357 
for there could not be, with the first link missing — there is here 
and there this softened tone, even though it be too often a voice 
of deepest abandonment as to an inexorable fate, or even but — 
“ the gurgling cry 
“ Of some strong swimmer in. his agony.” 
59- In watching, as we have now done, the downward struggle 
from “ Nature ” to “ Theism,” from Theism to Atheism, and seen 
the individual loneliness and helplessness that remain — a despair 
as to existence itself — we have pursued the course of Mr. Mill’s 
book. We have seen that he refuses to “ follow Nature,” 
finding no certain “ Religion” there; yet he hints a “ Religion 
of Humanity ” for those who may wish it, as unconcernedly as 
if he bad not just before considered “ Humanity ” a part of 
Nature. We see him, then, sitting in judgment, on Nature, 
of which he had called himself a necessary part ; thus revealing 
how the a priori in his whole intelligent being was yet feeling 
for higher truth than mere argument could reach. Yet he goes 
on to deny political “ Utility,” and social advantage, to “ Reli- 
gion,” or even to a “ belief in God,” and so gives us at the close 
of his work an entire and acknowledged blank, — on the surface 
of which, nevertheless, is projected the sacred form of Jesus 
Christ, dimly attracting his mind and heart ! 
Here we must leave both the author and his work. Our task 
with them is done. Asa logician, or even as an analyst, Mr. 
Mill has no place. But what is more important by far in the 
controversy is, that his method is convicted of every fallacy. It 
may discover, perhaps, to some that a thorough inquiry as to the 
a priori is the need of the logic of the future, since an attempted 
“ argument ” without an a priori is but a wrangle without a 
beginning, conducting to no clear rational end. 
60. Mr. Spencer, for example, might reason more subtly than 
Mr. Mill, but he really has nothing else to say. He argues in 
better form, and with closer analysis. His admissions are more 
full and distinct ; his sentiment and feeling being more refined 
do not so mislead him as to interfere with his logic. He sees 
that while he keeps to the phenomenal he is, however wrong, 
controversially safe. His position can only be approached from 
higher ground ; and he is clearly aware of it. Could be not 
answer his own arguments ? 
The battle of “ Atheism ” — (may we not add the battle of 
Revelation entirely ?) must be fought out, with unbeliever or 
with misbeliever, on the field of the a priori, as occupied de facto , 
and as received historically, by the Reason and Faith of Human 
Nature itself, in every department of its knowledge. 
