RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 297 



spiritual worlds; and specifically a struggle in one world between true 

 and false science, in another between religion and the heresy of the 

 time. If we survey the whole of history at a glance we see that the 

 science of one epoch has often been at variance with the religion of 

 another; but we also see that in each and every age the conflict has 

 been between things of one and the same kind; between religion and 

 its opposite, between science and its opposite; and not in general be- 

 tween things so different in their nature as science and religion. 



The histories of the so-called ' martyrs of Science ' should be in- 

 terpreted in the light of the foregoing conclusions. It may be that 

 some readers, even while admitting the argument here set down, will 

 leave it with an uneasy feeling that it can not, after all, be correct. 

 It differs from received opinion. It is so much at variance with the 

 views expounded in books of the warfare-of-science sort. But is it? 

 As to opinion, I will quote a phrase of Kepler's: 



The whole of philosophy is nothing but innovation, and a combat with 

 im memorial ignorance. 



Kepler was in the thick of the fight and knew that of which he 

 spoke. He blames ignorance and not religion, nor theology. As to 

 the real teaching of the books in question, I will quote two paragraphs 

 from President White's ' Warfare of Science with Theology in 

 Christendom.' 



I. Nothing is more unjust than to cast especial blame for all this resistance 

 to science upon the Roman Church. The Protestant Church, though rarely 

 able to be so severe, has been more blameworthy. 



II. As to the older errors the whole civilized world was at fault, Protestant 

 as well as Catholic. It was not the fault of Religion; it was the fault of that 

 short-sighted linking of theological dogmas to scriptural texts, which in utter 

 defiance of the words and works of the Blessed Founder of Christianity, 

 narrow-minded, loud-voiced men are ever prone to substitute for Religion. 



The first citation is amply proved in the book from which it is 

 taken. The second lays the blame precisely where it belongs, namely, 

 upon the whole civilized — that is, partly civilized — world. The con- 

 flict was the outcome of invincible ignorance; it was an episode in the 

 progress towards enlightenment. It had nothing to do with religion 

 — Dr. White so states. That it had nothing to do with theology will 

 be clear when we reflect that the particular form of men's theology 

 determined only the particular manner in which their ignorance was 

 manifested. Catholics chose one form; Protestants another. The 

 real t cause underlaid theological form ; and was the ignorance of 

 'narrow-minded' men. It was independent of 'scriptural texts,' 

 though they were often quoted to serve a purpose. From Dr. White's 

 own words it appears that the conflicts of science have not been, in 

 general, with religion, nor yet with theology ; but with the ' immemorial 

 ignorance' of 'narrow-minded men,' recognized as the arch-enemy by 

 Kepler, the protagonist, and recognizable all about us to-day, if we 

 will but look. 



