_HOPES AND FEARS._
Galileo’s Fears.—Allayed by letters from Rome.—Foscarini’s
work.—Blindness of Galileo’s Friends.—His Apology to the
Grand Duchess Christine.—Effect produced by it.—Visit to
Rome.—Erroneous opinion that he was cited to appear.—Caccini
begs pardon.—Galileo defends the Copernican system at Rome.—His
mistake in so doing.
Galileo knew no more than the rest of the world of the secret proceedings
of the Inquisition against him and his system. He had only discovered
that some Dominican monks wanted to make use of his letter to Castelli
to effect the condemnation of the Copernican doctrines, and that they
were spreading all sorts of calumnies against him based upon it. Fearing
that the copy of it on which they relied might have been tampered
with, he sent a correct copy on 16th February, 1615, to his sincere
friend Mgr. Dini at Rome, with a request that he would forward it to
the mathematician, Father Griemberger, and perhaps even to Cardinal
Bellarmine. Galileo observed in the accompanying letter that he had
written the one to Castelli “_currente calamo_,” that since then he had
made many researches into the subject therein discussed, and announced
the speedy completion of a larger work, in which he should carry out
his reasoning far more in detail; as soon as it was finished he would
send it to Mgr. Dini. (This was his great Apology to the Grand Duchess
Christine.) In conclusion, he bitterly complains that his enemies were
daily increasing in number, and, in order to injure him the more, were
spreading the strange report among the people that he was the founder
of the system of the double motion of the earth, which gave rise to
incidents like that with Bishop Gherardini.[110]
The philosopher, who it is evident was a good deal discomfited, received
in reply consolatory assurances from Mgr. Dini and others of his
ecclesiastical friends. But they earnestly advised him to treat the
subject of the Copernican system purely from the mathematical, physical
point of view, and carefully to avoid religious discussion. This hint
came rather late in the day, and could not now be of much use to Galileo,
when his doctrines were already attacked as heretical, although secretly
at that time, and the accusation was based on the purely scientific work
on the solar spots. War had been declared with the Copernican system in
the name of the Bible.
Galileo’s letters to Mgr. Dini of 16th February and 28th March,[111]
plainly show how unwillingly he had been driven into the theological
field by his opponents. After he had in the second letter decidedly
rejected Dini’s suggestion that he should treat the Copernican system
merely as a hypothesis, he added that it had been his earnest desire to
keep strictly to his part as a man of science, and not to be compelled to
defend his astronomical system against religious scruples. He entirely
agrees with those who say that the task of bringing natural science into
agreement with Holy Scripture should be left to theologians, and shows
that he has been compelled to defend himself on this dangerous ground.
He says besides that his letter to Castelli was not originally intended
to go any farther, and regrets that Castelli had had copies made of it
without his knowledge.
It is a noteworthy circumstance that at the very time when the secret
denunciation had been laid before the tribunal of the Inquisition at
Rome, all the letters and reports which Galileo received from Rome, even
from trustworthy friends, Mgrs. Dini, Ciampoli, and Prince Cesi, were
calculated to allay his anxious fears. None of those persons, although
in influential positions, and likely it would seem to have been better
informed, knew, as appears from their correspondence with Galileo,
anything of the proceedings which were being instituted at Rome against
him and the Copernican system. The Inquisition knew well enough how to
keep its secrets. On 28th February[112] Mgr. Ciampoli writes confidently
to Galileo that, notwithstanding all the inquiries he had made, he could
learn nothing of any measures against him or the new doctrines; he sets
down the whole rumour to the incautious talk of some hot-headed fellow.
On 7th March[113] Dini tells Galileo that Cardinal Bellarmine had said
“he did not think that the work of Copernicus would be prohibited, and
the worst that would happen would be that some addition would be made to
it, stating that this theory was only accepted to explain phenomena,[114]
or some such phrase, and with this reservation Galileo would be able to
discuss the subject whenever he had occasion.” Under the same date Prince
Cesi tells Galileo that a work had just been published by a Dominican
monk, which brilliantly defended the opinion of Copernicus and made it
agree with Holy Scripture. He adds that the work could not have appeared
more opportunely.[115]
But what seems the most strange are the express and repeated assurances
of the cardinals Barberini, Del Monte, and Bellarmine, to Galileo,
through Dini and Ciampoli, that so long as he did not go beyond the
province of physics and mathematics, nor enter into any theological
interpretations of Scripture, he had nothing to fear.[116] How could
Cardinal Bellarmine, who had not long before expressly stated to Prince
Cesi that the new system was not compatible with the doctrines of Holy
Scripture, and who, as a member of the Inquisition, must have been
aware of the transactions which had been going on about Galileo since
5th February, give these assurances so directly opposed to the truth?
