The Warfare of Science with Theology by A. D. White

[_Maksutov]

Not so with American Lutheranism. In 1873 was pub-
lished in St. Louis, at the publishing house of the Lutheran
Synod of Missouri, a work entitled Astronomische Unterre-

* For the attitude of Leibnitz, Hutchinson, and the others named toward the
Newtonian theory, see Lecky, History of England in the Eighteenth Century,
chap. ix. For John Wesley, see his Compendium of Natural Philosophy, being a
Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation, London, 1784. See also Leslie
Stephen, Eighteenth Century, vol. ii, p. 413. For Owen, see his Works, vol. xix,
p. 310. For Cotton Mather's view, see The Christian Philosopher, London, 1721,
especially pp. 16 and 17. For the case of Priestley, see Weld, History of the Royal
Society, vol. ii, p. 56, for the facts and the admirable letter of Priestley upon this
rejection. Yox Blaer, see his V Usage des Globes, Amsterdam, 1642.

dung, the author being well known as a late president of a
Lutheran Teachers' Seminary.

No attack on the whole modern system of astronomy
could be more bitter. On the first page of the introduction
the author, after stating the two theories, asks, '* Which is
right?" and says: " It would be very simple to me which is
right, if it were only a question of human import. But. the
wise and truthful God has expressed himself on this matter
in the Bible. The entire Holy Scripture settles the ques-
tion that the earth is the principal body {Hanptkorpcr) of the
universe, that it stands fixed, and that sun and moon only
serve to light it."

The author then goes on to show from Scripture the
folly, not only of Copernicus and Newton, but of a long line
of great astronomers in more recent times. He declares :
'* Let no one understand me as inquiring first where truth is
to be found— in the Bible or with the astronomers. No;
I know that beforehand — that my God never lies, never
makes a mistake ; out of his mouth comes only truth, when
he speaks of the structure of the universe, of the earth, sun,
moon, and stars. . . .

*' Because the truth of the Holy Scripture is involved in
this, therefore the above question is of the highest impor-
tance to me. . . . Scientists and others lean upon the miser-
able reed {Rohrsiab) that God teaches only the order of sal-
vation, but not the order of the universe."

Very noteworthy is the fact that this late survival of an
ancient belief based upon text-worship is found, not in the
teachings of any zealous priest of the mother Church, but
in those of an eminent professor in that branch of Protes-
tantism which claims special enlightenment."

Nor has the warfare against the dead champions of sci-
ence been carried on by the older Church alone.

[_Maksutov]

On the 10th of May, 1859, Alexander von Humboldt was

* For the amusing details of the attempt in the English Church to repress sci-
ence, and of the way in which it was met, see De Morgan, Paradoxes, p. 42. For
Pastor Knak and his associates, see the Revue des Deux Mondes, 1868. Of the
recent Lutheran works against the Copernican astronomy, see especially the
Astrononiische Unterredung zwischen einem Liebhaber der Astronomie und mehr-
eren beriihmten Astronomer der Neuzeit, by J. C. W. L., St. Louis, 1873.

buried. His labours had been among the glories of the cen-
tury, and his funeral was one of the most imposing that
Berlin had ever seen. Among those who honoured them-
selves by their presence was the prince regent, afterward
the Emperor William I ; but of the clergy it was observed
that none were present save the officiating clergyman and a
few regarded as unorthodox.*

V. RESULTS OF THE VICTORY OVER GALILEO.

We return now to the sequel of the Galileo case.

Having gained their victory over Galileo, living and
dead, having used it to scare into submission the professors
of astronomy throughout Europe, conscientious churchmen
exulted. Loud was their rejoicing that the " heresy," the
*' infidelity," the ''atheism" involved in believing that the
earth revolves about its axis and moves around the sun had
been crushed by the great tribunal of the Church, acting in
strict obedience to the expressed will of one Pope and the
written order of another. As we have seen, all books teach-
ing this hated belief were put upon the Index of books for-
bidden to Christians, and that Index was prefaced by a bull
enforcing this condemnation upon the consciences of the
faithful throughout the world, and signed by the reigning
Pope.

