126 
by means of both reaches the high ends that are in harmony 
with itself. If they mutiny, it still retains its power ; they may 
outrage it, but degrade it they never can. They are the 
theatres of its manifestation, and it will walk through them, 
ever revealing how great a thing it is. Hard things are said 
against it, as to what it can or cannot do ; in its very name 
men abuse it : but nevertheless it shines on, the central gloiy 
of the created universe. As Cuiverwell has said, “to blas- 
pheme reason is to reproach heaven itself, and to dishonour 
the God of reason.” 
The Chairman. — I think our best thanks are due to the Rev. R. Mitchell 
for this very important paper, and I do not think one has ever been read 
in this room with which I have more substantially agreed. I cannot see a 
single paragraph which I am prepared to dispute. The paper contains a 
vast amount of most important and thoughtful matter, such as I think is pre- 
eminently necessary at present, when so many atheistic works are m circula- 
tion, sapping the foundations, not only of Christianity, but of all religion. 
(Cheers.) It is now my duty to invite any one present who wishes to do so, 
to join in the discussion. . . 
The Rev. J. H. Titcomb.— If I criticise this paper at all, it will simply 
be in reference to one point where Mr. Mitchell seems to take up an 
antagonism to the position laid down by one of the writers against whom he 
is contending, viz., that consciousness can never be a valid witness. !Now, 
in a certain sense this is so, as you will see in a moment when you con- 
sider how consciousness is capable of being deceived by the influence ol 
appearances. So far as consciousness goes, it is not valid testimony. 
Consciousness without reason ds no valid testimony ; but, aided by the 
due exercise of reason, it is a valid testimony. The only weak point 
which I can note in the paper arises, in fact, from the forgetfulness ol 
Mr. Mitchell to put in this distinction,— that while consciousness by itsell 
is not always a valid witness, it may be a valid witness when it is aided by 
reason. But the paper is so valuable that it seems a shame to say anythmg 
in the way of criticism upon it. It draws a very proper distinction between 
reason and reasoning — a distinction which ought never to be forgotten. . 
take it that reason is a mysterious faculty of the mind from which reasoning 
springs, and reasoning is the exercise of that faculty which brings out and 
exhibits truth to our consciousness. The question, therefore, is, as touching 
the subject of this paper, whether, when reasoning is applied to religion as 
well as to science, reason herself has a proper sphere for exercise. I would 
ask, on what possible ground can that be disputed ? It appears to me, sir, 
that there is only one ground on which we can exclude reason from religion 
when it is permitted to science, and that is, that there is a greater amount 
of incertitude in religion than there is in science. But, even taking that, 
and allowing it to be the case— which I do not at all allow,— still, any 