And yet these three prelates afterwards gave many proofs of good will
towards Galileo. How then is their ambiguous conduct to be explained? It
was simply that they were friendly to Galileo, but not to his doctrines.
They certainly desired to shield his person, and afterwards honestly
endeavoured to do so even under most difficult circumstances; but the
system he defended, which endangered the faith of the Church, must be
suppressed at all hazards. In order to this end it appeared advisable
to keep it a secret from Galileo that the statement of Copernicus that
the earth moved was assailed from the theological standpoint, until the
Holy Office had issued the interdict against its circulation and defence.
It was thus that they prudently rounded the rocks which the dreaded
dialectics of the clever Tuscan had exposed to view.
And the nearer the period was drawing when the verdict of the Church
was to be pronounced on the Copernican theory, and the more eagerly the
secret inquiries about Galileo were being prosecuted, the more confident
became the tone of the letters of his friends from the very city where
this ominous web was being woven. It seems as if all Galileo’s trusty
adherents had been struck with blindness, for we should not be justified
in doubting the sincerity of a Dini, a Ciampoli, and a Cesi, men who
afterwards proved by their actions their true friendship for the great
astronomer. On 20th March the evidence of Caccini was taken, and on the
21st Ciampoli communicates to Galileo the consoling observations of the
cardinals Del Monte and Bellarmine mentioned above. Ciampoli also adds
to these comforting assurances by telling him that Foscarini’s work was
no doubt in great danger of being prohibited by the Congregation of
the Holy Office to take place next month, _but only because it meddled
with matters concerning Holy Scripture_. He goes on to say with real
satisfaction that he can only confirm his previous information, and that
all this noise originated with four or five persons who are hostile
to Galileo; he and Dini had taken all possible pains to find out this
assumed agitation, but had discovered absolutely nothing. He repeats this
most decidedly in a letter of a week later;[117] and in another of 16th
May[118] he cannot at all understand what has so disconcerted Galileo,
and adds that it was no longer doubtful that the Copernican doctrine
would not be prohibited, and expresses his conviction that it would be
a great satisfaction to every one if Galileo would come to Rome for a
time, and the more so because he had heard that many of the Jesuits
were secretly of Galileo’s opinion, and were only keeping quiet for the
present.
A private note enclosed in a letter from Prince Cesi to Galileo, of June
20th, is equally sanguine. He tells him that Foscarini’s work, of which a
new and enlarged edition is to appear immediately, has had great success
at Rome, and that the opponents of Galileo and of the new system are much
cast down about it; he adds that neither the author of that treatise nor
the doctrines in question are in any danger, if only a little prudence
is exercised. Cesi even thinks that the new edition, in which the author
refutes all the objections to his work, will satisfy the ecclesiastical
authorities, convince opponents, and put an end to the whole business.
“Then,” continues the prince confidently, “when every difficulty is
removed and attack rendered impossible, the doctrine will be so fully
permitted and recognised, that everybody who wishes to maintain it will
be at liberty to do so, as in all other purely physical and mathematical
questions.”[119]
This is the last letter we have from Galileo’s friends of this period.
From this date to the time of his stay in Rome, in 1616, there are no
letters to him extant. This is the more to be regretted, as the gap
occurs at a very interesting juncture. Perhaps after the Copernican
doctrines were condemned Galileo may have destroyed this correspondence
out of regard for his friends, for it may have contained allusions to
very delicate matters.
Meanwhile, after having been repeatedly urged to it by Mgr. Dini,[120]
he had completed his great apologetic treatise, in the form of a letter
to the Grand Duchess Dowager, Christine. As it accurately defines the
standpoint which Galileo desired to take as a natural philosopher and
sincere Catholic, with respect to the Church of Rome, it seems necessary
to give a sketch of its contents.
Galileo begins with the motive of his Apology. Several years ago he
had made many discoveries in the heavens, the novelty of which, and
the vast consequences they involve, which are opposed to many of the
principles of the modern Aristotelian school, have incensed no small
number of professors against him, as if he had placed these phenomena in
the heavens with his own hands in order to overturn nature and science.