The losses to the world during this complete triumph of
theology were even more serious than at first appears : one
must especially be mentioned. There was then in Europe
one of the greatest thinkers ever given to mankind— Rene
Descartes. Mistaken though many of his reasonings were,
they bore a rich fruitage of truth. He had already done a
vast work. His theory of vortices — assuming a uniform
material regulated by physical laws — as the beginning of
the visible universe, though it was but a provisional hy-
pothesis, had ended the whole old theory of the heavens with
the vaulted firmament and the direction of the planetary
movements by angels, which even Kepler had allowed. The

* See Bruhns and Lassell, Life of Humboldt , London, 1873, vol. ii, p. 411.

scientific warriors had stirred new life in him, and he was
working over and summing up in his mighty mind all the
researches of his time. The result would have made an
epoch in history. His aim was to combine all knowledge
and thought into a Treatise on the World, and in view of this
he gave eleven years to the study of anatomy alone. But
the fate of Galileo robbed him of all hope, of all courage ;
the battle seemed lost ; he gave up his great plan forever."

But ere long it was seen that this triumph of the Church
was in reality a prodigious defeat. From all sides came
proofs that Copernicus and Galileo were right; and although
Pope Urban and the Inquisition held Galileo in strict seclu-
sion, forbidding him even to speak regarding the double mo-
tion of the earth ; and although this condemnation of " all
books which affirm the motion of the earth " was kept on
the Index, and although the papal bull still bound the hidex
and the condemnations in it on the consciences of the faith-
ful ; and although colleges and universities under Church
control were compelled to teach the old doctrine— it was
seen by clear-sighted men everywhere that this victory of
the Church was a disaster to the victors.

New champions pressed on. Campanella, full of vagaries
as he was, wrote his Apology for Galileo, though for that and
other heresies, religious and political, he seven times under-
went torture.

And Kepler comes : he leads science on to greater vic-
tories. Copernicus, great as he was, could not disentangle
scientific reasoning entirely from the theological bias : the
doctrines of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas as to the neces-
sary superiority of the circle had vitiated the minor features
of his system, and left breaches in it through which the
enemy was not slow to enter ; but Kepler sees these errors,
and by wonderful genius and vigour he gives to the world
the three laws which bear his name, and this fortress of sci-

* For Descartes's discouragement, see Humboldt, Cosmos, London, 1851, vol.
iii, p. 21 ; also Lange. Geschichte des Materialismus, English translation, vol. i, pp.
248, 249, where the letters of Descartes are given, showing his despair, and the
relinquishment of his best thoughts and works in order to preserve peace with the
Church ; also Saisset, Descartes et ses Pr^curseiirs, pp. 100 et s'q.; also Jolly, His-
toire du Mouvement intellecUiel au XVI^ Sikle, vol. i, p. 390,

ence is complete. He thinks and speaks as one inspired.
His battle is severe. He is solemnly warned by the Prot-
estant Consistory of Stuttgart " not to throw Christ's king-
dom into confusion with his silly fancies," and as solemnly
ordered to " bring his theory of the world into harmony
with Scripture " : he is sometimes abused, sometimes ridi-
culed, sometimes imprisoned. Protestants in Styria and
WUrtemberg, Catholics in Austria and Bohemia, press upon
him ; but Newton, Halley, Bradley, and other great astrono-
mers follow, and to science remains the victory."

[_Maksutov]

Yet this did not end the war. During the seventeenth
century, in France, after all the splendid proofs added by
Kepler, no one dared openly teach the Copernican theory,
and Cassini, the great astronomer, never declared for it. In
1672 the Jesuit Father Riccioli declared that there were
precisely forty-nine arguments for the Copernican theory
and seventy-seven against it. Even after the beginning of
the eighteenth century— long after the demonstrations of
Sir Isaac Newton — Bossuet, the great Bishop of Meaux, the
foremost theologian that France has ever produced, de-
clared it contrary to Scripture.

Nor did matters seem to improve rapidly during that
century. In England, John Hutchinson, as we have seen,
published in 1724 his Moses' Principia maintaining that the
Flebrew Scriptures are a perfect system of natural phi-
losophy, and are opposed to the Newtonian system of gravi-
tation ; and, as we have also seen, he was followed by a long
list of noted men in the Church. In France, two eminent
mathematicians published in 1748 an edition of Newton's


* For Campanella, see Amabile, Fm Tommaso Campanella, Naples, 1882, espe-
cially vol. iii ; also Libri, vol. iv, pp. 149 et seq. Fromundus, speaking of Kepler's
explanation, says, *' Vix teneo ebullientem ristwi" This is almost equal to the
Nezu York Church Journal, speaking of John Stuart Mill as " that small sciolist,"
and of the preface to Dr. Draper's great work as " chippering." How a journal,
generally so fair in its treatment of such subjects, can condescend to such weapons,
is one of the wonders of modern journalism. For the persecution of Kepler, see
Heller, Geschichte der Physik, vol. i, pp. 281 et seq. ; also Reuschle, Kepler und die
Astronomie, Frankfurt a. M., 1871, pp. 87 et seq. ; also Prof. Sigwart, Klcine Schrif-
ten, pp. 211 et seq. There is poetic justice in the fact that these two last-named
books come from W^Urtemberg professors. See also The New-Englander for March,
1884, p. 178.

