evidences of the difficulty men found in giving up the scriptural idea
of direct personal interference by agents of Heaven in the ordinary
phenomena of Nature: thus, in a noted map of the sixteenth century
representing the earth as a sphere, there is at each pole a crank, with
an angel laboriously turning the earth by means of it; and, in another
map, the hand of the Almighty, thrust forth from the clouds, holds the
earth suspended by a rope and spins it with his thumb and fingers.
Even as late as the middle of the seventeenth century Heylin, the most
authoritative English geographer of the time, shows a like tendency to
mix science and theology. He warps each to help the other, as follows:
"Water, making but one globe with the earth, is yet higher than it.
This appears, first, because it is a body not so heavy; secondly, it is
observed by sailors that their ships move faster to the shore than from
it, whereof no reason can be given but the height of the water above the
land; thirdly, to such as stand on the shore the sea seems to swell into
the form of a round hill till it puts a bound upon our sight. Now that
the sea, hovering thus over and above the earth, doth not overwhelm
it, can be ascribed only to his Providence who 'hath made the waters to
stand on an heap that they turn not again to cover the earth.'"(32)
(32) For Gog and Magog, see Ezekiel xxxviii and xxxix, and Rev. xx,
8; and for the general subject, Toy, Judaism and Christianity, Boston,
1891, pp. 373, 374. For maps showing these two great terrors, and for
geographical discussion regarding them, see Lelewel, Geog. du Moyen
Age, Bruxelles, 1850, Atlas; also Ruge, Gesch. des Zeitalters der
Entdeckungen, Berlin, 1881, pp. 78, 79; also Peschel's Abhandlungen,
pp.28-35, and Gesch. der Erdkunde, p. 210. For representations on maps
of the "Four Winds," see Charton, Voyageurs, tome ii, p. 11; also Ruge,
as above, pp. 324, 325; also for a curious mixture of the scriptural
winds issuing from the bags of Aeolus, see a map of the twelfth century
in Leon Gautier, La Chevalerie, p. 153; and for maps showing additional
winds, see various editions of Ptolemy. For a map with angels turning
the earth by means of cranks at the poles, see Grynaeus, Novus Orbis,
Basileae, 1537. For the globe kept spinning by the Almighty, see J.
Hondius's map, 1589; and for Heylin, his first folio, 1652, p. 27.
III. THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH.
Even while the doctrine of the sphericity of the earth was undecided,
another question had been suggested which theologians finally came to
consider of far greater importance. The doctrine of the sphericity
of the earth naturally led to thought regarding its inhabitants, and
another ancient germ was warmed into life--the idea of antipodes: of
human beings on the earth's opposite sides.
In the Greek and Roman world this idea had found supporters and
opponents, Cicero and Pliny being among the former, and Epicurus,
Lucretius, and Plutarch among the latter. Thus the problem came into the
early Church unsolved.
Among the first churchmen to take it up was, in the East, St. Gregory
Nazianzen, who showed that to sail beyond Gibraltar was impossible; and,
in the West, Lactantius, who asked: "Is there any one so senseless as
to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their
heads?... that the crops and trees grow downward?... that the rains and
snow and hail fall upward toward the earth?... I am at a loss what to
say of those who, when they have once erred, steadily persevere in their
folly and defend one vain thing by another."
In all this contention by Gregory and Lactantius there was nothing to be
especially regretted, for, whatever their motive, they simply supported
their inherited belief on grounds of natural law and probability.
Unfortunately, the discussion was not long allowed to rest on these
scientific and philosophical grounds; other Christian thinkers followed,
who in their ardour adduced texts of Scripture, and soon the question
had become theological; hostility to the belief in antipodes became
dogmatic. The universal Church was arrayed against it, and in front of
the vast phalanx stood, to a man, the fathers.
To all of them this idea seemed dangerous; to most of them it seemed
damnable. St. Basil and St. Ambrose were tolerant enough to allow that
a man might be saved who thought the earth inhabited on its opposite
sides; but the great majority of the fathers doubted the possibility of
salvation to such misbelievers. The great champion of the orthodox view
was St. Augustine. Though he seemed inclined to yield a little in regard
to the sphericity of the earth, he fought the idea that men exist on the
other side of it, saying that "Scripture speaks of no such descendants
of Adam," he insists that men could not be allowed by the Almighty to
live there, since if they did they could not see Christ at His second
coming descending through the air. But his most cogent appeal, one which
we find echoed from theologian to theologian during a thousand years
afterward, is to the nineteenth Psalm, and to its confirmation in the
Epistle to the Romans; to the words, "Their line is gone out through
all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." He dwells with
great force on the fact that St. Paul based one of his most powerful
arguments upon this declaration regarding the preachers of the gospel,
and that he declared even more explicitly that "Verily, their sound
went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world."
Thenceforth we find it constantly declared that, as those preachers
did not go to the antipodes, no antipodes can exist; and hence that the
supporters of this geographical doctrine "give the lie direct to King
David and to St. Paul, and therefore to the Holy Ghost." Thus the great
Bishop of Hippo taught the whole world for over a thousand years that,
as there was no preaching of the gospel on the opposite side of the
earth, there could be no human beings there.
The great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural
argument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes;
all schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the
allegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literal exegetes of
Syria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand
years it was held in the Church, "always, everywhere, and by all," that
there could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even
if the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers, the
great mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth,
simply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry
Newman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum.
Yet gainsayers still appeared. That the doctrine of the antipodes
continued to have life, is shown by the fact that in the sixth century
Procopius of Gaza attacks it with a tremendous argument. He declares
that, if there be men on the other side of the earth, Christ must have
gone there and suffered a second time to save them; and, therefore, that
there must have been there, as necessary preliminaries to his coming, a
duplicate Eden, Adam, serpent, and deluge.
Cosmas Indicopleustes also attacked the doctrine with especial
bitterness, citing a passage from St. Luke to prove that antipodes are
theologically impossible.
At the end of the sixth century came a man from whom much might be
expected--St. Isidore of Seville. He had pondered over ancient thought
in science, and, as we have seen, had dared proclaim his belief in the
sphericity of the earth; but with that he stopped. As to the antipodes,
the authority of the Psalmist, St. Paul, and St. Augustine silences him;
he shuns the whole question as unlawful, subjects reason to faith, and
declares that men can not and ought not to exist on opposite sides of
the earth.(33)
(33)For the opinions of Basil, Ambrose, and others, see Lecky, History
of Rationalism in Europe, New York, 1872, vol. i, p. 279. Also Letronne,
in Revue des Deux Mondes, March, 1834. For Lactantius, see citations
already given. For St. Augustine's opinion, see the De Civitate Dei,
xvi, 9, where this great father of the church shows that the antipodes
"nulla ratione credendum est." For the unanimity of the fathers against
the antipodes, see Zockler, vol. 1, p. 127. For a very naive summary,
see Joseph Acosta, Natural and Moral History of the Indies, Grimston's
translation, republished by the Hakluyt Soc., chaps. vii and viii; also
citations in Buckle's Posthumous Works, vol. ii, p. 645. For Procopius
of Gaza, see Kretschmer, p. 55. See also, on the general subject,
Peschel, Geschichte der Erdkunde, pp. 96-97. For Isidore, see citations
already given. To understand the embarrassment caused by these
utterances of the fathers to scientific men of a later period, see
letter of Agricola to Joachim Vadianus in 1514. Agricola asks Vadianus
to give his views regarding the antipodes, saying that he himself does
not know what to do, between the fathers on the one side and the
learned men of modern times on the other. On the other hand, for the
embarrassment caused to the Church by this mistaken zeal of the
fathers, see Kepler's references and Fromund's replies; also De Morgan,
Paradoxes, p. 58. Kepler appears to have taken great delight in throwing
the views of Lactantius into the teeth of his adversaries.
Under such pressure this scientific truth seems to have disappeared for
nearly two hundred years; but by the eighth century the sphericity
of the earth had come to be generally accepted among the leaders of
thought, and now the doctrine of the antipodes was again asserted by a
bishop, Virgil of Salzburg.
There then stood in Germany, in those first years of the eighth century,
one of the greatest and noblest of men--St. Boniface. His learning was
of the best then known. In labours he was a worthy successor of the
apostles; his genius for Christian work made him unwillingly primate of
Germany; his devotion to duty led him willingly to martyrdom. There sat,
too, at that time, on the papal throne a great Christian statesman--Pope
Zachary. Boniface immediately declared against the revival of such
a heresy as the doctrine of the antipodes; he stigmatized it as an
assertion that there are men beyond the reach of the appointed means of
salvation; he attacked Virgil, and called on Pope Zachary for aid.
The Pope, as the infallible teacher of Christendom, made a strong
response. He cited passages from the book of Job and the Wisdom of
Solomon against the doctrine of the antipodes; he declared it "perverse,
iniquitous, and against Virgil's own soul," and indicated a purpose of
driving him from his bishopric. Whether this purpose was carried out or
not, the old theological view, by virtue of the Pope's divinely ordered
and protected "inerrancy," was re-established, and the doctrine that
the earth has inhabitants on but one of its sides became more than ever
orthodox, and precious in the mind of the Church.(34)
(34) For Virgil of Salzburg, see Neander's History of the Christian
Church, Torrey's translation, vol. iii, p. 63; also Herzog,
Real-Encyklopadie, etc., recent edition by Prof. Hauck, s. v. Virgilius;
also Kretschmer, pp. 56-58; also Whewell, vol. i, p. 197; also De
Morgan, Budget of Paradoxes, pp. 24-26. For very full notes as to pagan
and Christian advocates of the doctrine of the sphericity of the earth
and of the antipodes, and for extract from Zachary's letter, see Migne,
Patrologia, vol. vi, p. 426, and vol. xli, p. 487. For St. Boniface's
part, see Bonifacii Epistolae, ed. Giles, i, 173. Berger de Xivrey,
Traditions Teratologiques, pp. 186-188, makes a curious attempt to show
that Pope Zachary denounced the wrong man; that the real offender was
a Roman poet--in the sixth book of the Aeneid and the first book of the
Georgics.
This decision seems to have been regarded as final, and five centuries
later the great encyclopedist of the Middle Ages, Vincent of Beauvais,
though he accepts the sphericity of the earth, treats the doctrine
of the antipodes as disproved, because contrary to Scripture. Yet the
doctrine still lived. Just as it had been previously revived by William
of Conches and then laid to rest, so now it is somewhat timidly brought
out in the thirteenth century by no less a personage than Albert the
Great, the most noted man of science in that time. But his utterances
are perhaps purposely obscure. Again it disappears beneath the
theological wave, and a hundred years later Nicolas d'Oresme, geographer
of the King of France, a light of science, is forced to yield to the
clear teaching of the Scripture as cited by St. Augustine.
Nor was this the worst. In Italy, at the beginning of the fourteenth
century, the Church thought it necessary to deal with questions of this
sort by rack and fagot. In 1316 Peter of Abano, famous as a physician,
having promulgated this with other obnoxious doctrines in science, only
escaped the Inquisition by death; and in 1327 Cecco d'Ascoli, noted as
an astronomer, was for this and other results of thought, which brought
him under suspicion of sorcery, driven from his professorship at Bologna
and burned alive at Florence. Nor was this all his punishment: Orcagna,
whose terrible frescoes still exist on the walls of the Campo Santo at
Pisa, immortalized Cecco by representing him in the flames of hell.(35)
(35) For Vincent of Beauvais and the antipode, see his Speculum
Naturale, Book VII, with citations from St. Augustine, De Civitate
Dei, cap. xvi. For Albert the Great's doctrine regarding the antipodes,
compare Kretschmer, as above, with Eicken, Geschichte, etc., p. 621.
Kretschmer finds that Albert supports the doctrine, and Eicken finds
that he denies it--a fair proof that Albert was not inclined to state
his views with dangerous clearness. For D'Oresme, see Santerem, Histoire
de la Cosmographie, vol. i, p. 142. For Peter of Abano, or Apono, as he
is often called, see Tiraboschi, also Guinguene, vol. ii, p. 293;
also Naude, Histoire des Grands Hommes soupconnes de Magie. For Cecco
d'Ascoli, see Montucla, Histoire de Mathematiques, i, 528; also Daunou,
Etudes Historiques, vol. vi, p. 320; also Kretschmer, p. 59. Concerning
Orcagna's representation of Cecco in the flames of hell, see Renan,
Averroes et l'Averroisme, Paris, 1867, p. 328.
