348 
2, 3, 4, and 5, God’s “ Attributes,” man’s “ Immortality,” and 
supernatural “Revelation” are briefly reviewed. We shall have 
need, for the argument, chiefly to notice Part 1, and its several 
points ; the remaining Parts will follow the fate of the main 
position of our author. 
44. (i.) The quietude of Mr. Mill’s manner in approaching his 
subject (p. 126) has a grace and truthfulness about it which con- 
its introduc- trasts > as ' v <? intimated, with the common tones of 
tion and calm- unbelief; and his refinement in this respect is broken, 
nt "‘ though rarely, by a note of hollow despair, coming as 
if from the bottom of a fatally-wounded heart. He speaks as if 
believing in nothing, — not even his own arguments, or his own 
self. If he refers to hope as a possibility for some, it is still quite 
evident that he has it not. One would think that as he mused 
at any time of the birth of children into such a world as this, he 
might almost adopt Dante’s motto for the entrance to a lower 
region — “no hope” for those who come here! Were it disco- 
vered, universally, that all Religious faith had ceased 
hopeful) 1S not from the earth, and if a cry of terror then went up 
from all who thus far had sustained themselves by 
some Religion, — even infidels standing awestruck, — it would 
seem as if Mr. Mill would be more than resigned. In such a 
spirit as this to approach the subject of Theism is, even to 
lookers-on, distressing. There is a languor as of coming deatli 
in every line that is written ; a reaction from the very suspicion of 
a “Religion of Humanity” for him. Perhaps, too, a little reaction 
here and there against the domineering “ canons of scientific 
evidence ” may be felt ; but he must, as of necessity, come to the 
consideration of the existence and attributes of God as to a 
“ scientific theorem only.” He says (p. 134.) : — 
45. “ Looking at the problem as it is our duty to do, merely 
as a scientific inquiry, it resolves itself into two questions ; first, 
is the theory which refers the origin of all the phenomena of 
nature to the will of a Creator, consistent or not with 
the results of science?” And he calmly replies that, 
at all events, “ the conception of a God governing the 
world by variable acts of Will is inconsistent with the 
most general truths made known to us by scientific 
investigation” (p. 135). Of course, if this he the case, cadit 
qucestio. But had not the supposition of such Will been pre- 
viously used by him ? And is not physical science itself in need 
of something to begin either molecular or atomic motion ? 
Before we go any further then, we must know what “ governing 
the world ” means in this case. To speak of “governing,” without 
will in the governor, is to deny all intentional “ governing” while 
admitting the term. What “ governing” can be, we perceive 
First inquiry 
whether the 
idea of the will 
of a Creator 
contradicts 
science. 
