326 
and in what sense ? He would have inquired what the term 
“ Human Nature'” meant ? — Whether it included women as well 
as men ? Whether we did not consider it the Nature of a certain 
number of plants to grow out of the earth? — And found the Nature 
of fishes to be herein different from the Nature of such plants ? — 
And of birds, again, different ? And of man also different ? From 
these, or similar inquiries, the Platonic dialogue would have 
sought to elicit thoughts and facts as to the term “ Nature,” the 
outcome of all which would have been no speculation, but a state- 
ment of the general result, as testified by the minds of all men. — 
So Mr. Mill’s method is the opposite of the Socratic, and seems 
almost ostentatiously to comprise all the faults which modern phi- 
losophy has been wont to condemn in inferior dogmatic inquirers. 
Put let us look closer; for Mr. Mill’s entire view of the sub- 
ject of Religion which he proposed to treat is made dependent on 
his definitions. 
9. To regard a mass of objects, and then just affirm that it was 
its phiioso- ^ ie tc Nature” of the antecedents to produce, or lead 
piiic crudity, to them, is, to say the least, no analysis, but very 
raw and unobservant dealing with facts. This is Mr. Mill’s method, 
and we object at the outset, that it is uncritical as well as illogical. 
It evades investigation, instead of entering on it. If Mr. Mill 
had said, for instance, k ‘ I deny all species (with Mr. Darwin) ; I 
consider that the science of the future will generalize more and 
more, in some respects, and individualize more and more in others; 
I ignore classifications, and decline to notice or inquire into 
distinctions,” he would have been candid ; though he would in 
that case have had difficulty in advancing to his consideration of 
the subject. Adopting so uncouth a way, he would have been 
obliged to violate every principle of examination, Socratic or 
utilitarian ; for any one must needs be foiled who attempts to 
construct a theory without previous consideration of facts. 
We must ask attention to this, for it well displays Mr. Mill’s 
primary error. The first movement of the philosophic mind, 
after a fair induction of particulars, is towards discri- 
Comparison 
of Mr. Mill’s 
method with 
that of all 
science. 
mination and 
arrangement. 
Without this, the 
whole universe might be indexed, and no science 
arrived at. The competent thinker, {See Note A., 
at the end of thin paper), on regarding any objects, 
or series or number of objects, begins to look for the, at least 
possible, differentia of each being; at all events for that which 
now distinguishes it from other beings ; and perhaps, also, he 
would look in each class for that which marks it off from other 
classes. None but the rudest, and the most uneducated usually, 
a priori discard the special characteristics of particular objects, 
or orders, and their mutual points of contact, and just aim to 
construct, (so far as life and memory hold out), a Chinese alphabet 