Years rolled on, and there came in the fifteenth century one from
whom the world had a right to expect much. Pierre d'Ailly, by force of
thought and study, had risen to be Provost of the College of St. Die
in Lorraine; his ability had made that little village a centre of
scientific thought for all Europe, and finally made him Archbishop of
Cambray and a cardinal. Toward the end of the fifteenth century was
printed what Cardinal d'Ailly had written long before as a summing up
of his best thought and research--the collection of essays known as the
Ymago Mundi. It gives us one of the most striking examples in history
of a great man in theological fetters. As he approaches this question
he states it with such clearness that we expect to hear him assert the
truth; but there stands the argument of St. Augustine; there, too, stand
the biblical texts on which it is founded--the text from the Psalms and
the explicit declaration of St. Paul to the Romans, "Their sound went
into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world." D'Ailly
attempts to reason, but he is overawed, and gives to the world virtually
nothing.
Still, the doctrine of the antipodes lived and moved: so much so that
the eminent Spanish theologian Tostatus, even as late as the age of
Columbus, felt called upon to protest against it as "unsafe." He had
shaped the old missile of St. Augustine into the following syllogism:
"The apostles were commanded to go into all the world and to preach the
gospel to every creature; they did not go to any such part of the world
as the antipodes; they did not preach to any creatures there: ergo, no
antipodes exist."
The warfare of Columbus the world knows well: how the Bishop of Ceuta
worsted him in Portugal; how sundry wise men of Spain confronted him
with the usual quotations from the Psalms, from St. Paul, and from St.
Augustine; how, even after he was triumphant, and after his voyage had
greatly strengthened the theory of the earth's sphericity, with which
the theory of the antipodes was so closely connected, the Church by its
highest authority solemnly stumbled and persisted in going astray. In
1493 Pope Alexander VI, having been appealed to as an umpire between the
claims of Spain and Portugal to the newly discovered parts of the earth,
issued a bull laying down upon the earth's surface a line of demarcation
between the two powers. This line was drawn from north to south a
hundred leagues west of the Azores; and the Pope in the plenitude of his
knowledge declared that all lands discovered east of this line should
belong to the Portuguese, and all west of it should belong to the
Spaniards. This was hailed as an exercise of divinely illuminated power
by the Church; but difficulties arose, and in 1506 another attempt
was made by Pope Julius II to draw the line three hundred and seventy
leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands. This, again, was supposed to
bring divine wisdom to settle the question; but, shortly, overwhelming
difficulties arose; for the Portuguese claimed Brazil, and, of course,
had no difficulty in showing that they could reach it by sailing to the
east of the line, provided they sailed long enough. The lines laid down
by Popes Alexander and Julius may still be found upon the maps of
the period, but their bulls have quietly passed into the catalogue of
ludicrous errors.
Yet the theological barriers to this geographical truth yielded but
slowly. Plain as it had become to scholars, they hesitated to declare
it to the world at large. Eleven hundred years had passed since St.
Augustine had proved its antagonism to Scripture, when Gregory Reysch
gave forth his famous encyclopaedia, the Margarita Philosophica. Edition
after edition was issued, and everywhere appeared in it the orthodox
statements; but they were evidently strained to the breaking point; for
while, in treating of the antipodes, Reysch refers respectfully to St.
Augustine as objecting to the scientific doctrine, he is careful not to
cite Scripture against it, and not less careful to suggest geographical
reasoning in favour of it.
But in 1519 science gains a crushing victory. Magellan makes his
famous voyage. He proves the earth to be round, for his expedition
circumnavigates it; he proves the doctrine of the antipodes, for his
shipmates see the peoples of the antipodes. Yet even this does not end
the war. Many conscientious men oppose the doctrine for two hundred
years longer. Then the French astronomers make their measurements of
degrees in equatorial and polar regions, and add to their proofs that
of the lengthened pendulum. When this was done, when the deductions of
science were seen to be established by the simple test of measurement,
beautifully and perfectly, and when a long line of trustworthy
explorers, including devoted missionaries, had sent home accounts of the
antipodes, then, and then only, this war of twelve centuries ended.
Such was the main result of this long war; but there were other results
not so fortunate. The efforts of Eusebius, Basil, and Lactantius to
deaden scientific thought; the efforts of Augustine to combat it; the
efforts of Cosmas to crush it by dogmatism; the efforts of Boniface
and Zachary to crush it by force, conscientious as they all were, had
resulted simply in impressing upon many leading minds the conviction
that science and religion are enemies.
On the other hand, what was gained by the warriors of science for
religion? Certainly a far more worthy conception of the world, and a far
more ennobling conception of that power which pervades and directs
it. Which is more consistent with a great religion, the cosmography
of Cosmas or that of Isaac Newton? Which presents a nobler field for
religious thought, the diatribes of Lactantius or the calm statements of
Humboldt?(36)
(36) For D'Ailly's acceptance of St. Augustine's argument, see the Ymago
Mundi, cap. vii. For Tostatus, see Zockler, vol. i, pp. 467, 468. He
based his opposition on Romans x, 18. For Columbus, see Winsor,
Fiske, and Adams; also Humboldt, Histoire de la Geographie du Nouveau
Continent. For the bull of Alexander VI, see Daunou, Etudes Historiques,
vol. ii, p. 417; also Peschel, Zeitalter der Entdeckungen, Book II,
chap. iv. The text of the bull is given with an English translation
in Arber's reprint of The First Three English Books on America, etc.,
Birmingham, 1885, pp. 201-204; also especially Peschel, Die Theilung der
Erde unter Papst Alexander VI and Julius II, Leipsic, 1871, pp. 14
et seq. For remarks on the power under which the line was drawn by
Alexander VI, see Mamiani, Del Papato nei Tre Ultimi Secoli, p. 170.
For maps showing lines of division, see Kohl, Die beiden altesten
General-Karten von Amerika, Weimar, 1860, where maps of 1527 and 1529
are reproduced; also Mercator, Atlas, tenth edition, Amsterdam, 1628,
pp. 70, 71. For latest discussion on The Demarcation Line of Alexander
VI, see E. G. Bourne in Yale Review, May, 1892. For the Margarita
Philosophica, see the editions of 1503, 1509, 1517, lib. vii, cap. 48.
For the effect of Magellan's voyages, and the reluctance to yield to
proof, see Henri Martin, Histoire de France, vol. xiv, p. 395; St.
Martin's Histoire de la Geographie, p. 369; Peschel, Geschichte des
Zeitalters der Entdeckungen, concluding chapters; and for an admirable
summary, Draper, Hist. Int. Devel. of Europe, pp. 451-453; also an
interesting passage in Sir Thomas Brown's Vulgar and Common Errors, Book
I, chap. vi; also a striking passage in Acosta, chap. ii. For general
statement as to supplementary proof by measurement of degrees and by
pendulum, see Somerville, Phys. Geog., chap. i, par. 6, note; also
Humboldt, Cosmos, vol. ii, p. 736, and vol. v, pp. 16, 32; also
Montucla, iv, 138. As to the effect of travel, see Acosta's history
above cited. The good missionary says, in Grimston's quaint translation,
"Whatsoever Lactantius saith, wee that live now at Peru, and inhabite
that parte of the worlde which is opposite to Asia and theire Antipodes,
finde not ourselves to bee hanging in the aire, our heades downward and
our feete on high."
IV. THE SIZE OF THE EARTH.
But at an early period another subject in geography had stirred the
minds of thinking men--THE EARTH'S SIZE. Various ancient investigators
had by different methods reached measurements more or less near the
truth; these methods were continued into the Middle Ages, supplemented
by new thought, and among the more striking results were those obtained
by Roger Bacon and Gerbert, afterward Pope Sylvester II. They handed
down to after-time the torch of knowledge, but, as their reward among
their contemporaries, they fell under the charge of sorcery.
Far more consonant with the theological spirit of the Middle Ages was a
solution of the problem from Scripture, and this solution deserves to
be given as an example of a very curious theological error, chancing to
result in the establishment of a great truth. The second book of Esdras,
which among Protestants is placed in the Apocrypha, was held by many of
the foremost men of the ancient Church as fully inspired: though Jerome
looked with suspicion on this book, it was regarded as prophetic
by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Ambrose, and the Church
acquiesced in that view. In the Eastern Church it held an especially
high place, and in the Western Church, before the Reformation, was
generally considered by the most eminent authorities to be part of the
sacred canon. In the sixth chapter of this book there is a summary of
the works of creation, and in it occur the following verses:
"Upon the third day thou didst command that the waters should be
gathered in the seventh part of the earth; six parts hast thou dried up
and kept them to the intent that of these some, being planted of God and
tilled, might serve thee."
"Upon the fifth day thou saidst unto the seventh part where the waters
were gathered, that it should bring forth living creatures, fowls and
fishes, and so it came to pass."
These statements were reiterated in other verses, and were naturally
considered as of controlling authority.
Among the scholars who pondered on this as on all things likely to
increase knowledge was Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly. As we have seen, this
great man, while he denied the existence of the antipodes, as St.
Augustine had done, believed firmly in the sphericity of the earth, and,
interpreting these statements of the book of Esdras in connection with
this belief, he held that, as only one seventh of the earth's surface
was covered by water, the ocean between the west coast of Europe and the
east coast of Asia could not be very wide. Knowing, as he thought, the
extent of the land upon the globe, he felt that in view of this divinely
authorized statement the globe must be much smaller, and the land of
"Zipango," reached by Marco Polo, on the extreme east coast of Asia,
much nearer than had been generally believed.
On this point he laid stress in his great work, the Ymago Mundi, and
an edition of it having been published in the days when Columbus
was thinking most closely upon the problem of a westward voyage, it
naturally exercised much influence upon his reasonings. Among the
treasures of the library at Seville, there is nothing more interesting
than a copy of this work annotated by Columbus himself: from this very
copy it was that Columbus obtained confirmation of his belief that the
passage across the ocean to Marco Polo's land of Zipango in Asia was
short. But for this error, based upon a text supposed to be inspired, it
is unlikely that Columbus could have secured the necessary support for
his voyage. It is a curious fact that this single theological error thus
promoted a series of voyages which completely destroyed not only
this but every other conception of geography based upon the sacred
writings.(37)
(37) For this error, so fruitful in discovery, see D'Ailly, Ymago Mundi;
the passage referred to is fol. 12 verso. For the passage from Esdras,
see chap. vi, verses 42, 47, 50, and 52; see also Zockler, Geschichte
der Beziehungen zwischen Theologie und Naturweissenschaft, vol. i,
p. 461. For one of the best recent statements, see Ruge, Gesch. des
Zeitalters der Entdeckungen, Berlin, 1882, pp. 221 et seq. For a letter
of Columbus acknowledging his indebtedness to this mistake in Esdras,
see Navarrete, Viajes y Descubrimientos, Madrid, 1825, tome i, pp. 242,
264; also Humboldt, Hist. de la Geographie du Nouveau Continent, vol. i,
pp. 68, 69.
V. THE CHARACTER OF THE EARTH'S SURFACE.
It would be hardly just to dismiss the struggle for geographical truth
without referring to one passage more in the history of the Protestant
Church, for it shows clearly the difficulties in the way of the simplest
statement of geographical truth which conflicted with the words of the
sacred books.
In the year 1553 Michael Servetus was on trial for his life at Geneva
on the charge of Arianism. Servetus had rendered many services
to scientific truth, and one of these was an edition of Ptolemy's
Geography, in which Judea was spoken of, not as "a land flowing with
milk and honey," but, in strict accordance with the truth, as, in
the main, meagre, barren, and inhospitable. In his trial this simple
statement of geographical fact was used against him by his arch-enemy
John Calvin with fearful power. In vain did Servetus plead that he had
simply drawn the words from a previous edition of Ptolemy; in vain did
he declare that this statement was a simple geographical truth of which
there were ample proofs: it was answered that such language "necessarily
inculpated Moses, and grievously outraged the Holy Ghost."(38)
(38) For Servetus's geographical offense, see Rilliet, Relation du
Proces criminel contre Michel Servet d'apres les Documents originaux,
Geneva, 1844, pp. 42,43; also Willis, Servetus and Calvin, London, 1877,
p. 325. The passage condemned is in the Ptolemy of 1535, fol. 41. It was
discreetly retrenched in a reprint of the same edition.
