THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE 321 



necessarily be cramped and limited. The Greek temple was not in- 

 tended for public worship of an invisible God, but for the actual resi- 

 dence of their many humanized gods. From this it may appear that 

 their religion was man-made, i. e., that it was no real religion, but 

 only a philosophy; and so we are in a better position to comprehend 

 the classical ancestor worship and the Lares and Penates. When we 

 start from this center we may also get a better insight into the Greek 

 character as a whole. 



The middle-age cathedral, on the other hand, bore no resemblance 

 to the dwellings of men. It was a lofty edifice with numerous spires 

 pointing to heaven. It was built for public worship of one God, and 

 was adorned at every point with a richness of tracery and design that 

 would bewilder the observer of to-day were it not so harmonious in all 

 its parts. The conceptions embodied in it are wholly distinct from 

 those ultimated in the Greek temple, showing what a complete and 

 fundamental change in the idea of divinity had come over mankind. 

 The cathedral was not the perfect realization of a limited ideal, but the 

 imperfect realization of an unlimited ideal; and this shows a vast ex- 

 pansion and elevation of the conception of religion — an expansion and 

 elevation that must be ascribed wholly to the christian religion. 



Furthermore, the effort to realize these expanded and elevated ideals 

 led to the definition and the solution of numerous practical problems 

 in applied science. The construction of a Greek temple is a simple 

 engineering feat when compared with that of a Gothic cathedral. The 

 solution of these engineering problems lead to the definition of others; 

 and so we see in the middle ages a great development of skill in all 

 sorts of manual arts, carving, metal working, stone cutting, weaving, 

 printing, etc., all before modern science made any pretense of being 

 extant. 



Time forbids the following of the argument into detail. There are 

 just two important conclusions that seem to be justified by this com- 

 parative study. I will, in closing, state them ; and leave the reader to 

 find out if, after further study, he too finds them justified. The first 

 is this: Since Christianity was the source of the ideals that led to the 

 construction of the cathedrals; and since this work and these ideals 

 led to the definition and solution of many problems in applied science; 

 and since the solution of problems in applied science precedes and pre- 

 pares the way for the definition of problems in pure science; therefore, 

 we may make the hypothesis, subject to further verification, that mod- 

 ern science owes its origin from the side of the imagination to Christi- 

 anity. Hence the so-called warfare of science and religion is but a 

 sham battle between science and dogmatic theology — between reason 

 and unreason. Modern science is, from this point of view, really the 

 child of Christianity. 



vol. lxxii. — 21. 



