105 
THE IDENTITY OF REASON IN SCIENCE AND 
RELIGION. By the Bey. R. Mitchell. 
E EASON is not one thing in science and another thing in 
religion. It is not one thing in man, and a different 
thing in some other moral being. It is not one thing in specu- 
lation and another thing in practice. It is the same in all the 
spheres of its manifestation. The admission that reason con- 
ducts to propositions that are contradictory, has been fruitful 
of evil to correct thinking, and Kant did not escape from the 
difficulty by appealing to what is called the practical reason. 
For if reason lands us in contradictions in connection with 
speculation, there is no guarantee that the same result shall not 
follow in the sphere of practice. In like manner, Hamilton 
and Mansel remain unprotected by their appeal to faith ; for 
faith is as really a function of the reason as is the intuition 
of cause and effect, of substance and attribute, of right and 
wrong, of the finite and infinite; and if reason may not be 
trusted in the one sphere, it will be difficult to show why it may 
be in the other. 
2. Mansel is careful to remind us that Kant was “ the ad- 
vocate of the most unlimited rationalism in religion ; ” a 
rationalist being one “ who, without denying the reality of a 
Divine revelation, yet maintains that the knowledge and ac- 
ceptance of it is not an essential part of religion. But what 
is religion ? It is known relations to God, with the duties and 
privileges involved. Now, reason in religion will demand that 
if this revelation can be shown to be true, it must be received. 
It is not an accurate representation of the place of reason 
in religion to say that it can originate religious truth for 
itself. It accepts what is originated, revealed, and enforced. 
Whatever has been done by error to dim the eye, and by evil 
to deaden the heart, has been taken into view in that system of 
religion which revelation presents. Ours is an abnormal state 
of things, and demands special aids to re-establish religious life. 
Reason then cannot oppose a revelation, for there is nothing 
unreasonable in it. Reason can only oppose what is false in 
the sphere of thought, impure in the sphere of feeling, and 
wrong in the sphere of action. But there are no such elements 
i 2 