In summing up the action of the Church upon geography, we must say,
then, that the dogmas developed in strict adherence to Scripture and
the conceptions held in the Church during many centuries "always, every
where, and by all," were, on the whole, steadily hostile to truth; but
it is only just to make a distinction here between the religious and the
theological spirit. To the religious spirit are largely due several
of the noblest among the great voyages of discovery. A deep longing to
extend the realms of Christianity influenced the minds of Prince John
of Portugal, in his great series of efforts along the African coast;
of Vasco da Gama, in his circumnavigation of the Cape of Good Hope; of
Magellan, in his voyage around the world; and doubtless found a place
among the more worldly motives of Columbus.(39)
(39) As to the earlier mixture in the motives of Columbus, it may be
well to compare with the earlier biographies the recent ones by Dr.
Winsor and President Adams.
Thus, in this field, from the supremacy accorded to theology, we find
resulting that tendency to dogmatism which has shown itself in all
ages the deadly foe not only of scientific inquiry but of the higher
religious spirit itself, while from the love of truth for truth's sake,
which has been the inspiration of all fruitful work in science, nothing
but advantage has ever resulted to religion.
CHAPTER III. ASTRONOMY.
I. THE OLD SACRED THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE.
The next great series of battles was fought over the relations of the
visible heavens to the earth.
In the early Church, in view of the doctrine so prominent in the New
Testament, that the earth was soon to be destroyed, and that there were
to be "new heavens and a new earth," astronomy, like other branches of
science, was generally looked upon as futile. Why study the old heavens
and the old earth, when they were so soon to be replaced with something
infinitely better? This feeling appears in St. Augustine's famous
utterance, "What concern is it to me whether the heavens as a sphere
inclose the earth in the middle of the world or overhang it on either
side?"
As to the heavenly bodies, theologians looked on them as at best only
objects of pious speculation. Regarding their nature the fathers of the
Church were divided. Origen, and others with him, thought them living
beings possessed of souls, and this belief was mainly based upon the
scriptural vision of the morning stars. singing together, and upon
the beautiful appeal to the "stars and light" in the song of the three
children--the Benedicite--which the Anglican communion has so wisely
retained in its Liturgy.
Other fathers thought the stars abiding-places of the angels, and that
stars were moved by angels. The Gnostics thought the stars spiritual
beings governed by angels, and appointed not to cause earthly events but
to indicate them.
As to the heavens in general, the prevailing view in the Church
was based upon the scriptural declarations that a solid vault--a
"firmament"--was extended above the earth, and that the heavenly
bodies were simply lights hung within it. This was for a time held
very tenaciously. St. Philastrius, in his famous treatise on heresies,
pronounced it a heresy to deny that the stars are brought out by God
from his treasure-house and hung in the sky every evening; any other
view he declared "false to the Catholic faith." This view also survived
in the sacred theory established so firmly by Cosmas in the sixth
century. Having established his plan of the universe upon various texts
in the Old and New Testaments, and having made it a vast oblong box,
covered by the solid "firmament," he brought in additional texts from
Scripture to account for the planetary movements, and developed at
length the theory that the sun and planets are moved and the "windows of
heaven" opened and shut by angels appointed for that purpose.
How intensely real this way of looking at the universe was, we find in
the writings of St. Isidore, the greatest leader of orthodox thought
in the seventh century. He affirms that since the fall of man, and
on account of it, the sun and moon shine with a feebler light; but he
proves from a text in Isaiah that when the world shall be fully redeemed
these "great lights" will shine again in all their early splendour.
But, despite these authorities and their theological finalities, the
evolution of scientific thought continued, its main germ being the
geocentric doctrine--the doctrine that the earth is the centre, and that
the sun and planets revolve about it.(40)
(40) For passage cited from Clement of Alexandria, see English
translation, Edinburgh, 1869, vol. ii, p. 368; also the Miscellanies,
Book V, cap. vi. For typical statements by St. Augustine, see De Genesi,
ii, cap. ix, in Migne, Patr. Lat., tome xxiv, pp. 270-271. For Origen's
view, see the De Principiis, lib. i, cap. vii; see also Leopardi's
Errori Populari, cap. xi; also Wilson's Selections from the Prophetic
Scriptures in Ante-Nicene Library, p. 132. For Philo Judaeus, see On the
Creation of the World, chaps. xviii and xix, and On Monarchy, chap. i.
For St. Isidore, see the De Ordine Creaturarum, cap v, in Migne, Patr.
Lat., lxxxiii, pp. 923-925; also 1000, 1001. For Philastrius, see the
De Hoeresibus, chap. cxxxiii, in Migne, tome xii, p. 1264. For Cosmas's
view, see his Topographia Christiana, in Montfaucon, Col. Nov. Patrum,
ii, p. 150, and elsewhere as cited in my chapter on Geography.
This doctrine was of the highest respectability: it had been developed
at a very early period, and had been elaborated until it accounted
well for the apparent movements of the heavenly bodies; its final name,
"Ptolemaic theory," carried weight; and, having thus come from antiquity
into the Christian world, St. Clement of Alexandria demonstrated that
the altar in the Jewish tabernacle was "a symbol of the earth placed
in the middle of the universe": nothing more was needed; the geocentric
theory was fully adopted by the Church and universally held to agree
with the letter and spirit of Scripture.(41)
(41) As to the respectibility of the geocentric theory, etc., see
Grote's Plato, vol. iii, p. 257; also Sir G. C. Lewis's Astronomy of the
Ancients, chap. iii, sec. 1, for a very thoughtful statement of Plato's
view, and differing from ancient statements. For plausible elaboration
of it, and for supposed agreement of the Scripture with it, see
Fromundus, Anti-Aristarchus, Antwerp, 1631; also Melanchthon's Initia
Doctrinae Physicae. For an admirable statement of the theological view
of the geocentric theory, antipodes, etc., see Eicken, Geschichte und
System der mittelalterlichen Weltanschauung, pp. 618 et seq.
Wrought into this foundation, and based upon it, there was developed
in the Middle Ages, mainly out of fragments of Chaldean and other early
theories preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures, a new sacred system of
astronomy, which became one of the great treasures of the universal
Church--the last word of revelation.
Three great men mainly reared this structure. First was the unknown who
gave to the world the treatises ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite.
It was unhesitatingly believed that these were the work of St. Paul's
Athenian convert, and therefore virtually of St. Paul himself. Though
now known to be spurious, they were then considered a treasure of
inspiration, and an emperor of the East sent them to an emperor of the
West as the most worthy of gifts. In the ninth century they were widely
circulated in western Europe, and became a fruitful source of thought,
especially on the whole celestial hierarchy. Thus the old ideas of
astronomy were vastly developed, and the heavenly hosts were classed
and named in accordance with indications scattered through the sacred
Scriptures.
The next of these three great theologians was Peter Lombard, professor
at the University of Paris. About the middle of the twelfth century he
gave forth his collection of Sentences, or Statements by the Fathers,
and this remained until the end of the Middle Ages the universal manual
of theology. In it was especially developed the theological view of
man's relation to the universe. The author tells the world: "Just as
man is made for the sake of God--that is, that he may serve Him,--so the
universe is made for the sake of man--that is, that it may serve HIM;
therefore is man placed at the middle point of the universe, that he may
both serve and be served."
The vast significance of this view, and its power in resisting any real
astronomical science, we shall see, especially in the time of Galileo.
The great triad of thinkers culminated in St. Thomas Aquinas--the
sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the "Angelic
Doctor," the most marvellous intellect between Aristotle and Newton; he
to whom it was believed that an image of the Crucified had spoken words
praising his writings. Large of mind, strong, acute, yet just--even more
than just--to his opponents, he gave forth, in the latter half of the
thirteenth century, his Cyclopaedia of Theology, the Summa Theologica.
In this he carried the sacred theory of the universe to its full
development. With great power and clearness he brought the whole vast
system, material and spiritual, into its relations to God and man.(42)
(42) For the beliefs of Chaldean astronomers in revolving spheres
carrying sun, moon, and planets, in a solid firmament supporting the
celestial waters, and in angels as giving motion to the planets, see
Lenormant; also Lethaby, 13-21; also Schroeder, Jensen, Lukas, et al.
For the contribution of the pseudo-Dionysius to mediaeval cosmology, see
Dion. Areopagita, De Coelesti Hierarchia, vers. Joan. Scoti, in Migne,
Patr. Lat., cxxii. For the contribution of Peter Lombard, see Pet.
Lomb., Libr. Sent., II, i, 8,-IV, i, 6, 7, in Migne, tome 192. For the
citations from St. Thomas Aquinas, see the Summa, ed. Migne, especially
Pars I, Qu. 70, (tome i, pp. 1174-1184); also Quaestio 47, Art. iii. For
good general statement, see Milman, Latin Christianity, iv, 191 et seq.;
and for relation of Cosmas to these theologians of western Europe, see
Milman, as above, viii, 228, note.
Thus was the vast system developed by these three leaders of mediaeval
thought; and now came the man who wrought it yet more deeply into
European belief, the poet divinely inspired who made the system part
of the world's LIFE. Pictured by Dante, the empyrean and the concentric
heavens, paradise, purgatory, and hell, were seen of all men; the God
Triune, seated on his throne upon the circle of the heavens, as real as
the Pope seated in the chair of St. Peter; the seraphim, cherubim, and
thrones, surrounding the Almighty, as real as the cardinals surrounding
the Pope; the three great orders of angels in heaven, as real as the
three great orders, bishops, priests, and deacons, on earth; and the
whole system of spheres, each revolving within the one above it, and
all moving about the earth, subject to the primum mobile, as real as the
feudal system of western Europe, subject to the Emperor.(43)
(43) For the central sun, hierarchy of angels, and concentric circles,
see Dante, Paradiso, canto xxviii. For the words of St. Thomas Aquinas,
showing to Virgil and Dante the great theologians of the Middle Ages,
see canto x, and in Dean Plumptre's translation, vol. ii, pp. 56 et
seq.; also Botta, Dante, pp. 350, 351. As to Dante's deep religious
feeling and belief in his own divine mission, see J. R. Lowell, Among
my Books, vol. i, p. 36. For a remarkable series of coloured engravings,
showing Dante's whole cosmology, see La Materia della Divina Comedia di
Dante dichiriata in vi tavole, da Michelangelo Caetani, published by the
monks of Monte Cassino, to whose kindness I am indebted for my copy.
Let us look into this vast creation--the highest achievement of
theology--somewhat more closely.
Its first feature shows a development out of earlier theological ideas.
The earth is no longer a flat plain inclosed by four walls and solidly
vaulted above, as theologians of previous centuries had believed it,
under the inspiration of Cosmas; it is no longer a mere flat disk, with
sun, moon, and stars hung up to give it light, as the earlier cathedral
sculptors had figured it; it has become a globe at the centre of the
universe. Encompassing it are successive transparent spheres, rotated
by angels about the earth, and each carrying one or more of the heavenly
bodies with it: that nearest the earth carrying the moon; the next,
Mercury; the next, Venus; the next, the Sun; the next three, Mars,
Jupiter, and Saturn; the eighth carrying the fixed stars. The ninth was
the primum mobile, and inclosing all was the tenth heaven--the Empyrean.
This was immovable--the boundary between creation and the great outer
void; and here, in a light which no one can enter, the Triune God sat
enthroned, the "music of the spheres" rising to Him as they moved. Thus
was the old heathen doctrine of the spheres made Christian.
In attendance upon the Divine Majesty, thus enthroned, are vast hosts
of angels, who are divided into three hierarchies, one serving in the
empyrean, one in the heavens, between the empyrean and the earth, and
one on the earth.
Each of these hierarchies is divided into three choirs, or orders; the
first, into the orders of Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones; and the main
occupation of these is to chant incessantly--to "continually cry" the
divine praises.
The order of Thrones conveys God's will to the second hierarchy, which
serves in the movable heavens. This second hierarchy is also made up of
three orders. The first of these, the order of Dominions, receives the
divine commands; the second, the order of Powers, moves the heavens,
sun, moon, planets, and stars, opens and shuts the "windows of heaven,"
and brings to pass all other celestial phenomena; the third, the order
of Empire, guards the others.