Placing a greater value on their own opinions than on truth, these men
had taken upon themselves to deny the existence of these discoveries,
whereas if they had only consented to observe them, they would have
been convinced. Instead of this, they assailed the new discoveries with
empty arguments, and worst mistake of all, interwove them with passages
of Scripture which they did not understand. But when the majority of
the scientific world was convinced with its own eyes, so that it was
impossible any longer to doubt the truth of these phenomena, their
opponents tried to consign them to oblivion by obstinate silence; and
when that did not avail they took another course. Galileo says that he
should pay no more heed to these attacks than to former ones, at which,
confident of the final result, he had always laughed, but they seek to
cast an aspersion on him which he dreads more than death. His opponents,
knowing that he favoured the opinion of the double motion of the earth,
and thereby attacked the Ptolemaic and Aristotelian principles, and
perceiving since the universal recognition of his observations that they
could never combat him successfully on the field of natural philosophy,
are trying now to make a shield for their false statements out of a
fictitious piety and the authority of Holy Scripture. They have therefore
first tried to spread the opinion that the views he defends are opposed
to the Bible, and therefore heretical and worthy of condemnation. They
then easily found some one to denounce them from the pulpit, and he
hurled his anathemas not only at the Copernican doctrines, but against
mathematicians in general. They also gave out that the modern views of
the system of the universe would shortly be pronounced heretical by the
highest authorities.
Galileo then points out that Copernicus, the originator of these
doctrines, was not only a good Catholic, but a priest highly esteemed
by the Roman curia, both for his learning and piety. He had dedicated
his famous work: “De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium,” to Pope Paul
III., and no one had felt any scruples about his doctrines, although
some ill-disposed persons want to have the book pronounced heretical,
without ever having read, to say nothing of studied it. As an adherent of
the Copernican theory, Galileo now feels compelled, in order to justify
himself, to discuss in detail these arguments from Scripture brought
forward by his opponents, and he hopes to prove that he is animated by
a greater zeal for true religion than his adversaries; for he by no
means demands that the book should not be condemned, but that it should
not be condemned without being understood or even looked at. Before
proceeding to discuss these arguments, he protests that he will not only
always be ready publicly to rectify the errors he may from ignorance
have fallen into on religious matters in this treatise, but that it
was not in the least his intention to enter into dispute with any one
on such subjects; it is rather his desire, by these remarks, to incite
others to deliberations useful to the Church. As to the decision about
the Copernican system, we must bow to the opinions of the ecclesiastical
authorities, and should it be adverse to him, let his work be torn up and
burnt, for he had neither wish nor intention to promote results that were
not catholic and pious.
After this long and cautious introduction, Galileo comes to the matter
itself,—the discussion of the principles of exegesis of Scripture with
respect to natural science. He employs the same arguments as in his
letter to Castelli, only more in detail, and cites several passages
from St. Augustine in support of his views, as to how far questions of
natural philosophy should be left to the understanding and to science.
He also quotes a saying of Cardinal Baronius: “The Holy Spirit intended
_to teach us how to go to heaven, and not how the heavens go_.” Galileo
then illustrates by examples how derogatory it will be to the dignity of
Holy Scripture if every unauthorised scribbler is permitted to adduce
passages from it in support of his views, which he often does not
interpret rightly; and experience shows the futility of this method of
proof. He then turns to the claim of theologians to enforce upon others
in scientific discussions opinions which they hold to agree with passages
of Scripture, while maintaining that they are not bound to explain the
scientific phenomena which are opposed to their decisions. In support of
this they affirm that theology is the queen of all the sciences, and need
not condescend to accommodate herself to the teachings of other sciences
far beneath her: they must submit to her as their sovereign, and modify
their conclusions accordingly. This leads Galileo to some considerations
which he will here set forth, that he may learn the opinions of others
more expert on such questions than he is, and to whose decisions he is
always ready to bow.
He is in doubt whether some ambiguity has not crept in for want of more
precision in defining why theology is entitled to be called a queen. It
must either be because all that is taught by other sciences is comprised
in and explained by theology, only in a higher sense; or because theology
treats of a subject which far surpasses in importance all the subjects
of which profane science treats. But even the theologians themselves
will hardly maintain that the title belongs to theology in the first
sense; for no one can say that geometry, astronomy, music, and medicine,
are better treated of in Scripture than in the writings of Archimedes,
Ptolemy, Boccius, and Galen. It appears then that the royal prerogative
of theology must be derived from some other source. Galileo here remarks:—
“If then theology occupies herself solely with the highest
problems, maintains her throne by reason of the supreme
authority conferred on her, and does not condescend to the
lower sciences as not affecting salvation, the professors of
theology should not assume authority on subjects which they
have not studied. For this is just as if an absolute ruler
should demand, without being a physician or an architect, that
people should treat themselves, or erect buildings, according
to his directions, to the great peril of poor sick people and
obvious ruin of the edifices.”
