133 
and have probably learnt to hold the truth as matter of practice in our daily 
lives before our reason enabled us to state its contradictions. But we 
must bear in mind the difficulties of those who oppose us— I speak not of 
those who attack the faith and boldly call themselves the leaders of infidelity, 
but of those who are anxious to find out what is right, but have not yet suc- 
ceeded in their search. Now, Mr. Mitchell’s paper opens with the bold state- 
ment that “reason is the same in science and religion.” Perhaps he will 
forgive me for saying, that so far as I can understand his argument, it 
uses “reason” in one sense in one case, and in another sense in the 
other: it seems to mean diavoia in the one case, and vorjeig in the other. 
The methods of scientific truth are not the same as the methods of religious 
truth, nor are the objects set before the mind of the theologian the same 
as those which are set before the scientific student. Then Mr. Mitchell 
has contradicted his own statement when he says that it is the business 
of theology to apprehend, and of science to comprehend. While religion 
accepts facts, am I not right in saying that science does not merely accept 
them — to a certain extent it creates them ? Is not each observation the 
application of a general rule which the scientific man evolved before he be- 
gan to observe ? When Professor Tyndall, or any other practised scientific 
student, examines a molecule, does he not see things which an untrained eye 
cannot see, and observe things which an untrained mind cannot find ? To 
investigate the nature of prayer and its purpose ; the proofs of religion, of 
miracles, and of inspiration, the place of historical criticism, and a host of 
other things connected with religious truth, demands a totally different atti- 
tude of the mind. I cannot explain the whole position, but trust that I am 
not misunderstood if I seem for a moment to take the sceptical side. I am 
myself a Calvinist, but I have lived amongst those who are not Calvinists, 
and who would not subscribe to many of the dogmas which are laid down by 
orthodox professors, and I know that their difficulties in reference to religious 
matters are very great. There are many men I know — good and honourable 
men — who, if they could be influenced wisely and religiously, might be turned 
to much good. Mr. Mitchell has referred to John Stuart Mill. Now, I 
believe that John Stuart Mill is a teacher who has done much for truth, 
and Dr. Irons seemed to me to show the distinction between the work of 
Mr. Mill and of the theologian proper. There is no question that the abso- 
lute want of enthusiasm which prevented John Stuart Mill from seeing 
higher truth, has given him greater accuracy in describing the methods of 
logical truth. In reading his “Autobiography” you are reminded of the 
fable of Plato. Some men lie bound with their eyes turned to the shadows. 
As it is impossible for them to turn to gaze at truth, they seem able to 
gaze more steadily and calmly at the shadows, and so make up in pre- 
cision for what they lose in breadth. John Stuart Mill has done much and 
good work, and his work must be understood in relation to religion, before 
we can successfully grapple with the errors to which his school is attached. 
This is the more necessary on account of the peculiar state of the religious 