The third and lowest hierarchy is also made up of three orders. First
of these are the Principalities, the guardian spirits of nations and
kingdoms. Next come Archangels; these protect religion, and bear the
prayers of the saints to the foot of God's throne. Finally come Angels;
these care for earthly affairs in general, one being appointed to each
mortal, and others taking charge of the qualities of plants, metals,
stones, and the like. Throughout the whole system, from the great Triune
God to the lowest group of angels, we see at work the mystic power
attached to the triangle and sacred number three--the same which gave
the triune idea to ancient Hindu theology, which developed the triune
deities in Egypt, and which transmitted this theological gift to the
Christian world, especially through the Egyptian Athanasius.
Below the earth is hell. This is tenanted by the angels who rebelled
under the lead of Lucifer, prince of the seraphim--the former favourite
of the Trinity; but, of these rebellious angels, some still rove among
the planetary spheres, and give trouble to the good angels; others
pervade the atmosphere about the earth, carrying lightning, storm,
drought, and hail; others infest earthly society, tempting men to sin;
but Peter Lombard and St. Thomas Aquinas take pains to show that the
work of these devils is, after all, but to discipline man or to mete out
deserved punishment.
All this vast scheme had been so riveted into the Ptolemaic view by
the use of biblical texts and theological reasonings that the resultant
system of the universe was considered impregnable and final. To attack
it was blasphemy.
It stood for centuries. Great theological men of science, like Vincent
of Beauvais and Cardinal d'Ailly, devoted themselves to showing not only
that it was supported by Scripture, but that it supported Scripture.
Thus was the geocentric theory embedded in the beliefs and aspirations,
in the hopes and fears, of Christendom down to the middle of the
sixteenth century.(44)
(44) For the earlier cosmology of Cosmas, with citations from
Montfaucon, see the chapter on Geography in this work. For the views
of mediaeval theologians, see foregoing notes in this chapter. For the
passages of Scripture on which the theological part of this structure
was developed, see especially Romans viii, 38; Ephesians i, 21;
Colossians i, 16 and ii, 15; and innumerable passages in the Old
Testament. As to the music of the spheres, see Dean Plumptre's Dante,
vol. ii, p. 4, note. For an admirable summing up of the mediaeval
cosmology in its relation to thought in general, see Rydberg, Magic of
the Middle Ages, chap. i, whose summary I have followed in the main. For
striking woodcuts showing the view taken of the successive heavens with
their choirs of angels, the earth being at the centre with the spheres
about it, and the Almighty on his throne above all, see the Neuremberg
Chronicle, ff. iv and v; its date is 1493. For charts showing the
continuance of this general view down to the beginning of the sixteenth
century, see the various editions of the Margarita Philosophica, from
that of 1503 onward, astronomical part. For interesting statements
regarding the Trinities of gods in ancient Egypt, see Sharpe, History of
Egypt, vol. i, pp. 94 and 101. The present writer once heard a lecture
in Cairo, from an eminent Scotch Doctor of Medicine, to account for the
ancient Hindu and Egyptian sacred threes and trinities. The lecturer's
theory was that, when Jehovah came down into the Garden of Eden and
walked with Adam in "the cool of the day," he explained his triune
character to Adam, and that from Adam it was spread abroad to the
various ancient nations.
II. THE HELIOCENTRIC THEORY.
But, on the other hand, there had been planted, long before, the
germs of a heliocentric theory. In the sixth century before our era,
Pythagoras, and after him Philolaus, had suggested the movement of the
earth and planets about a central fire; and, three centuries later,
Aristarchus had restated the main truth with striking precision. Here
comes in a proof that the antagonism between theological and scientific
methods is not confined to Christianity; for this statement brought
upon Aristarchus the charge of blasphemy, and drew after it a cloud of
prejudice which hid the truth for six hundred years. Not until the fifth
century of our era did it timidly appear in the thoughts of Martianus
Capella: then it was again lost to sight for a thousand years, until
in the fifteenth century, distorted and imperfect, it appeared in the
writings of Cardinal Nicholas de Cusa.
But in the shade cast by the vast system which had grown from the minds
of the great theologians and from the heart of the great poet there had
come to this truth neither bloom nor fruitage.
Quietly, however, the soil was receiving enrichment and the air warmth.
The processes of mathematics were constantly improved, the heavenly
bodies were steadily observed, and at length appeared, far from the
centres of thought, on the borders of Poland, a plain, simple-minded
scholar, who first fairly uttered to the modern world the truth--now so
commonplace, then so astounding--that the sun and planets do not revolve
about the earth, but that the earth and planets revolve about the sun:
this man was Nicholas Copernicus.
Copernicus had been a professor at Rome, and even as early as 1500
had announced his doctrine there, but more in the way of a scientific
curiosity or paradox, as it had been previously held by Cardinal de
Cusa, than as the statement of a system representing a great fact in
Nature. About thirty years later one of his disciples, Widmanstadt, had
explained it to Clement VII; but it still remained a mere hypothesis,
and soon, like so many others, disappeared from the public view. But
to Copernicus, steadily studying the subject, it became more and more
a reality, and as this truth grew within him he seemed to feel that at
Rome he was no longer safe. To announce his discovery there as a theory
or a paradox might amuse the papal court, but to announce it as a
truth--as THE truth--was a far different matter. He therefore returned
to his little town in Poland.
To publish his thought as it had now developed was evidently dangerous
even there, and for more than thirty years it lay slumbering in the mind
of Copernicus and of the friends to whom he had privately intrusted it.
At last he prepared his great work on the Revolutions of the Heavenly
Bodies, and dedicated it to the Pope himself. He next sought a place of
publication. He dared not send it to Rome, for there were the rulers of
the older Church ready to seize it; he dared not send it to Wittenberg,
for there were the leaders of Protestantism no less hostile; he
therefore intrusted it to Osiander, at Nuremberg.(45)
(45) For the germs of heliocentric theory planted long before, see Sir
G. C. Lewis; and for a succinct statement of the claims of Pythagoras,
Philolaus, Aristarchus, and Martianus Capella, see Hoefer, Histoire de
l'Astronomie, 1873, p. 107 et seq.; also Heller, Geschichte der Physik,
Stuttgart, 1882, vol. i, pp. 12, 13; also pp. 99 et seq. For germs among
thinkers of India, see Whewell, vol. i, p. 277; also Whitney, Oriental
and Linguistic Studies, New York, 1874; Essay on the Lunar Zodiac, p.
345. For the views of Vincent of Beauvais, see his Speculum Naturale,
lib. xvi, cap. 21. For Cardinal d'Ailly's view, see his treatise De
Concordia Astronomicae Veritatis cum Theologia (in his Ymago Mundi
and separately). For general statement of De Cusa's work, see Draper,
Intellectual Development of Europe, p. 512. For skilful use of De Cusa's
view in order to mitigate censure upon the Church for its treatment
of Copernicus's discovery, see an article in the Catholic World for
January, 1869. For a very exact statement, in the spirit of judicial
fairness, see Whewell, History of the Inductive Sciences, p. 275, and
pp. 379, 380. In the latter, Whewell cites the exact words of De Cusa
in the De Docta Ignorantia, and sums up in these words: "This train
of thought might be a preparation for the reception of the Copernican
system; but it is very different from the doctrine that the sun is the
centre of the planetary system." Whewell says: "De Cusa propounded the
doctrine of the motion of the earth more as a paradox than as a reality.
We can not consider this as any distinct anticipation of a profound and
consistent view of the truth." On De Cusa, see also Heller, vol. i, p.
216. For Aristotle's views, and their elaboration by St. Thomas Aquinas,
see the De Coelo et Mundo, sec. xx, and elsewhere in the latter. It is
curious to see how even such a biographer as Archbishop Vaughan slurs
over the angelic Doctor's errors. See Vaughan's Life and Labours of St.
Thomas of Aquin, pp. 459, 460.
As to Copernicus's danger at Rome, the Catholic World for January, 1869,
cites a speech of the Archbishop of Mechlin before the University of
Louvain, to the effect that Copernicus defended his theory at Rome, in
1500, before two thousand scholars; also, that another professor taught
the system in 1528, and was made apostolic notary by Clement VIII. All
this, even if the doctrines taught were identical with Copernicus as
finally developed--which is simply not the case--avails nothing
against the overwhelming testimony that Copernicus felt himself in
danger--testimony which the after-history of the Copernican theory
renders invincible. The very title of Fromundus's book, already cited,
published within a few miles of the archbishop's own cathedral, and
sanctioned expressly by the theological faculty of that same University
of Louvain in 1630, utterly refutes the archbishop's idea that the
Church was inclined to treat Copernicus kindly. The title is as
follows: Ant-Aristarchus sive Orbis-Terrae Immobilis, in quo decretum
S. Congregationis S. R. E. Cardinal. an. M.DC.XVI adversus
Pythagorico-Copernicanos editum defenditur, Antverpiae, MDCXXI.
L'Epinois, Galilee, Paris, 1867, lays stress, p. 14, on the broaching of
the doctrine by De Cusa in 1435, and by Widmanstadt in 1533, and their
kind treatment by Eugenius IV and Clement VII; but this is absolutely
worthless in denying the papal policy afterward. Lange, Geschichte des
Materialismus, vol. i, pp. 217, 218, while admitting that De Cusa
and Widmanstadt sustained this theory and received honors from
their respective popes, shows that, when the Church gave it serious
consideration, it was condemned. There is nothing in this view
unreasonable. It would be a parallel case to that of Leo X, at first
inclined toward Luther and others, in their "squabbles with the envious
friars," and afterward forced to oppose them. That Copernicus felt
the danger, is evident, among other things, by the expression in the
preface: "Statim me explodendum cum tali opinione clamitant." For
dangers at Wittenberg, see Lange, as above, vol. i, p. 217.
But Osiander's courage failed him: he dared not launch the new thought
boldly. He wrote a grovelling preface, endeavouring to excuse Copernicus
for his novel idea, and in this he inserted the apologetic lie that
Copernicus had propounded the doctrine of the earth's movement not as
a fact, but as a hypothesis. He declared that it was lawful for an
astronomer to indulge his imagination, and that this was what Copernicus
had done.
Thus was the greatest and most ennobling, perhaps, of scientific
truths--a truth not less ennobling to religion than to science--forced,
in coming before the world, to sneak and crawl.(46)
(46) Osiander, in a letter to Copernicus, dated April 20, 1541, had
endeavored to reconcile him to such a procedure, and ends by saying,
"Sic enim placidiores reddideris peripatheticos et theologos quos
contradicturos metuis." See Apologia Tychonis in Kepler's Opera Omnia,
Frisch's edition, vol. i, p. 246. Kepler holds Osiander entirely
responsible for this preface. Bertrand, in his Fondateurs de
l'astronomie moderne, gives its text, and thinks it possible that
Copernicus may have yielded "in pure condescension toward his disciple."
But this idea is utterly at variance with expressions in Copernicus's
own dedicatory letter to the Pope, which follows the preface. For a good
summary of the argument, see Figuier, Savants de la Renaissance, pp.
378, 379; see also citation from Gassendi's Life of Copernicus, in
Flammarion, Vie de Copernic, p. 124. Mr. John Fiske, accurate as
he usually is, in his Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy appears to have
followed Laplace, Delambre, and Petit into the error of supposing that
Copernicus, and not Osiander, is responsible for the preface. For the
latest proofs, see Menzer's translation of Copernicus's work, Thorn,
1879, notes on pp. 3 and 4 of the appendix.
On the 24th of May, 1543, the newly printed book arrived at the house of
Copernicus. It was put into his hands; but he was on his deathbed. A few
hours later he was beyond the reach of the conscientious men who would
have blotted his reputation and perhaps have destroyed his life.
Yet not wholly beyond their reach. Even death could not be trusted to
shield him. There seems to have been fear of vengeance upon his corpse,
for on his tombstone was placed no record of his lifelong labours, no
mention of his great discovery; but there was graven upon it simply a
prayer: "I ask not the grace accorded to Paul; not that given to Peter;
give me only the favour which Thou didst show to the thief on the
cross."
Not till thirty years after did a friend dare write on his tombstone a
memorial of his discovery.(47)
(47) See Flammarion, Vie de Copernic, p. 190.