Principia ; but, in order to avert ecclesiastical censure, they
felt obliged to prefix to it a statement absolutely false.
Three years later, Boscovich, the great mathematician of
the Jesuits, used these words : " As for me, full of respect
for the Holy Scriptures and the decree of the Holy Inquisi-
tion, I regard the earth as immovable ; nevertheless, for sim-
plicity in explanation I will argue as if the earth moves ; for
it is proved that of the two hypotheses the appearances
favour this idea."

In Germany, especially in the Protestant part of it, the
war was even more bitter, and it lasted through the first half
of the eighteenth century. Eminent Lutheran doctors of
divinity flooded the country with treatises to prove that the
Copernican theory could not be reconciled with Scripture.
In the theological seminaries and in many of the universities
where clerical influence was strong they seemed to sweep
all before them ; and yet at the middle of the century we
find some of the clearest-headed of them aware of the fact
that their cause was lost.*

[_Maksutov]

In 1757 the most enlightened perhaps in the whole line
of the popes, Benedict XIV, took up the matter, and the
Congregation of the hidex secretly allowed the ideas of Co-
pernicus to be tolerated. Yet in 1765 Lalande, the great
French astronomer, tried in vain at Rome to induce the
authorities to remove Galileo's works from the Index. Even
at a date far within our own nineteenth century the authori-
ties of many universities in Catholic Europe, and especially
those in Spain, excluded the Newtonian system. In 1771 the
greatest of them all, the University of Salamanca, being
urged to teach physical science, refused, making answer as
follows: " Newton teaches nothing that would make a good

* For Cassini's position, see Henri Martin, Histoire de France, vol. xiii, p. 175.
For Riccioli, see Daunou, Etudes Historiqties, vol. ii, p. 439- I' o^ Bossuet, see
Bertrand, p. 41. For Hutchinson, see Lyell, Principles of Geology, p. 48. For
Wesley, see his work, already cited. As to Boscovich, his declaration, mentioned
in the text, was in 1746, but in 1785 he seemed to feel his position in view of his-
tory, and apologized abjectly : Bertrand, pp. 60, 61. See also Whewell's notice of
Le Sueur and Jacquier's introduction to their edition of Newton's Principia. For
the struggle in (iermany, see Zoeckler, Geschichte der Beziehutigen zivischen Theo-
logie und Naturvissenschaft, vol. ii, pp. 45 et seq.


logician or metaphysician ; and Gassendi and Descartes do
not agree so well with revealed truth as Aristotle does."

Vengeance upon the dead also has continued far into our
own century. On the 5th of May, 1829, a great multitude
assembled at Warsaw to honour the memory of Copernicus
and to unveil Thorwaldsen's statue of him.

Copernicus had lived a pious, Christian life ; he had been
beloved for unostentatious Christian charity ; with his re-
ligious belief no fault had ever been found ; he was a canon
of the Church at Frauenberg, and over his grave had been
written the most touching of Christian epitaphs. Naturally,
then, the people expected a religious service ; all was under-
stood to be arranged for it ; the procession marched to the
church and waited. The hour passed, and no priest ap-
peared ; none could be induced to appear. Copernicus,
gentle, charitable, pious, one of the noblest gifts of God to
religion as well as to science, was evidently still under the
ban. Five years after that, his book was still standing on
the Index of books prohibited to Christians.

The edition of the Index published in 1819 was as inexo-
rable toward the works of Copernicus and Galileo as its
predecessors had been; but in the year 1820 came a crisis.
Canon Settele, Professor of Astronomy at Rome, had written
an elementary book in which the Copernican system was
taken for granted. The Master of the Sacred Palace, An-
fossi, as censor of the press, refused to allow the book to be
printed unless Settele revised his work and treated the Co-
pernican theory as merely a hypothesis. On this Settele ap-
pealed to Pope Pius VII, and the Pope referred the matter
to the Congregation of the Holy Ofifice. At last, on the i6th
of August, 1820, it was decided that Settele might teach the
Copernican system as established, and this decision was ap-
proved by the Pope. This aroused considerable discussion,
but finally, on the nth of September, 1822, the cardinals of
the Holy Inquisition graciously agreed that '* the printing
and publication of works treating of the motion of the earth
and the stability of the sun, in accordance with the general
opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted at Rome."
This decree was ratified by Pius VII, but it was not until
thirteen years later, in 1835, that there was issued an edition
of the Index from which the condemnation of works defend-
ing the double motion of the earth was left out.

