the subjacent thought 
of his books, even when not expressed. Was a “ Religion ” to be 
found by him, then, in “ Nature” ? And could he trust Nature ? 
— He thinks not, but he will sav ‘ f why.” Might Religion, how- 
ever, since it existed on every side, be a delusion of some “Utility ” 
even if untrue? — He doubts that; but he will see. But, to try 
yet again, — Is there a God at all ? What are the logical argu- 
ments for it? But was not the Christian Founder a marvellous 
fact of the past, influencing a vast moral future ? — He would 
consider yet again. 
The three Essays thus may be easily accounted for, as to their 
But have a f° rm > and show a rough coherence of their own. 
rough kind of Most readers will probably suppose their sequence to 
be sufficiently practical even if unscientific, though 
their want of right method will be seen often to mislead the 
writer. We will take them in their own order, however, (for 
we must take the work as it is), and endeavour also to look at 
the Essays as what they announce themselves to be, and what 
we wish they had been, investigations “ according to the Platonic 
method (p. 4), questioning and testing common maxims and 
opinions.” — (See Note A.) 
