354- 
form than Anselm, or Descartes, or Kant gave it. They all 
argued from mind to that which mind implies. — But this subject 
cannot of course be exhausted in analyzing these paragraphs of 
Mr. Mill. 
It may be returned to probably in the larger examination of 
<c Religious Responsibility,” which has been so long promised to 
this Institution. 
It is sufficient moreover for the present to say, that on the 
The subject d priori, as a metaphysical inquiry, Mr. Mill's 
taphysicai.and volume cannot be said to profess to enter. That which 
toeatedby Mr* one wol *ld have been glad primarily to press on him, 
Min. had it been possible, would have been, that the 
human mind itself anterior to any kind of syllogistic process, 
is a reality, a force, a power; and then, that it always compares 
itself and its work with an ideal. Granting freely, that the sense 
or consciousness of the a priori is far from being distinct, and in 
much-enfeebled intellects is, as Locke acknowledges, very dim ; 
yet without it there could be no clear rationality. Its indistinct- 
ness may be a true ground indeed for humility, but never of 
denial. It becomes more distinct when we stir from lethargy, 
and use our mind, as few will take the trouble to do though 
many pretend to it. 
Reasoning not unfrequently elicits latent truth, and more 
fully displays the sense of the a priori, in the capable; and this is 
the line of the Cartesian argument, — that a human idea relates 
to reality ; which is not, (as Mr. Mill supposes, p. 139,) the 
same as saying that the idea “ forms an objective fact,” for that 
may be but phenomenal. 
55. (v.) The argument from “ Marks of Design in Nature ” 
Argument stands for consideration last in order. This, Mr. Mill 
fromdesign. says, is an “ argument of a really scientific character,” 
but certainly lie does not shine in it. We should have been glad 
if this popular and applauded argument had been of any use in 
leading Mr. Mill to Theism. But it seems to have failed ; nor are 
we surprised. Mr. Mill simply opposes to it Mr. Darwin’s hypo- 
thesis of the “ Survival of the fittest.” If wisely stated, full of 
subsidiary interest indeed in Theology is the “ Argument from 
Design,” — it is like a Bible, if in the hands of the Church ; but 
as standing alone it is bare, and liable as a mere argument, (as 
Lord Bacon implied,) to much perversion — as an d posteriori i 
without a priori. We cannot but think, too, that it is most 
Faley’g state unhappily expounded, (e.g., in a passage of l’aley’s 
ment of it, Natural Theology, in which his hypothesis represents 
Nut. Th., some creation as almost beneath the Supreme, or as if 
committed to a Demiurge,) whenever it is wrested from its true 