Galileo then demonstrates the vast difference between doctrinal and
exact sciences, and says that in the latter opinions cannot be changed
to order. Supported by the authority of St. Augustine, he maintains
that opinions on natural science which have been proved to coincide
with actual facts cannot be set aside by passages of Scripture, but
these must be explained so as not to contradict the indisputable results
of observation. Those, therefore, who desire to condemn an opinion in
physics must first show that it is incorrect. But it must be made the
subject of close investigation, and then a different result will often be
obtained from the one desired. Many learned men who intended to refute
the Copernican theory have been changed, by examination, from opponents
to enthusiastic defenders of it. In order to banish it from the world,
as many desired, it would not be enough to shut the mouth of any one
individual, it would be necessary to prohibit not only the writings of
Copernicus and his followers, but astronomy altogether. But to suppress
his work now, when new discoveries are daily confirming his theory, after
it has been quietly submitted to for so many years, appears to Galileo
like opposition to truth itself; and to permit the book and condemn the
doctrine would be still more pernicious to the souls of men, for it would
allow them the opportunity of convincing themselves of the truth of an
opinion which it was a sin to believe. To forbid astronomy altogether
would be like rejecting hundreds of passages of Scripture which teach us
how the glory of God is revealed in all His works, which are best to be
studied in the open book of nature.
Galileo then applies these general principles to the Copernican theory.
According to many, it ought to be pronounced erroneous because it is
opposed to the apparent meaning of many passages in the Bible, while
the opposite opinion is to be believed _de fide_. He sharply defines
two kinds of scientific questions: those on which all man’s researches
can only lead to probability and conjecture, as for instance, whether
the stars are inhabited or not; and those on which, by experience,
observation, and inevitable deduction, we either have attained certainty
or may safely reckon on doing so,—as whether the earth or the heavens
move. In the first case, Galileo is decidedly of opinion that it behoves
us to be guided by the literal sense of Scripture; in the second, he
repeats what he has said before, that two truths can never contradict
each other. The Bible speaks of the sun as moving and of the earth
as standing still to accommodate itself to the understanding of the
people, and not to confuse them, otherwise they might refuse to believe
the dogmas which are absolutely _de fide_. For the same reason the
fathers have spoken about things not appertaining to salvation, more
in accordance with usage than actual facts, and he confirms this by
quotations from St. Jerome and St. Thomas.
Even the general agreement of the fathers in the interpretation of any
passage of Scripture of scientific import should, in Galileo’s opinion,
only confer authority on it when the question has been discussed by many
fathers with knowledge of both sides. But this is not the case with the
question of the double motion of the earth, for it had not come up at
all at that time, and it could not occur to the holy fathers to dispute
it, for the current opinion was in entire agreement with the literal
meaning of the Bible. It was not enough to say that the fathers had all
believed that the earth stood still, and that therefore it was to be
held _de fide_, for it was very possible that they never investigated
it, and only held it as generally current. If they had done so and found
it deserving of condemnation, they would have said so, but it had never
been discovered that they had. The writings of Diego di Zuñiga show, on
the contrary, that when some theologians began to consider the Copernican
theory, they did not find it erroneous or contrary to Scripture.
Moreover, no argument could be drawn from an unanimous opinion of the
fathers, for some of them spoke of the sun as stationary, others of the
_primum mobile_.
Galileo declares himself ready to sign an opinion of wise and well
informed theologians on the Copernican theory. Since no investigation
of it was instituted by the ancient fathers, it might be done now by
theologians fitted for it, who, after they had carefully examined all
the scientific arguments for and against, would establish on a firm
footing what was dictated to them by Divine inspiration. He once more
lays great stress on the need of first convincing one’s self of the
actual facts of nature under the guidance of science, and then proceeding
to interpret texts of Scripture. He is indignant with those who, from
malice or blinded by party interest, say that the Church should draw
the sword without delay, since she possesses the power. As if it was
always desirable to do whatever was in our power! He shows that the
fathers were not of that opinion, but agreed with him, and exclaims
to these wranglers: “Try first to refute the arguments of Copernicus
and his followers, and leave the task of condemning them to those to
whom it belongs; but do not hope to find among the fathers, who were as
discreet as they were far-seeing, or in the wisdom of Him who cannot
err, those hasty conclusions to which you are led by personal interests
and passions. It is doubtless true that concerning these and similar
statements which are not strictly _de fide_, his Holiness the Pope has
absolute authority to approve or condemn; _but it is not in the power of
any human being to make them true or false, or other than they de facto
are_.”
