LITERARY NOTICES. 



"3 



arts of life, it cannot be denied that the mediie- 

 val Mussulmans had reached a higher plane of 

 material couitort than their Christian contem- 

 poraries. In short, the work of all kinds done by 

 these people would furnish the judicious advo- 

 cate of the claims of the Semitic race with ma- 

 terials for a pleasing and instructive picture. 11 



Very well ; these are facts of some im- 

 portance, but who had brought them out 

 for public appreciation before Dr. Draper 

 published his " History of the Intellectual 

 Development of Europe ? " And, although 

 Mr. Fiske may differ from him in regard to 

 the historical import of Arabian science, we 

 fail to see any occasion for the indulgence 

 of sneering and disparagement. 



And now in regard to the " Conflict." 

 The theologians of all ilks, who have taken 

 up Dr. Draper's recent book, are agreed that 

 it is a piece of futility because there is real- 

 ly no such conflict as that of which he pre- 

 tends to have given the history. Messrs. 

 Brownson, Hill, Washburn, Deems, and Co., 

 are vehement in asserting the groundless- 

 ness and absurdity of Dr. Draper's assump- 

 tion ; and now, as if he had been sitting 

 under the droppings of the Hippodrome, 

 Mr. Fiske cordially acquiesces in the ardent 

 views of these gentlemen. He says of Dr. 

 Draper : " "When he enlarges on the trite 

 story of Galileo and alludes to the more 

 modern quarrel between the Church and 

 geologists, and does this in the belief that 

 he is thereby illustrating an antagonism be- 

 tween Religion and Science, it is obvious 

 that he identifies the cause of the anti- 

 geologists and the persecutors of Galileo 

 with the cause of Religion. The word ' re- 

 ligion ' is to him a symbol which stands for 

 unenlightened bigotry or narrow-minded un- 

 willingness to look facts in the face. . . . 

 It is, nevertheless, a very superficial con- 

 ception, and no book which is vitiated by 

 it can have much philosophic value. . . . 

 Since, then, the scientific innovator does 

 not, either voluntarily or involuntarily, at- 

 tack religion, it follows that there can be no 

 such ' conflict ' as that of which Dr. Draper 

 has undertaken to write the history. The 

 real contest is between one phase of science 

 and another." This will hardly do. Mr. 

 Fiske says that no book vitiated by this 

 superficial conception can have much philo- 

 sophic value. But, in the " First Principles " 

 of Herbert Spencer, on page 11, we read : 

 vol. ix. 8 



"Of all antagonisms of belief, the oldest, 

 the widest, the most profound, and the mot.t 

 important, is that between religion and science. 

 It commenced when the recognition of the sim- 

 plest uniformities in surrounding things set a 

 limit to the previous universal fetichism. It 

 shows itself everywhere throughout the domain 

 of human knowledge, affecting men's interpre- 

 tations alike of the simplest mechanical acci- 

 dents and of the most complicated events in the 

 histories of nations. It has its roots deep down 

 in the diverse habits of thought of different 

 orders of minds. And the conflicting concep- 

 tions of Nature and life which these diverse 

 habits of thought severally generate, influence 

 for good or ill the tone of feeling and the daily 

 conduct. An unceasing battle of opinion like 

 this, which has been carried on throughout all 

 ages, under the banners of religion and science," 

 etc. 



Mr. Spencer, of course, holds to the 

 possibility of an ultimate reconciliation be- 

 tween Religion and Science, but he does not 

 commit the folly of denying their past and 

 present antagonism. Dr. Draper has made 

 no attempt to deal with the philosophy of 

 the subject, and he is not to be judged by 

 that standard. Assuming, as Spencer has 

 done, that it is a fact, and a fact of vast 

 significance, he is the first to have given us 

 its history ; and, whatever opinion may be 

 entertained regarding the manner of its ex- 

 ecution, he had a valid theme, and deals 

 with veritable phenomena. And, had his 

 manner of doing the work been more open 

 to attack, we should probably have heard a 

 good deal less about the baselessness of the 

 antagonism which he has described. 



The point of contention is as to what 

 constitutes religion. Dr. Draper was justi- 

 fied in taking the term in its current sig- 

 nificance as comprehending the general doc- 

 trines and policy of religious organizations. 

 That sects differ, and eat each ether up in 

 their denials of dogmas, was nothing to 

 him. And, though they should all agree 

 at last as to what religion is, and discredit 

 the total affirmations of past theology, the 

 historical aspects of the case will remain the 

 same. He was not called upon to settle 

 sectarian disputes, or to find out that de- 

 nomination which possesses the true faith. 

 Mr. Fiske complains of him for not defining 

 this element of his thesis, and he proceeds 

 to do it; himself, as follows: "All animals 

 seek for fuhness of fife ; but in civilized 

 man this craving has acquired a moral sig- 

 nificance, and has become a spiritual aspira- 