[_huckelberry]

It sounds like Nipper is maintaining the grand tradition.

[_Maksutov]

This was not a moment too soon, for, as if the previous
proofs had not been sufficient, each of the motions of the
earth was now absolutely demonstrated anew, so as to be
recognised by the ordinary observer. The parallax of fixed
stars, shown by Bessel as well as other noted astronomers in
1838, clinched forever the doctrine of the revolution of the
earth around the sun, and in 185 1 the great experiment of
Foucault with the pendulum showed to the human eye the
earth in motion around its own axis. To make the matter
complete, this experiment was publicly made in one of the
churches at Rome by the eminent astronomer, Father Sec-
chi, of the Jesuits, in 1852 — just two hundred and twenty
years after the Jesuits had done so much to secure Galileo's
condemnation.*


* For good statements of the final action of the Church in the matter, see
Gebler; also Zoeckler, ii, 352. See also Bertrand, Fondateurs de T Astronomie
moderne, p. 61 ; Flammarion, Vie de Copernic, chap. ix. As to the time when the
decree of condemnation was repealed, there have been various pious attempts to
make it earlier than the reality. Artaud, p. 307, cited in an apologetic article in
the Dublin Review, September, 1865, says that Galileo's famous dialogue was pub-
lished in 1714, at Padua, entire, and with the usual approbations. The same article
also declares that in 1818 the ecclesiastical decrees were repealed by Pius VII
in full Consistory. Whewell accepts this ; but Cantu, an authority favourable to
the Church, acknowledges that Copernicus's work remained on the Index as late as
1835 (Cantu, Histoire universelle, vol. xv, p. 483) ; and with this Th. Martin, not
less favourable to the Church, but exceedingly careful as to the facts, agrees ; and
the most eminent authority of all, Prof. Reusch, of Bonn, in his Der hidex der
verbotenen BUchcr, Bonn, 1885, vol. ii, p. 396, confirms the above statement in the
text. For a clear statement of Bradley's exquisite demonstration of the Coperni-
can theory by reasonings upon the rapidity of light, etc., and Foucault's exhibition
of the rotation of the earth by the pendulum experiment, see Hoefer, Histoire de
I Astronomie, pp. 492 et seq. For more recent proofs of the Copernican theory, by
the discoveries of Bunsen, Bischoff, Benzenburg, and others, see Jevons, Principles
of Science.




VI. THE RETREAT OF THE CHURCH AFTER ITS VICTORY
OVER GALILEO.

Any history of the victory of astronomical science over
dogmatic theology would be incomplete without some ac-
count of the retreat made by the Church from all its former
positions in the Galileo case.

The retreat of the Protestant theologians was not difficult.
A little skilful warping of Scripture, a little skilful use of
that time-honoured phrase, attributed to Cardinal Baronius,
that the Bible is given to teach us, not how the heavens go,
but how men go to heaven, and a free use of explosive rhet-
oric against the pursuing army of scientists, sufficed.

But in the older Church it was far less easy. The re-
treat of the sacro-scientific army of Church apologists lasted
through two centuries.

[_huckelberry]

" each of the motions of the
earth was now absolutely demonstrated anew, so as to be
recognised by the ordinary observer. The parallax of fixed
stars, shown by Bessel as well as other noted astronomers in
1838, clinched forever the doctrine of the revolution of the
earth around the sun,"

Parallax pried the lid off of the heavens and the heavens became space extending out, and out, and out, and out , and out......

Just added this to say I am reading and appreciating the material.

[_Maksutov]

" each of the motions of the
earth was now absolutely demonstrated anew, so as to be
recognised by the ordinary observer. The parallax of fixed
stars, shown by Bessel as well as other noted astronomers in
1838, clinched forever the doctrine of the revolution of the
earth around the sun,"

Parallax pried the lid off of the heavens and the heavens became space extending out, and out, and out, and out , and out......

Just added this to say I am reading and appreciating the material.

Glad you get something out of it.

[_Maksutov]

In spite of all that has been said by these apologists,
there no longer remains the shadow of a doubt that the papal
infallibility was committed fully and irrevocably against the
double revolution of the earth. As the documents of Gali-
leo's trial now published show, Paul V, in 1616, pushed on
with all his might the condemnation of Galileo and of the
works of Copernicus and of all others teaching the motion of
the earth around its own axis and around the sun. So,
too, in the condemnation of Galileo in 1633, and in all the
proceedings which led up to it and which followed it, Urban
VIll was the central figure. Without his sanction no action
could have been taken.