The preface of Osiander, pretending that the book of Copernicus
suggested a hypothesis instead of announcing a truth, served its purpose
well. During nearly seventy years the Church authorities evidently
thought it best not to stir the matter, and in some cases professors
like Calganini were allowed to present the new view purely as a
hypothesis. There were, indeed, mutterings from time to time on the
theological side, but there was no great demonstration against the
system until 1616. Then, when the Copernican doctrine was upheld by
Galileo as a TRUTH, and proved to be a truth by his telescope, the book
was taken in hand by the Roman curia. The statements of Copernicus
were condemned, "until they should be corrected"; and the corrections
required were simply such as would substitute for his conclusions the
old Ptolemaic theory.
That this was their purpose was seen in that year when Galileo was
forbidden to teach or discuss the Copernican theory, and when were
forbidden "all books which affirm the motion of the earth." Henceforth
to read the work of Copernicus was to risk damnation, and the world
accepted the decree.(48) The strongest minds were thus held fast. If
they could not believe the old system, they must PRETEND that they
believed it;--and this, even after the great circumnavigation of the
globe had done so much to open the eyes of the world! Very striking is
the case of the eminent Jesuit missionary Joseph Acosta, whose great
work on the Natural and Moral History of the Indies, published in the
last quarter of the sixteenth century, exploded so many astronomical and
geographical errors. Though at times curiously credulous, he told the
truth as far as he dared; but as to the movement of the heavenly bodies
he remained orthodox--declaring, "I have seen the two poles, whereon the
heavens turn as upon their axletrees."
(48) The authorities deciding this matter in accordance with the wishes
of Pope V and Cardinal Bellarmine were the Congregation of the Index,
or cardinals having charge of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Recent
desperate attempts to fasten the responsibility on them as individuals
seem ridiculous in view of the simple fact that their work was
sanctioned by the highest Church authority, and required to be
universally accepted by the Church. Eleven different editions of the
Index in my own possession prove this. Nearly all of these declare on
their title-pages that they are issued by order of the pontiff of the
period, and each is preface by a special papal bull or letter. See
especially the Index of 1664, issued under order of Alexander VII,
and that of 1761, under Benedict XIV. Copernicus's statements were
prohibited in the Index "donec corrigantur." Kepler said that it ought
to be worded "donec explicetur." See Bertand, Fondateurs de l'Astronomie
moderne, p. 57. De Morgan, pp. 57-60, gives the corrections required by
the Index of 1620. Their main aim seems to be to reduce Copernicus
to the grovelling level of Osiander, making his discovery a mere
hypothesis; but occasionally they require a virtual giving up of the
whole Copernican doctrine--e.g., "correction" insisted upon for chap.
viii, p. 6. For a scholarly account of the relation between Prohibitory
and Expurgatory Indexes to each other, see Mendham, Literary Policy
of the Church of Rome; also Reusch, Index der verbotenen Bucher, Bonn,
1855, vol. ii, chaps i and ii. For a brief but very careful statement,
see Gebler, Galileo Galilei, English translation, London, 1879, chap. i;
see also Addis and Arnold's Catholic Dictionary, article Galileo, p.8.
There was, indeed, in Europe one man who might have done much to check
this current of unreason which was to sweep away so many thoughtful men
on the one hand from scientific knowledge, and so many on the other from
Christianity. This was Peter Apian. He was one of the great mathematical
and astronomical scholars of the time. His brilliant abilities had
made him the astronomical teacher of the Emperor Charles V. His work on
geography had brought him a world-wide reputation; his work on astronomy
brought him a patent of nobility; his improvements in mathematical
processes and astronomical instruments brought him the praise of Kepler
and a place in the history of science: never had a true man better
opportunity to do a great deed. When Copernicus's work appeared, Apian
was at the height of his reputation and power: a quiet, earnest
plea from him, even if it had been only for ordinary fairness and a
suspension of judgment, must have carried much weight. His devoted
pupil, Charles V, who sat on the thrones of Germany and Spain, must at
least have given a hearing to such a plea. But, unfortunately, Apian
was a professor in an institution of learning under the strictest Church
control--the University of Ingolstadt. His foremost duty was to teach
SAFE science--to keep science within the line of scriptural truth as
interpreted by theological professors. His great opportunity was lost.
Apian continued to maunder over the Ptolemaic theory and astrology
in his lecture-room. The attack on the Copernican theory he neither
supported nor opposed; he was silent; and the cause of his silence
should never be forgotten so long as any Church asserts its title to
control university instruction.(49)
(49) For Joseph Acosta's statement, see the translation of his History,
published by the Hakluyt Society, chap. ii. For Peter Apian, see Madler,
Geschichte der Astronomie, Braunschweig, 1873, vol. i, p. 141. For
evidences of the special favour of Charles V, see Delambre, Histoire
de l'Astronomie au Moyen Age, p. 390; also Bruhns, in the Allgemeine
deutsche Biographie. For an attempted apology for him, see Gunther,
Peter and Philipp Apian, Prag, 1822, p. 62.
Doubtless many will exclaim against the Roman Catholic Church for this;
but the simple truth is that Protestantism was no less zealous
against the new scientific doctrine. All branches of the Protestant
Church--Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican--vied with each other in
denouncing the Copernican doctrine as contrary to Scripture; and, at a
later period, the Puritans showed the same tendency.
Said Martin Luther: "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove
to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the
sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some
new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool
wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture
tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the
earth." Melanchthon, mild as he was, was not behind Luther in condemning
Copernicus. In his treatise on the Elements of Physics, published six
years after Copernicus's death, he says: "The eyes are witnesses that
the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men,
either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity,
have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the
eighth sphere nor the sun revolves.... Now, it is a want of honesty and
decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious.
It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and
to acquiesce in it." Melanchthon then cites the passages in the Psalms
and Ecclesiastes, which he declares assert positively and clearly that
the earth stands fast and that the sun moves around it, and adds eight
other proofs of his proposition that "the earth can be nowhere if not
in the centre of the universe." So earnest does this mildest of the
Reformers become, that he suggests severe measures to restrain such
impious teachings as those of Copernicus.(50)
(50) See the Tischreden in the Walsch edition of Luther's Works, 1743,
vol. xxii, p. 2260; also Melanchthon's Initia Doctrinae Physicae.
This treatise is cited under a mistaken title by the Catholic World,
September, 1870. The correct title is as given above; it will be found
in the Corpus Reformatorum, vol. xiii (ed. Bretschneider, Halle, 1846),
pp. 216, 217. See also Madler, vol. i, p. 176; also Lange, Geschichte
des Materialismus, vol. i, p. 217; also Prowe, Ueber die Abhangigkeit
des Copernicus, Thorn, 1865, p. 4; also note, pp. 5, 6, where text is
given in full.
While Lutheranism was thus condemning the theory of the earth's
movement, other branches of the Protestant Church did not remain behind.
Calvin took the lead, in his Commentary on Genesis, by condemning all
who asserted that the earth is not at the centre of the universe. He
clinched the matter by the usual reference to the first verse of the
ninety-third Psalm, and asked, "Who will venture to place the authority
of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" Turretin, Calvin's famous
successor, even after Kepler and Newton had virtually completed the
theory of Copernicus and Galileo, put forth his compendium of theology,
in which he proved, from a multitude of scriptural texts, that the
heavens, sun, and moon move about the earth, which stands still in the
centre. In England we see similar theological efforts, even after they
had become evidently futile. Hutchinson's Moses's Principia, Dr. Samuel
Pike's Sacred Philosophy, the writings of Horne, Bishop Horsley, and
President Forbes contain most earnest attacks upon the ideas of Newton,
such attacks being based upon Scripture. Dr. John Owen, so famous in
the annals of Puritanism, declared the Copernican system a "delusive
and arbitrary hypothesis, contrary to Scripture"; and even John Wesley
declared the new ideas to "tend toward infidelity."(51)
(51) On the teachings on Protestantism as regards the Copernican theory,
see citations in Canon Farrar's History of Interpretation, preface,
xviii; also Rev. Dr. Shields, of Princeton, The Final Philosophy, pp.
60, 61.
And Protestant peoples were not a whit behind Catholic in following out
such teachings. The people of Elbing made themselves merry over a farce
in which Copernicus was the main object of ridicule. The people of
Nuremberg, a Protestant stronghold, caused a medal to be struck with
inscriptions ridiculing the philosopher and his theory.
Why the people at large took this view is easily understood when we note
the attitude of the guardians of learning, both Catholic and Protestant,
in that age. It throws great light upon sundry claims by modern
theologians to take charge of public instruction and of the evolution
of science. So important was it thought to have "sound learning" guarded
and "safe science" taught, that in many of the universities, as late as
the end of the seventeenth century, professors were forced to take an
oath not to hold the "Pythagorean"--that is, the Copernican--idea as to
the movement of the heavenly bodies. As the contest went on, professors
were forbidden to make known to students the facts revealed by
the telescope. Special orders to this effect were issued by the
ecclesiastical authorities to the universities and colleges of Pisa,
Innspruck, Louvain, Douay, Salamanca, and others. During generations we
find the authorities of these Universities boasting that these godless
doctrines were kept away from their students. It is touching to hear
such boasts made then, just as it is touching now to hear sundry
excellent university authorities boast that they discourage the reading
of Mill, Spencer, and Darwin. Nor were such attempts to keep the truth
from students confined to the Roman Catholic institutions of learning.
Strange as it may seem, nowhere were the facts confirming the Copernican
theory more carefully kept out of sight than at Wittenberg--the
university of Luther and Melanchthon. About the middle of the sixteenth
century there were at that centre of Protestant instruction two
astronomers of a very high order, Rheticus and Reinhold; both of these,
after thorough study, had convinced themselves that the Copernican
system was true, but neither of them was allowed to tell this truth to
his students. Neither in his lecture announcements nor in his published
works did Rheticus venture to make the new system known, and he at
last gave up his professorship and left Wittenberg, that he might have
freedom to seek and tell the truth. Reinhold was even more wretchedly
humiliated. Convinced of the truth of the new theory, he was obliged to
advocate the old; if he mentioned the Copernican ideas, he was compelled
to overlay them with the Ptolemaic. Even this was not thought safe
enough, and in 1571 the subject was intrusted to Peucer. He was
eminently "sound," and denounced the Copernican theory in his lectures
as "absurd, and unfit to be introduced into the schools."
To clinch anti-scientific ideas more firmly into German Protestant
teaching, Rector Hensel wrote a text-book for schools entitled The
Restored Mosaic System of the World, which showed the Copernican
astronomy to be unscriptural.
Doubtless this has a far-off sound; yet its echo comes very near modern
Protestantism in the expulsion of Dr. Woodrow by the Presbyterian
authorities in South Carolina; the expulsion of Prof. Winchell by the
Methodist Episcopal authorities in Tennessee; the expulsion of Prof. Toy
by Baptist authorities in Kentucky; the expulsion of the professors at
Beyrout under authority of American Protestant divines--all for holding
the doctrines of modern science, and in the last years of the nineteenth
century.(52)
(52) For treatment of Copernican ideas by the people, see The Catholic
World, as above; also Melanchthon, ubi supra; also Prowe, Copernicus,
Berlin, 1883, vol. i, p. 269, note; also pp. 279, 280; also Madler, i,
p.167. For Rector Hensel, see Rev. Dr. Shield's Final Philosophy, p. 60.
For details of recent Protestant efforts against evolution doctrines,
see the chapter on the Fall of Man and Anthropology in this work.
But the new truth could not be concealed; it could neither be laughed
down nor frowned down. Many minds had received it, but within the
hearing of the papacy only one tongue appears to have dared to utter it
clearly. This new warrior was that strange mortal, Giordano Bruno. He
was hunted from land to land, until at last he turned on his pursuers
with fearful invectives. For this he was entrapped at Venice, imprisoned
during six years in the dungeons of the Inquisition at Rome, then burned
alive, and his ashes scattered to the winds. Still, the new truth lived
on.
Ten years after the martyrdom of Bruno the truth of Copernicus's
doctrine was established by the telescope of Galileo.(53)
(53) For Bruno, see Bartholmess, Vie de Jordano Bruno, Paris, 1846,
vol. i, p.121 and pp. 212 et seq.; also Berti, Vita di Giordano Bruno,
Firenze, 1868, chap. xvi; also Whewell, vol. i, pp. 272, 273. That
Whewell is somewhat hasty in attributing Bruno's punishment entirely
to the Spaccio della Bestia Trionfante will be evident, in spite
of Montucla, to anyone who reads the account of the persecution in
Bartholmess or Berti; and even if Whewell be right, the Spaccio would
never have been written but for Bruno's indignation at ecclesiastical
oppression. See Tiraboschi, vol. vii, pp. 466 et seq.
