118 
man know about it, so as to be able to speak about it so freely^. 
He knows apparently that it is, for the universe manifests 
it to us : that is something scrutinized. A thing that is mani- 
fested to us is not “ utterly ” inscrutable. Because he cannot 
see it with the eye, and touch it with the hand, must he main- 
tain that it is “ utterly ” inscrutable ? He knows that it is .he 
cause, for example, of the motion he meets m natural science. 
Dynamic science could have no meaning for him but tor this 
fact. Now, unless motion, wherever we find it, be a random, 
haphazard thing, that power that moves, must have some 
design in so moving, and some mode of acting so as to reach 
the design. To escape, or try to escape, from this conclusion, 
is to falsify reason and deny the truth of science. lhe 
“ power ” is thus not “ utterly ” inscrutable. All this reason 
tells us in connection with science. . 
20. Then, why assume that, if religion and science do require 
to be reconciled, the basis of that reconciliation must be igno- 
rance— a something inscrutable? Must science and religion 
agree to put out their eyes, that they may shake hands and not 
quarrel any more? If the most certain of all facts be that we 
must remain ignorant of God - or the power which the 
universe manifests to us, does it matter much whether we have 
any science? Or can we have any religion? Surely to shake 
hands over a gulf like that can be no desirable friendship. VV e 
refuse the issue thus raised. Why should science, instead of 
pressing on to the gates of light, strike its brow against so 
blank a wall ? May there not be a knowable Being whose 
mind and will and heart, revealed in science and m religion 
may form the basis of a reconciliation for all our imperfect 
thinkings? Reason in science and in religion would say there 
must be such a One, and that He can be known. 
21. This claim to a monopoly of reason on the side of science 
is supported sometimes by a species of claptrap, as Mr. Rratt 
has truthfully named it, which one would scarcely expect to 
find among scientific men. Let a single illustration suffice. YY hen 
Mr. Justice Grove was president of the British Association, lie 
asked how the audience could conceive a full-grown elephan 
suddenly appearing upon the earth, and whence it could have 
come ; “ could it have dropped from heaven ? Now, if hi 
audience had been drowsy, and he had wanted to We them 
into attention, such language might have been allowed to pass, 
but if he meant it to be an argument against the Bible account 
of the origin of such animals, he was guilty of as mean a trick 
of claptrap as it is possible to perpetrate For what has the 
idea of bulk to do with the question of the origin of life and 
organization? Size is relative. What might seem big to 