This lengthy treatise concludes with a disquisition on the passage in
the book of Joshua, which he treats in the same way as in the letter to
Castelli.
Notwithstanding all the care Galileo exercised in this apology[121] not
to give any handle to his enemies, it contained far too many liberal and
merely human principles not to do the author more harm than good in the
eyes of the orthodox party, both on religious and scientific questions.
His opponents saw this plainly enough, and agitated against him all the
more vehemently at Rome.
Ominous reports reached the astronomer, who was anxious enough before;
but he could not any how learn anything definite about these attacks,
only so much eked out, that something was brewing against him, and that
it was intended to interdict the Copernican theory. Galileo thought he
could best meet these intrigues by his personal appearance at Rome; he
wanted to learn what the accusations against him were, and to show that
there was nothing in them; he desired energetically to defend the new
system, to aid truth in asserting her rights. So, early in December,
1615, provided with cordial letters of introduction from the Grand Duke,
he set out for Rome.[122]
Some older authors, and recently Henri Martin,[123] have repeated as a
fact the report circulated at the time by Galileo’s enemies,[124] that
this visit to Rome was by no means so voluntary as he thought fit to give
out. Martin appeals in support of this view to a letter of Mgr. Querenghi
to Cardinal Alexander d’Este, of 1st January, 1616,[125] in which he
says that the philosopher had been _cited_ to appear at Rome, that he
might explain how he made his doctrines, which entirely contradict Holy
Scripture, agree with it. Martin also states that the Tuscan ambassador
at Rome, in a despatch of 11th September, 1632, announced that a document
had been discovered in the books of the Holy Office, which showed that
Galileo had been summoned to Rome in 1616; and finally, this otherwise
excellent biographer of Galileo adds some grounds of probability which,
however, are not conclusive. Besides, these arguments, in the face of
other facts, are not valid. Even if Galileo’s contemporary letters from
Rome, in which he repeatedly expresses his satisfaction that he had come
there,[126] are not relied upon, and are regarded merely as a consistent
carrying out of the fiction, his statement on his trial of 12th April,
1633, bears clear witness that Martin is in error. Being asked if he
came at that time to Rome of his own accord, or in consequence of a
summons, he answered: “In the year 1616 I came to Rome of my own accord,
without being summoned.”[127] It was impossible that he should then have
persisted in the assumed fiction, for he could not have denied before
the Inquisition a summons issued by itself seventeen years before, since
it would certainly have been entered in their registers.[128] According
to the statement of the Tuscan ambassador mentioned above, such a
document had been discovered _one_ year previously in the protocols of
the Holy Office. But in the face of the question put at the examination
this does not seem very credible. Moreover, in none of the documents now
open to historical research relating to the transactions of 1616, is
there any such record to be found, nor anything to indicate that this
visit of Galileo’s to Rome did not originate with himself.
Neither does the flattering reception he met with at all agree with
the assumed secret summons. Nevertheless, his correspondence with
Picchena, successor in office to Vinta, though very cautious, shows
that notwithstanding the comforting assurances he had received from his
friends at Rome, he found that a zealous agitation was going on, not
only against the doctrines he advocated, but against himself.[129] In
another letter of 8th January, 1616, he says he sees every day what a
good idea it was to come here, for he had found so many snares laid for
him that it would have been quite impossible not to be caught by one or
other of them, and he would not have been able to extricate himself for
a long time, perhaps never, or only with the greatest difficulty. He is
confident that he shall now very soon destroy the traps of his enemies,
and be able to justify himself in a way that will bring all their
unworthy calumnies to light. They have spread the false report that he
was in disgrace at the grand ducal court in consequence of the enormity
of his offence, and that the proceedings against him had the Grand Duke’s
entire approval. Now, as the cordial introductions given him by Cosmo II.
proved precisely the contrary, the assertions of his enemies would lose
all credit, and he would be believed all the more, so that he should be
able to justify himself completely.[130]
Judging, however, from a letter written fourteen days later to the Tuscan
Secretary of State, Galileo had not found it so easy to defend himself as
he anticipated. Indeed it seems to have been a very complicated business.