Herein was fulfilled one of the most touching of prophecies. Years
before, the opponents of Copernicus had said to him, "If your doctrines
were true, Venus would show phases like the moon." Copernicus answered:
"You are right; I know not what to say; but God is good, and will in
time find an answer to this objection." The God-given answer came when,
in 1611, the rude telescope of Galileo showed the phases of Venus.(54)
(54) For the relation of these discoveries to Copernicus's work, see
Delambre, Histoire de l'Astronomie moderne, discours preliminaire,
p. xiv; also Laplace, Systeme du Monde, vol. i, p. 326; and for more
careful statements, Kepler's Opera Omnia, edit. Frisch, tome ii, p. 464.
For Copernicus's prophecy, see Cantu, Histoire Univerelle, vol. xv, p.
473. (Cantu was an eminent Roman Catholic.)
III. THE WAR UPON GALILEO.
On this new champion, Galileo, the whole war was at last concentrated.
His discoveries had clearly taken the Copernican theory out of the list
of hypotheses, and had placed it before the world as a truth. Against
him, then, the war was long and bitter. The supporters of what was
called "sound learning" declared his discoveries deceptions and his
announcements blasphemy. Semi-scientific professors, endeavouring to
curry favour with the Church, attacked him with sham science;
earnest preachers attacked him with perverted Scripture; theologians,
inquisitors, congregations of cardinals, and at last two popes
dealt with him, and, as was supposed, silenced his impious doctrine
forever.(55)
(55) A very curious example of this sham science employed by theologians
is seen in the argument, frequently used at that time, that, if the
earth really moved, a stone falling from a height would fall back of a
point immediately below its point of starting. This is used by Fromundus
with great effect. It appears never to have occurred to him to test the
matter by dropping a stone from the topmast of a ship. Bezenburg has
mathematically demonstrated just such an aberration in falling bodies,
as is mathematically required by the diurnal motion of the earth. See
Jevons, Principles of Science, pp. 388, 389, second edition, 1877.
I shall present this warfare at some length because, so far as I can
find, no careful summary of it has been given in our language, since the
whole history was placed in a new light by the revelations of the trial
documents in the Vatican Library, honestly published for the first
time by L'Epinois in 1867, and since that by Gebler, Berti, Favaro, and
others.
The first important attack on Galileo began in 1610, when he announced
that his telescope had revealed the moons of the planet Jupiter. The
enemy saw that this took the Copernican theory out of the realm of
hypothesis, and they gave battle immediately. They denounced both
his method and its results as absurd and impious. As to his method,
professors bred in the "safe science" favoured by the Church argued that
the divinely appointed way of arriving at the truth in astronomy was
by theological reasoning on texts of Scripture; and, as to his
results, they insisted, first, that Aristotle knew nothing of these new
revelations; and, next, that the Bible showed by all applicable types
that there could be only seven planets; that this was proved by the
seven golden candlesticks of the Apocalypse, by the seven-branched
candlestick of the tabernacle, and by the seven churches of Asia; that
from Galileo's doctrine consequences must logically result destructive
to Christian truth. Bishops and priests therefore warned their flocks,
and multitudes of the faithful besought the Inquisition to deal speedily
and sharply with the heretic.(56)
(56) See Delambre on the discovery of the satellites of Jupiter as
the turning-point with the heliocentric doctrine. As to its effects
on Bacon, see Jevons, p. 638, as above. For argument drawn from the
candlestick and the seven churches, see Delambre, p. 20.
In vain did Galileo try to prove the existence of satellites 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 discovered 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 was 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 was 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."(57)
(57) For principle points as given, see Libri, Histoire des Sciences
mathematiques 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
edition of the trial (Die Acten des Galileischen Processes, Stuttgart,
1877), 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.
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."
To make the matter worse, a painter, placing the moon in a religious
picture in its usual position beneath the feet of the Blessed Virgin,
outlined on its surface mountains and valleys; this was denounced as a
sacrilege logically resulting from the astronomer's heresy.
Still another struggle was aroused when the hated telescope revealed
spots upon the sun, and their motion indicating the sun's rotation.
Monsignor Elci, head of the University of Pisa, forbade the astronomer
Castelli to mention these spots to his students. Father Busaeus, at the
University of Innspruck, forbade the astronomer Scheiner, who had also
discovered the spots and proposed a SAFE explanation of them, to allow
the new discovery to be known there. At the College of Douay and the
University of Louvain this discovery was expressly placed under the ban,
and this became the general rule among the Catholic universities and
colleges of Europe. The Spanish universities were especially intolerant
of this and similar ideas, and up to a recent period their presentation
was strictly forbidden in the most important university of all--that of
Salamanca.(58)
(58) See Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature, vol. iii.
Such are the consequences of placing the instruction of men's minds in
the hands of those mainly absorbed in saving men's souls. Nothing
could be more in accordance with the idea recently put forth by sundry
ecclesiastics, Catholic and Protestant, that the Church alone
is empowered to promulgate scientific truth or direct university
instruction. But science gained a victory here also. Observations of
the solar spots were reported not only from Galileo in Italy, but from
Fabricius in Holland. Father Scheiner then endeavoured to make the
usual compromise between theology and science. He promulgated a
pseudo-scientific theory, which only provoked derision.
The war became more and more bitter. The Dominican Father Caccini
preached a sermon from the text, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing
up into heaven?" and this wretched pun upon the great astronomer's name
ushered in sharper weapons; for, before Caccini ended, he insisted that
"geometry is of the devil," and that "mathematicians should be banished
as the authors of all heresies." The Church authorities gave Caccini
promotion.
Father Lorini proved that Galileo's doctrine was not only heretical but
"atheistic," and besought the Inquisition to intervene. The Bishop
of Fiesole screamed in rage against the Copernican system, publicly
insulted Galileo, and denounced him to the Grand-Duke. The Archbishop
of Pisa secretly sought to entrap Galileo and deliver him to the
Inquisition at Rome. The Archbishop of Florence solemnly condemned the
new doctrines as unscriptural; and Paul V, while petting Galileo, and
inviting him as the greatest astronomer of the world to visit Rome, was
secretly moving the Archbishop of Pisa to pick up evidence against the
astronomer.
But by far the most terrible champion who now appeared was Cardinal
Bellarmin, one of the greatest theologians the world has known. He was
earnest, sincere, and learned, but insisted on making science conform to
Scripture. The weapons which men of Bellarmin's stamp used were purely
theological. They held up before the world the dreadful consequences
which must result to Christian theology were the heavenly bodies proved
to revolve about the sun and not about the earth. Their most tremendous
dogmatic engine was the statement that "his pretended discovery vitiates
the whole Christian plan of salvation." Father Lecazre declared "it
casts suspicion on the doctrine of the incarnation." Others declared,
"It upsets the whole basis of theology. If the earth is a planet, and
only one among several planets, it can not be that any such great things
have been done specially for it as the Christian doctrine teaches. If
there are other planets, since God makes nothing in vain, they must be
inhabited; but how can their inhabitants be descended from Adam? How
can they trace back their origin to Noah's ark? How can they have
been redeemed by the Saviour?" Nor was this argument confined to the
theologians of the Roman Church; Melanchthon, Protestant as he was, had
already used it in his attacks on Copernicus and his school.
In addition to this prodigious theological engine of war there was kept
up a fire of smaller artillery in the shape of texts and scriptural
extracts.
But the war grew still more bitter, and some weapons used in it are
worth examining. They are very easily examined, for they are to be found
on all the battlefields of science; but on that field they were used
with more effect than on almost any other. These weapons are the
epithets "infidel" and "atheist." They have been used against almost
every man who has ever done anything new for his fellow-men. The list of
those who have been denounced as "infidel" and "atheist" includes
almost all great men of science, general scholars, inventors, and
philanthropists.
The purest Christian life, the noblest Christian character, have not
availed to shield combatants. Christians like Isaac Newton, Pascal,
Locke, Milton, and even Fenelon and Howard, have had this weapon
hurled against them. Of all proofs of the existence of a God, those of
Descartes have been wrought most thoroughly into the minds of modern
men; yet the Protestant theologians of Holland sought to bring him to
torture and to death by the charge of atheism, and the Roman Catholic
theologians of France thwarted him during his life and prevented any due
honours to him after his death.(59)
(59) For various objectors and objections to Galileo by his
contemporaries, see Libri, Histoire des Sciences mathematiques en
Italie, vol. iv, p. 233, 234; also Martin, Vie de Galilee. For Father
Lecazre's argument, see Flammarion, Mondes imaginaires et mondes reels,
6th ed., pp. 315, 316. For Melanchthon's argument, see his Initia in
Opera, vol. iii, Halle, 1846.
These epithets can hardly be classed with civilized weapons. They are
burning arrows; they set fire to masses of popular prejudice, always
obscuring the real question, sometimes destroying the attacking party.
They are poisoned weapons. They pierce the hearts of loving women; they
alienate dear children; they injure a man after life is ended, for they
leave poisoned wounds in the hearts of those who loved him best--fears
for his eternal salvation, dread of the Divine wrath upon him. Of
course, in these days these weapons, though often effective in vexing
good men and in scaring good women, are somewhat blunted; indeed, they
not infrequently injure the assailants more than the assailed. So it was
not in the days of Galileo; they were then in all their sharpness and
venom.(60)
(60) For curious exemplification of the way in which these weapons
have been hurled, see lists of persons charged with "infidelity" and
"atheism," in the Dictionnaire des Athees., Paris, (1800); also Lecky,
History of Rationalism, vol. ii, p. 50. For the case of Descartes, see
Saisset, Descartes et ses Precurseurs, pp. 103, 110. For the facility
with which the term "atheist" has been applied from the early Aryans
down to believers in evolution, see Tylor, Primitive Culture, vol. i, p.
420.
Yet a baser warfare was waged by the Archbishop of Pisa. This man, whose
cathedral derives its most enduring fame from Galileo's deduction of a
great natural law from the swinging lamp before its altar, was not an
archbishop after the noble mould of Borromeo and Fenelon and Cheverus.
Sadly enough for the Church and humanity, he was simply a zealot and
intriguer: he perfected the plan for entrapping the great astronomer.
Galileo, after his discoveries had been denounced, had written to his
friend Castelli and to the Grand-Duchess Christine two letters to show
that his discoveries might be reconciled with Scripture. On a hint from
the Inquisition at Rome, the archbishop sought to get hold of these
letters and exhibit them as proofs that Galileo had uttered heretical
views of theology and of Scripture, and thus to bring him into the
clutch of the Inquisition. The archbishop begs Castelli, therefore, to
let him see the original letter in the handwriting of Galileo. Castelli
declines. The archbishop then, while, as is now revealed, writing
constantly and bitterly to the Inquisition against Galileo, professes
to Castelli the greatest admiration of Galileo's genius and a sincere
desire to know more of his discoveries. This not succeeding, the
archbishop at last throws off the mask and resorts to open attack.
The whole struggle to crush Galileo and to save him would be
amusing were it not so fraught with evil. There were intrigues and
counter-intrigues, plots and counter-plots, lying and spying; and in
the thickest of this seething, squabbling, screaming mass of priests,
bishops, archbishops, and cardinals, appear two popes, Paul V and Urban
VIII. It is most suggestive to see in this crisis of the Church, at the
tomb of the prince of the apostles, on the eve of the greatest errors
in Church policy the world has known, in all the intrigues and
deliberations of these consecrated leaders of the Church, no more
evidence of the guidance or presence of the Holy Spirit than in a caucus
of New York politicians at Tammany Hall.