True, the Pope did not formally sign the decree against
the Copernican theory then; but this came later. In 1664
Alexander VII prefixed to the Index containing the con-
demnations of the works of Copernicus and Galileo and '' all
books which affirm the motion of the earth " a papal bull
signed by himself, binding the contents of the Index upon
the consciences of the faithful. This bull confirmed and ap-
proved in express terms, finally, decisively, and infallibly,
the condemnation of " all books teaching the movement of
the earth and the stability of the sun."*

* See Rev. William W. Roberts, The Pontifical Decrees against the Doctrine



THE RETREAT OF THE CHURCH.

The position of the mother Church had been thus made
especially difficult ; and the first important move in retreat
by the apologists was the statement that Galileo was con-
demned, not because he affirmed the motion of the earth,
but because he supported it from Scripture. There was a
slight appearance of truth in this. Undoubted!}', Galileo's
letters to Castelli and the grand duchess, in which he at-
tempted to show that his astronomical doctrines were not
opposed to Scripture, gave a new stir to religious bigotry.
For a considerable time, then, this quibble served its pur-
pose ; even a hundred and fifty years after Galileo's con-
demnation it was renewed by the Protestant Mallet du Pan,
in his wish to gain favour from the older Church.

But nothing can be more absurd, in the light of the origi-
nal documents recently brought out of the Vatican archives,
than to make this contention now. The letters of Gali-
leo to Castelli and the Grand-Duchess were not published
until after the condemnation; and, although the Archbishop
of Pisa had endeavoured to use them against him, they were
but casually mentioned in 1616, and entirely left out of view
in 1633. What was condemned in 1616 by the Sacred Con-
gregation held in the presence of Pope Paul V, as ''absurd,
false in theology, and heretical, because absolutely contrary to
Holy Scripture,'' was the proposition that '' the sun is the cen-
tre about which the earth revolves " ; and what was condemned
as ''absurd, false in philosophy, and from a theologic point of
view, at least, opposed to the true faith,'' was the proposition
that " the earth is not the centre of the universe and immovable,
but has a diurnal motion."

[_Maksutov]

In vain did Galileo try to prove the existence of satel-
lites by showing them to the doubters through his telescope :
they either declared it impious to look, or, if they did look,
denounced the satellites as illusions from the devil. Good
Father Clavius declared that " to see satellites of Jupiter,
men had to make an instrument which would create them."
In vain did Galileo try to save the great truths he had dis-
covered by his letters to the Benedictine Castelli and the
Grand-Duchess Christine, in which he argued that literal
biblical interpretation should not be applied to science ; it
w^as answered that such an argument only made his heresy
more detestable ; that he was '* worse than Luther or Calvin."

The war on the Copernican theory which up to that
time had been carried on quietly, now flamed forth. It w^as
declared that the doctrine was proved false by the standing
still of the sun for Joshua, by the declarations that '* the
foundations of the earth are fixed so firm that they can not
be moved," and that the sun " runneth about from one end
of the heavens to the other." *

But the little telescope of Galileo still swept the heavens,
and another revelation was announced — the mountains and
valleys in the moon. This brought on another attack. It
was declared that this, and the statement that the moon
shines by light reflected from the sun, directly contradict
the statement in Genesis that the moon is *' a great light."

* For principal points as given, see Libri, Histoire des Sciences math^matiqties
en Italie, vol. iv, p. 211 ; De Morgan, Paradoxes, p. 26, for account of Father
Clavius. It is interesting to know that Clavius, in his last years, acknowledged
that " the whole system of the heavens is broken down, and must be mended,"
Cantu, Histoire Universelle, vol. xv, p. 478. See Th. Martin, Galilee, pp. 34, 208,
and 266 ; also Heller, Geschichte der Physik, Stuttgart, 1882, vol. i, p. 366. For the
original documents, see L'Epinois, pp. 34 and 36 ; or, better, Gebler's careful edi-
tion of the trial {Die Acten des Galileischen Processes, Stuttgart, 1S77), pp. 47
et seq. Martin's translation seems somewhat too free. See also Gebler, Galileo
Galilei, English translation, London, 1879, PP- 76-78 ; also Reusch, Der Process
Galilei's und die Jesuiten, Bonn, 1879, chaps, ix, x, xi.