A passage from the letter above mentioned will give an idea of it:—
“My business is far more difficult, and takes much longer owing
to outward circumstances, than the nature of it would require;
because I cannot communicate directly with those persons
with whom I have to negotiate, partly to avoid doing injury
to any of my friends, partly because they cannot communicate
anything to me without running the risk of grave censure.
And so I am compelled, with much pains and caution, to seek
out third persons, who, without even knowing my object, may
serve as mediators with the principals, so that I may have
the opportunity of setting forth, incidentally as it were,
and at their request, the particulars of my interests. I have
also to set down some points in writing, and to cause that
they should come privately into the hands of those whom I wish
should see them; for I find in many quarters that people are
more ready to yield to dead writing than to living speech, for
the former permits them to agree or dissent without blushing,
and then finally to yield to the arguments used—for in such
discussions we have no witnesses but ourselves, whereas people
do not so readily change their opinions if it has to be done
publicly.”[131]
Galileo at length succeeded by his strenuous efforts in freeing himself
from all false accusations and in refuting the slanders of Caccini.
His affairs took so favourable a turn that the monk found it advisable
to pay an obsequious visit of several hours to Galileo, humbly begged
pardon for his previous conduct, offered any satisfaction in his power,
and assured Galileo that the agitation going on was not in any way to
be laid at his door.[132] But he could not refrain from trying to prove
that the Copernican doctrines were erroneous, in which however he had no
more success than in convincing Galileo of his sincerity, for he wrote to
Picchena that he had found in Caccini “great ignorance and a mind full
of venom.”[133]
But Galileo had only performed half his task by the happy adjustment of
the difficulties affecting himself; the more important and grander part
of it, the preservation of the Copernican system from the interdict of
the Church, had yet to be accomplished. His letter of 6th February to
Picchena tells him of the favourable turn in his own affairs, as well as
of the noble purposes by which he was animated. He writes:—
“My business, so far as it concerns myself, is completed; all
the exalted personages who have been conducting it have told me
so plainly, and in a most obliging manner, and have assured me
that people are fully convinced of my uprightness and honour,
and of the devilish malice and injustice of my persecutors. As
far as this point is concerned, therefore, I might return home
without delay, but there is a question concerning my own cause
which does not concern myself alone, but all those who, during
the last eighty years, have advocated in printed works or
private letters, in public lectures or private conversations,
a certain opinion, not unknown to your Grace, on which they
are now proposing to pronounce judgment. In the conviction
that my assistance may be of use in the investigation of the
matter, as far as a knowledge of those truths is concerned
which are proved by the science to which I have devoted myself,
I neither can nor ought to neglect to render this assistance,
while I shall thereby follow the dictates of my conscience and
Christian zeal.”[134]
This was magnanimous, and Galileo was entitled, as few others were,
to appear as the advocate of science. But unfortunately his warm and
perhaps too solicitous efforts for the Copernican cause had a result
precisely opposite to the one he intended. He was still under the great
delusion that the Roman curia must above all things be convinced of
the correctness of the Copernican doctrines. He therefore sought out
scepticism on the subject everywhere in the eternal city, combated it
eagerly and apparently with signal success. In many of the first houses
in Rome, such as the Cesarini’s, Ghislieri’s, and others, he unfolded
before numerous audiences his views about the construction of the
universe. He always began these discourses by carefully enumerating all
the arguments for the Ptolemaic system, and then proved that they were
untenable by the telling arguments with which his own observations had so
abundantly supplied him; and as he not seldom added the biting sarcasm of
his wit to serious demonstration, thus bringing the laugh on his side, he
prepared signal defeats for the orthodox views of nature.[135]
But by this method he obviously took a false standpoint. He would not see
that the Romanists cared far more for the authority of Scripture than for
the recognition of the laws of nature; that his system, running counter
to orthodox interpretation of the Bible, was opposed to the interests of
the Church. And as his tactics were founded upon a purely human way of
looking at things, and he erroneously imagined that the true system of
the universe would be of greater importance, even to the servants of the
Church, than her own mysteries, it was but a natural consequence of these
false premises that, instead of attaining his end, he only widened his
distance from it.