But the opposing powers were too strong. In 1615 Galileo was summoned
before the Inquisition at Rome, and the mine which had been so long
preparing was sprung. Sundry theologians of the Inquisition having
been ordered to examine two propositions which had been extracted from
Galileo's letters on the solar spots, solemnly considered these points
during about a month and rendered their unanimous decision as follows:
"THE FIRST PROPOSITION, THAT THE SUN IS THE CENTRE AND DOES NOT REVOLVE
ABOUT THE EARTH, IS FOOLISH, ABSURD, FALSE IN THEOLOGY, AND HERETICAL,
BECAUSE EXPRESSLY CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURE"; AND "THE SECOND
PROPOSITION, THAT THE EARTH IS NOT THE CENTRE BUT REVOLVES ABOUT THE
SUN, IS ABSURD, FALSE IN PHILOSOPHY, AND, FROM A THEOLOGICAL POINT OF
VIEW AT LEAST, OPPOSED TO THE TRUE FAITH."
The Pope himself, Paul V, now intervened again: he ordered that Galileo
be brought before the Inquisition. Then the greatest man of science in
that age was brought face to face with the greatest theologian--Galileo
was confronted by Bellarmin. Bellarmin shows Galileo the error of his
opinion and orders him to renounce it. De Lauda, fortified by a letter
from the Pope, gives orders that the astronomer be placed in the
dungeons of the Inquisition should he refuse to yield. Bellarmin now
commands Galileo, "in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole
Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the opinion
that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the
earth moves, nor henceforth to hold, teach, or defend it in any way
whatsoever, verbally or in writing." This injunction Galileo acquiesces
in and promises to obey.(61)
(61) I am aware that the theory proposed by Wohwill and developed by
Gebler denied that this promise was ever made by Galileo, and holds that
the passage was a forgery devised later by the Church rulers to justify
the proceedings of 1632 and 1644. This would make the conduct of the
Church worse, but authorities as eminent consider the charge not proved.
A careful examination of the documents seems to disprove it.
This was on the 26th of February, 1616. About a fortnight later the
Congregation of the Index, moved thereto, as the letters and documents
now brought to light show, by Pope Paul V, solemnly rendered a decree
that "THE DOCTRINE OF THE DOUBLE MOTION OF THE EARTH ABOUT ITS AXIS AND
ABOUT THE SUN IS FALSE, AND ENTIRELY CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURE"; and
that this opinion must neither be taught nor advocated. The same decree
condemned all writings of Copernicus and "ALL WRITINGS WHICH AFFIRM THE
MOTION OF THE EARTH." The great work of Copernicus was interdicted until
corrected in accordance with the views of the Inquisition; and the works
of Galileo and Kepler, though not mentioned by name at that time, were
included among those implicitly condemned as "affirming the motion of
the earth."
The condemnations were inscribed upon the Index; and, finally, the
papacy committed itself as an infallible judge and teacher to the world
by prefixing to the Index the usual papal bull giving its monitions the
most solemn papal sanction. To teach or even read the works denounced or
passages condemned was to risk persecution in this world and damnation
in the next. Science had apparently lost the decisive battle.
For a time after this judgment Galileo remained in Rome, apparently
hoping to find some way out of this difficulty; but he soon discovered
the hollowness of the protestations made to him by ecclesiastics, and,
being recalled to Florence, remained in his hermitage near the city in
silence, working steadily, indeed, but not publishing anything save by
private letters to friends in various parts of Europe.
But at last a better vista seemed to open for him. Cardinal Barberini,
who had seemed liberal and friendly, became pope under the name of Urban
VIII. Galileo at this conceived new hopes, and allowed his continued
allegiance to the Copernican system to be known. New troubles ensued.
Galileo was induced to visit Rome again, and Pope Urban tried to cajole
him into silence, personally taking the trouble to show him his errors
by argument. Other opponents were less considerate, for works appeared
attacking his ideas--works all the more unmanly, since their authors
knew that Galileo was restrained by force from defending himself. Then,
too, as if to accumulate proofs of the unfitness of the Church to
take charge of advanced instruction, his salary as a professor at the
University of Pisa was taken from him, and sapping and mining began.
Just as the Archbishop of Pisa some years before had tried to betray him
with honeyed words to the Inquisition, so now Father Grassi tried
it, and, after various attempts to draw him out by flattery, suddenly
denounced his scientific ideas as "leading to a denial of the Real
Presence in the Eucharist."
For the final assault upon him a park of heavy artillery was at last
wheeled into place. It may be seen on all the scientific battlefields.
It consists of general denunciation; and in 1631 Father Melchior
Inchofer, of the Jesuits, brought his artillery to bear upon Galileo
with this declaration: "The opinion of the earth's motion is of all
heresies the most abominable, the most pernicious, the most scandalous;
the immovability of the earth is thrice sacred; argument against the
immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the incarnation,
should be tolerated sooner than an argument to prove that the earth
moves." From the other end of Europe came a powerful echo.
From the shadow of the Cathedral of Antwerp, the noted theologian
Fromundus gave forth his famous treatise, the Ant-Aristarclius. Its very
title-page was a contemptuous insult to the memory of Copernicus, since
it paraded the assumption that the new truth was only an exploded theory
of a pagan astronomer. Fromundus declares that "sacred Scripture fights
against the Copernicans." To prove that the sun revolves about the
earth, he cites the passage in the Psalms which speaks of the sun "which
cometh forth as a bridegroom out of his chamber." To prove that the
earth stands still, he quotes a passage from Ecclesiastes, "The earth
standeth fast forever." To show the utter futility of the Copernican
theory, he declares that, if it were true, "the wind would constantly
blow from the east"; and that "buildings and the earth itself would fly
off with such a rapid motion that men would have to be provided with
claws like cats to enable them to hold fast to the earth's surface."
Greatest weapon of all, he works up, by the use of Aristotle and St.
Thomas Aquinas, a demonstration from theology and science combined, that
the earth MUST stand in the centre, and that the sun MUST revolve about
it.(62) Nor was it merely fanatics who opposed the truth revealed by
Copernicus; such strong men as Jean Bodin, in France, and Sir Thomas
Browne, in England, declared against it as evidently contrary to Holy
Scripture.
(62) For Father Inchofer's attack, see his Tractatus Syllepticus, cited
in Galileo's letter to Deodati, July 28, 1634. For Fromundus's more
famous attack, see his Ant-Aristarchus, already cited, passim, but
especially the heading of chap. vi, and the argument in chapters x and
xi. A copy of this work may be found in the Astor Library at New York,
and another in the White Library at Cornell University. For interesting
references to one of Fromundus's arguments, showing, by a mixture of
mathematics and theology, that the earth is the centre of the universe,
see Quetelet, Histoire des Sciences mathematiques et physiques,
Bruxelles, 1864, p. 170; also Madler, Geschichte der Astronomie, vol.
i, p. 274. For Bodin's opposition to the Copernican theory, see Hallam,
Literature of Europe; also Lecky. For Sir Thomas Brown, see his Vulgar
and Common Errors, book iv, chap. v; and as to the real reason for his
disbelief in the Copernican view, see Dr. Johnson's preface to his Life
of Browne, vol. i, p. xix, of his collected works.
IV. VICTORY OF THE CHURCH OVER GALILEO.
While news of triumphant attacks upon him and upon the truth he had
established were coming in from all parts of Europe, Galileo prepared a
careful treatise in the form of a dialogue, exhibiting the arguments for
and against the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems, and offered to submit
to any conditions that the Church tribunals might impose, if they
would allow it to be printed. At last, after discussions which extended
through eight years, they consented, imposing a humiliating condition--a
preface written in accordance with the ideas of Father Ricciardi, Master
of the Sacred Palace, and signed by Galileo, in which the Copernican
theory was virtually exhibited as a play of the imagination, and not
at all as opposed to the Ptolemaic doctrine reasserted in 1616 by the
Inquisition under the direction of Pope Paul V.
This new work of Galileo--the Dialogo--appeared in 1632, and met with
prodigious success. It put new weapons into the hands of the supporters
of the Copernican theory. The pious preface was laughed at from one end
of Europe to the other. This roused the enemy; the Jesuits, Dominicans,
and the great majority of the clergy returned to the attack more violent
than ever, and in the midst of them stood Pope Urban VIII, most bitter
of all. His whole power was now thrown against Galileo. He was touched
in two points: first, in his personal vanity, for Galileo had put the
Pope's arguments into the mouth of one of the persons in the dialogue
and their refutation into the mouth of another; but, above all, he was
touched in his religious feelings. Again and again His Holiness
insisted to all comers on the absolute and specific declarations of Holy
Scripture, which prove that the sun and heavenly bodies revolve about
the earth, and declared that to gainsay them is simply to dispute
revelation. Certainly, if one ecclesiastic more than another ever seemed
NOT under the care of the Spirit of Truth, it was Urban VIII in all this
matter.
Herein was one of the greatest pieces of ill fortune that has ever
befallen the older Church. Had Pope Urban been broad-minded and tolerant
like Benedict XIV, or had he been taught moderation by adversity like
Pius VII, or had he possessed the large scholarly qualities of Leo XIII,
now reigning, the vast scandal of the Galileo case would never have
burdened the Church: instead of devising endless quibbles and special
pleadings to escape responsibility for this colossal blunder, its
defenders could have claimed forever for the Church the glory of
fearlessly initiating a great epoch in human thought.
But it was not so to be. Urban was not merely Pope; he was also a prince
of the house of Barberini, and therefore doubly angry that his arguments
had been publicly controverted.
The opening strategy of Galileo's enemies was to forbid the sale of his
work; but this was soon seen to be unavailing, for the first edition had
already been spread throughout Europe. Urban now became more angry than
ever, and both Galileo and his works were placed in the hands of the
Inquisition. In vain did the good Benedictine Castelli urge that Galileo
was entirely respectful to the Church; in vain did he insist that
"nothing that can be done can now hinder the earth from revolving."
He was dismissed in disgrace, and Galileo was forced to appear in the
presence of the dread tribunal without defender or adviser. There, as
was so long concealed, but as is now fully revealed, he was menaced with
torture again and again by express order of Pope Urban, and, as is also
thoroughly established from the trial documents themselves, forced to
abjure under threats, and subjected to imprisonment by command of
the Pope; the Inquisition deferring in this whole matter to the papal
authority. All the long series of attempts made in the supposed interest
of the Church to mystify these transactions have at last failed. The
world knows now that Galileo was subjected certainly to indignity, to
imprisonment, and to threats equivalent to torture, and was at last
forced to pronounce publicly and on his knees his recantation, as
follows:
"I, Galileo, being in my seventieth year, being a prisoner and on my
knees, and before your Eminences, having before my eyes the Holy Gospel,
which I touch with my hands, abjure, curse, and detest the error and the
heresy of the movement of the earth."(63)
(63) For various utterances of Pope Urban against the Copernican theory
at this period, see extracts from the original documents given by
Gebler. For punishment of those who had shown some favor to Galileo,
see various citations, and especially those from the Vatican manuscript,
Gebler, p. 216. As to the text of the abjuration, see L'Epinois; also
Polacco, Anticopernicus, etc., Venice, 1644; and for a discussion
regarding its publication, see Favaro, Miscellanea Galileana, p. 804. It
is not probable that torture in the ordinary sense was administered to
Galileo, though it was threatened. See Th. Martin, Vie de Galilee, for a
fair summing up of the case.
He was vanquished indeed, for he had been forced, in the face of all
coming ages, to perjure himself. To complete his dishonour, he was
obliged to swear that he would denounce to the Inquisition any other man
of science whom he should discover to be supporting the "heresy of the
motion of the earth."
Many have wondered at this abjuration, and on account of it have denied
to Galileo the title of martyr. But let such gainsayers consider the
circumstances. Here was an old man--one who had reached the allotted
threescore years and ten--broken with disappointments, worn out with
labours and cares, dragged from Florence to Rome, with the threat from
the Pope himself that if he delayed he should be "brought in chains";
sick in body and mind, given over to his oppressors by the Grand-Duke
who ought to have protected him, and on his arrival in Rome threatened
with torture. What the Inquisition was he knew well. He could remember
as but of yesterday the burning of Giordano Bruno in that same city for
scientific and philosophic heresy; he could remember, too, that only
eight years before this very time De Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro,
having been seized by the Inquisition for scientific and other heresies,
had died in a dungeon, and that his body and his writings had been
publicly burned.
