352 
50. (iii.) Mr. Mill considers in the next place the “Consensus 
The »Cun. omnium ” argument, which he regards as the “main 
sensing om- strength of natural Theism.” Viewed as an “ argu- 
ment,” he shows, of course, that it lias no logical 
completeness; which none indeed suppose. But it is by no 
means an appeal to the judgment of multitudes of individuals, 
but to that, whatever it be, which is at the foundation of their 
concurrence. He takes it for granted that it rests on the not 
unreasonable ground, that He who gave the human intelli- 
gence could not have so “ made it” that it would be universally 
deluded in such a matter. But may not the authority of the 
many, in the past or now, thus rest also on previous 
meet the^iffi- Reason ? Does the Universe rest on no Reason ? 
fact 7 ° f the does not deal w i*h the fact itself, so as even to 
attempt to account for its ineradicable character. No 
explanations that he offers at all touch the difficulty which the 
anti-theist, or non-theist has, not simply in covering the fact by 
explanations, but getting rid of it from the consciousness of 
man. It is not an historical or a theoretical difficulty that he 
has, but to some extent a psychological difficulty. Remove it 
if you will from the domain of logic, still the fact remains ; 
and science, theological or physical, builds on facts. 
51. (iv.) The argument from “Consciousness” comes next, and 
about five pages are devoted to it. We cannot regret 
ness ° and the it : though it lies also beyond the range of our essayist. 
| r °“"^? ofthe Once or twice he goes so far as to imply that the 
existence of God is “ eminently desirable ” on some 
a priori therefore. Here he briefly, according to his concep- 
tion of it, states the argument of Descartes, but he avoids the 
grounds of that argument. These prolegomena we in some 
degree supply. (Something positive may, we hope, be a relief 
amidst a series of criticisms which have chiefly been of a destruc- 
tive kind.) What we have briefly to say may be of use in con- 
sidering at a future time the arguments of Anselm, (to which 
Mr. Mill gives no attention), and the theory of Kant, which 
he rightly finds unsatisfactory, and which he speaks of as an 
“ optimism prior to,” as Leibnitz’s was subsecpient to, “ a belief 
in God.” Our suggestions are these : — 
52. During every movement of our own reason, {Sec § 25) we 
idealize some other consenting reason, (to which we defer as higher, 
Grounds of ^ not su P reme )’ external to us, and necessarily yet for 
the <i priori, our own satisfaction, sought by us. We treat it as 
cartesian" ari Absolute. We know that it is not our own self- 
gmnent. created standard, for if it were, it would not have a 
universal, or even general, character or pattern. Let any one look 