To the end of his life--nay, after his life was ended--the persecution
of Galileo was continued. He was kept in exile from his family, from his
friends, from his noble employments, and was held rigidly to his
promise not to speak of his theory. When, in the midst of intense bodily
sufferings from disease, and mental sufferings from calamities in his
family, he besought some little liberty, he was met with threats of
committal to a dungeon. When, at last, a special commission had reported
to the ecclesiastical authorities that he had become blind and wasted
with disease and sorrow, he was allowed a little more liberty, but
that little was hampered by close surveillance. He was forced to bear
contemptible attacks on himself and on his works in silence; to see the
men who had befriended him severely punished; Father Castelli banished;
Ricciardi, the Master of the Sacred Palace, and Ciampoli, the papal
secretary, thrown out of their positions by Pope Urban, and the
Inquisitor at Florence reprimanded for having given permission to print
Galileo's work. He lived to see the truths he had established carefully
weeded out from all the Church colleges and universities in Europe; and,
when in a scientific work he happened to be spoken of as "renowned," the
Inquisition ordered the substitution of the word "notorious."(64)
(64) For the substitution of the word "notorious" for "renowned" by
order of the Inquisition, see Martin, p.227.
And now measures were taken to complete the destruction of the
Copernican theory, with Galileo's proofs of it. On the 16th of June,
1633, the Holy Congregation, with the permission of the reigning Pope,
ordered the sentence upon Galileo, and his recantation, to be sent to
all the papal nuncios throughout Europe, as well as to all archbishops,
bishops, and inquisitors in Italy and this document gave orders that the
sentence and abjuration be made known "to your vicars, that you and all
professors of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it, that
they may know why we proceeded against the said Galileo, and recognise
the gravity of his error, in order that they may avoid it, and thus not
incur the penalties which they would have to suffer in case they fell
into the same."(65)
(65) For a copy of this document, see Gebler, p. 269. As to the
spread of this and similar documents notifying Europe of Galileo's
condemnation, see Favaro, pp. 804, 805.
As a consequence, the processors of mathematics and astronomy in various
universities of Europe were assembled and these documents were read to
them. To the theological authorities this gave great satisfaction. The
Rector of the University of Douay, referring to the opinion of Galileo,
wrote to the papal nuncio at Brussels: "The professors of our university
are so opposed to this fanatical opinion that they have always held that
it must be banished from the schools. In our English college at Douay
this paradox has never been approved and never will be."
Still another step was taken: the Inquisitors were ordered, especially
in Italy, not to permit the publication of a new edition of any
of Galileo's works, or of any similar writings. On the other hand,
theologians were urged, now that Copernicus and Galileo and Kepler were
silenced, to reply to them with tongue and pen. Europe was flooded with
these theological refutations of the Copernican system.
To make all complete, there was prefixed to the Index of the Church,
forbidding "all writings which affirm the motion of the earth," a bull
signed by the reigning Pope, which, by virtue of his infallibility as
a divinely guided teacher in matters of faith and morals, clinched this
condemnation into the consciences of the whole Christian world.
From the mass of books which appeared under the auspices of the Church
immediately after the condemnation of Galileo, for the purpose of
rooting out every vestige of the hated Copernican theory from the mind
of the world, two may be taken as typical. The first of these was a
work by Scipio Chiaramonti, dedicated to Cardinal Barberini. Among
his arguments against the double motion of the earth may be cited the
following:
"Animals, which move, have limbs and muscles; the earth has no limbs
or muscles, therefore it does not move. It is angels who make Saturn,
Jupiter, the sun, etc., turn round. If the earth revolves, it must also
have an angel in the centre to set it in motion; but only devils live
there; it would therefore be a devil who would impart motion to the
earth....
"The planets, the sun, the fixed stars, all belong to one
species--namely, that of stars. It seems, therefore, to be a grievous
wrong to place the earth, which is a sink of impurity, among these
heavenly bodies, which are pure and divine things."
The next, which I select from the mass of similar works, is the
Anticopernicus Catholicus of Polacco. It was intended to deal a
finishing stroke at Galileo's heresy. In this it is declared:
"The Scripture always represents the earth as at rest, and the sun and
moon as in motion; or, if these latter bodies are ever represented as at
rest, Scripture represents this as the result of a great miracle....
"These writings must be prohibited, because they teach certain
principles about the position and motion of the terrestrial globe
repugnant to Holy Scripture and to the Catholic interpretation of it,
not as hypotheses but as established facts...."
Speaking of Galileo's book, Polacco says that it "smacked of
Copernicanism," and that, "when this was shown to the Inquisition,
Galileo was thrown into prison and was compelled to utterly abjure the
baseness of this erroneous dogma."
As to the authority of the cardinals in their decree, Polacco asserts
that, since they are the "Pope's Council" and his "brothers," their
work is one, except that the Pope is favoured with special divine
enlightenment.
Having shown that the authority of the Scriptures, of popes, and of
cardinals is against the new astronomy, he gives a refutation based on
physics. He asks: "If we concede the motion of the earth, why is it that
an arrow shot into the air falls back to the same spot, while the earth
and all things on it have in the meantime moved very rapidly toward
the east? Who does not see that great confusion would result from this
motion?"
Next he argues from metaphysics, as follows: "The Copernican theory of
the earth's motion is against the nature of the earth itself, because
the earth is not only cold but contains in itself the principle of cold;
but cold is opposed to motion, and even destroys it--as is evident in
animals, which become motionless when they become cold."
Finally, he clinches all with a piece of theological reasoning, as
follows: "Since it can certainly be gathered from Scripture that the
heavens move above the earth, and since a circular motion requires
something immovable around which to move,... the earth is at the centre
of the universe."(66)
(66) For Chiaramonti's book and selections given, see Gebler as above,
p. 271. For Polacco, see his work as cited, especially Assertiones i,
ii, vii, xi, xiii, lxxiii, clcccvii, and others. The work is in the
White Library at Cornell University. The date of it is 1644.
But any sketch of the warfare between theology and science in this field
would be incomplete without some reference to the treatment of Galileo
after his death. He had begged to be buried in his family tomb in Santa
Croce; this request was denied. His friends wished to erect a monument
over him; this, too, was refused. Pope Urban said to the ambassador
Niccolini that "it would be an evil example for the world if such
honours were rendered to a man who had been brought before the Roman
Inquisition for an opinion so false and erroneous; who had communicated
it to many others, and who had given so great a scandal to Christendom."
In accordance, therefore, with the wish of the Pope and the orders of
the Inquisition, Galileo was buried ignobly, apart from his family,
without fitting ceremony, without monument, without epitaph. Not until
forty years after did Pierrozzi dare write an inscription to be placed
above his bones; not until a hundred years after did Nelli dare transfer
his remains to a suitable position in Santa Croce, and erect a monument
above them. Even then the old conscientious hostility burst forth: the
Inquisition was besought to prevent such honours to "a man condemned for
notorious errors"; and that tribunal refused to allow any epitaph to be
placed above him which had not been submitted to its censorship. Nor has
that old conscientious consistency in hatred yet fully relented: hardly
a generation since has not seen some ecclesiastic, like Marini or De
Bonald or Rallaye or De Gabriac, suppressing evidence, or torturing
expressions, or inventing theories to blacken the memory of Galileo
and save the reputation of the Church. Nay, more: there are school
histories, widely used, which, in the supposed interest of the Church,
misrepresent in the grossest manner all these transactions in which
Galileo was concerned. Sancta simplicitas! The Church has no worse
enemies than those who devise and teach these perversions. They
are simply rooting out, in the long run, from the minds of the more
thoughtful scholars, respect for the great organization which such
writings are supposed to serve.(67)
(67) For the persecutions of Galileo's memory after his death, see
Gebler and Wohwill, but especially Th. Martin, p. 243 and chaps. ix
and x. For documentary proofs, see L'Epinois. For a collection of the
slanderous theories invented against Galileo, see Martin, final chapters
and appendix. Both these authors are devoted to the Church, but unlike
Monsignor Marini, are too upright to resort to the pious fraud of
suppressing documents or interpolating pretended facts.
The Protestant Church was hardly less energetic against this new
astronomy than the mother Church. The sacred science of the first
Lutheran Reformers was transmitted as a precious legacy, and in the next
century was made much of by Calovius. His great learning and determined
orthodoxy gave him the Lutheran leadership. Utterly refusing to look
at ascertained facts, he cited the turning back of the shadow upon King
Hezekiah's dial and the standing still of the sun for Joshua, denied
the movement of the earth, and denounced the whole new view as clearly
opposed to Scripture. To this day his arguments are repeated by sundry
orthodox leaders of American Lutheranism.
As to the other branches of the Reformed Church, we have already seen
how Calvinists, Anglicans, and, indeed, Protestant sectarians generally,
opposed the new truth.(68)
(68) For Clovius, see Zoeckler, Geschichte, vol. i, pp. 684 and 763. For
Calvin and Turretin, see Shields, The Final Philosophy, pp. 60, 61.
In England, among the strict churchmen, the great Dr. South denounced
the Royal Society as "irreligious," and among the Puritans the eminent
John Owen declared that Newton's discoveries were "built on fallible
phenomena and advanced by many arbitrary presumptions against evident
testimonies of Scripture." Even Milton seems to have hesitated between
the two systems. At the beginning of the eighth book of Paradise Lost
he makes Adam state the difficulties of the Ptolemaic system, and then
brings forward an angel to make the usual orthodox answers. Later,
Milton seems to lean toward the Copernican theory, for, referring to the
earth, he says:
"Or she from west her silent course advance With inoffensive pace, that
spinning sleeps On her soft axle, while she faces even And bears thee
soft with the smooth air along."
English orthodoxy continued to assert itself. In 1724 John Hutchinson,
professor at Cambridge, published his Moses' Principia, a system of
philosophy in which he sought to build up a complete physical system of
the universe from the Bible. In this he assaulted the Newtonian theory
as "atheistic," and led the way for similar attacks by such Church
teachers as Horne, Duncan Forbes, and Jones of Nayland. But one far
greater than these involved himself in this view. That same limitation
of his reason by the simple statements of Scripture which led John
Wesley to declare that, "unless witchcraft is true, nothing in the Bible
is true," led him, while giving up the Ptolemaic theory and accepting in
a general way the Copernican, to suspect the demonstrations of
Newton. Happily, his inborn nobility of character lifted him above any
bitterness or persecuting spirit, or any imposition of doctrinal tests
which could prevent those who came after him from finding their way to
the truth.
But in the midst of this vast expanse of theologic error signs of right
reason began to appear, both in England and America. Noteworthy is it
that Cotton Mather, bitter as was his orthodoxy regarding witchcraft,
accepted, in 1721, the modern astronomy fully, with all its
consequences.
In the following year came an even more striking evidence that the new
scientific ideas were making their way in England. In 1722 Thomas Burnet
published the sixth edition of his Sacred Theory of the Earth. In this
he argues, as usual, to establish the scriptural doctrine of the
earth's stability; but in his preface he sounds a remarkable warning.
He mentions the great mistake into which St. Augustine led the Church
regarding the doctrine of the antipodes, and says, "If within a
few years or in the next generation it should prove as certain and
demonstrable that the earth is moved, as it is now that there are
antipodes, those that have been zealous against it, and engaged the
Scripture in the controversy, would have the same reason to repent of
their forwardness that St. Augustine would now, if he were still alive."
Fortunately, too, Protestantism had no such power to oppose the
development of the Copernican ideas as the older Church had enjoyed.
Yet there were some things in its warfare against science even more
indefensible. In 1772 the famous English expedition for scientific
discovery sailed from England under Captain Cook. Greatest by far of all
the scientific authorities chosen to accompany it was Dr. Priestley. Sir
Joseph Banks had especially invited him. But the clergy of Oxford and
Cambridge interfered. Priestley was considered unsound in his views
of the Trinity; it was evidently suspected that this might vitiate his
astronomical observations; he was rejected, and the expedition crippled.
The orthodox view of astronomy lingered on in other branches of the
Protestant Church. In Germany even Leibnitz attacked the Newtonian
theory of gravitation on theological grounds, though he found some
little consolation in thinking that it might be used to support the
Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation.
In Holland the Calvinistic Church was at first strenuous against the
whole new system, but we possess a comical proof that Calvinism even in
its strongholds was powerless against it; for in 1642 Blaer published at
Amsterdam his book on the use of globes, and, in order to be on the safe
side, devoted one part of his work to the Ptolemaic and the other to the
Copernican scheme, leaving the benevolent reader to take his choice.(69)
(69) For the attitude of Leibnetz, 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. For Blaer, see his L'Usage des Globes, Amsterdam, 1642.