« AnkstesnisTęsti »
from being demonstrated. It is true, Galileo's own discovery of the phases of Venus went far towards demonstrating it; but these he himself did not insist upon, and he relied for his demonstration almost solely on the flux and reflux of the tides. Bacon, the contemporary of Galileo, rejects the doctrine ; and Milton, at a later period, seems to entertain, to say the least, strong doubts of its truth. Tycho Brahe rejected it, and constructed another theory, on Scriptural grounds, in opposition to it, which was for a time very popular with Protestants, but is now universally exploded; and the historians of astronomy will tell us, that it was nearly a hundred years after Galileo before any one had a right to say the theory was demonstrated.
But was not the doctrine condemned as heresy? No. The words “ heretical," "heresy,” in the condemnation of 1633, are, says the Dublin Review, but the stylus curiæ; the evidence is most decisive, that of the Pontiff in whose name it issued, and of the person condemned addressing his very judges. " No !” says Urban, “the Church has not condemned that system, nor is it to be considered as heretical, but only as rash.” Galileo himself, standing before the Inquisition in 1633, speaks of it with the approbation of the court, as of a doctrine condemned ad interim, that is, not to be taught in its absolute form till proved to be true. Moreover, the Inquisition which uses the terms heretical, &c., in their decision in 1616, which is merely recited in the condemnation of 1633, is not an institution supposed by Catholics to be infallible, and its decisions have no promise of exemption from error. It is merely a court of inquiry. It has no power to make the law, nor even to declare what the law is, but simply to inquire whether, in a given case, the preexisting law has been violated. Its having termed the doctrine heretical would not have made it so, unless it had been previously declared to be a heresy by the authority of the Church, which it had not been; because heresy never consists in maintaining a false scientific theory, but in wilfully departing from the faith. It was never an article of faith in the Church, that the earth is at rest and the sun moves. Consequently, 10 maintain the contrary never was and never can be a heresy. Furthermore, if the doctrine had been condemned as a heresy, the teaching of it as a mere hypothesis, even, could not have been permitted ; for the Church does not permit what she has declared to be heresy to be taught at all. Yet the teaching of the doctrine as an hypothesis was permitted, as we have seen, in the case of Cusanus; as a scientific theory, in the case of Copernicus ; and at the very moment Galileo was condemned, it was taught by the professor of astronomy, we believe, in the Pope's own university of Rome. Evidently, therefore, it was not condemned as a heresy. The sole difficulty concerning the question grew out of Galileo's insisting on interpreting the passages of Scripture, which seem to teach the geocentric theory, so as to make them harmonize with the heliocentric. This was deemed by his judges to be premature, to say the least, for it was unnecessary to disturb the received interpretation of these passages, till the theory itself was fully demonstrated on scientific grounds; and the attempt to do it could only scandalize those who rejected the theory, as they supposed, for scientific reasons. They said to Galileo, Go on and establish your theory on scientific grounds, and when you have succeeded in demonstrating it as a science, it will be time enough to consider the Scriptural question ; but till then, let the Scriptural question alone.
Had he followed this advice, which was recommended by his friends, and was all that his enemies asked, no difficulty would have occurred. The troubles Galileo had did not, then, grow out of his advocating his scientific doctrine, but from the manner in which he advocated it, and the extraneous questions he mingled with it. This condemnation by the court of Rome is, then, no evidence of hostility on the part even of the court of Rome, much less of the Church of Rome, to science. With these remarks, referring for details, and references to authorities, to the pamphlet which we have cited, we dismiss the case of Galileo. Had we room, we would retort the charge upon Protestants, which they have brought against Catholics. Kepler was a Lutheran priest; but the Lutheran University of Tübingen, as Menzel informs us, condemned his doctrine as repugnant to the language of Scripture, and he was obliged to flee his
country ; and where did he find refuge ? As professor of astronomy, all Lutheran as he was, in a Catholic university. The devotion of Protestants to science, and their readiness to adopt scientific discoveries, are admirably evinced in the case of the reformed calendar of Pope Gregory the Thirteenth, in 1582. England refused to adopt it for one hundred and seventy years, until 1752; Sweden adopted the new style one year later, in 1753; and the German States not until 1776; preferring, as some one says, “warring with the stars to agreeing with the Pope.”
The Review adds, “Except painting and sculpture, no one of the arts or sciences has escaped the anathemas of Rome.” When and where has Rome ever anathematized any art or science ? Music is both an art and a science; has Rome ever anathematized it ? Architecture, whether as an art or a science, when has Rome ever anathematized it? We have heard of the Gothic architecture, the admiration and despair of our modern architects, which sprang up in the Middle Ages, and which we have been accustomed to regard as Catholic. Perchance the glorious old cathedrals, of which European tourists tell us so much, were all built by Protestants, and our modern meeting-houses have been designed by Catholic architects! Mechanics is a science; has Rome ever anathematized it? According to the confession of Mr. Whewell, it was completed, so far as it remained for moderns to complete it, by Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo, - for Da Vinci anticipated the discoveries of Stevinus, - both Catholics, and honored at Rome, and the latter a pensioner of the Church. Astronomy, we have seen, owes to Rome its principal discoveries and encouragement. Metaphysics is almost exclusively a Catholic science. Bacon is more than matched by Campanella or Descartes. Leibnitz owed his eminence to his acquaintance with the Scholastics, and St. Thomas Aquinas alone will weigh down the whole race of modern German metaphysicians. Italy and France early took the lead in history, and still keep it. In poetry, the Catholics are more than successful rivals of the Protestants. Shakspeare is no Protestant. Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Tasso, 'Ariosto, are all Catholics and Italians. The Spanish and Portuguese poetry is not to be despised ; and take away from the poetry of Germany and England what is not Protestant, and neither surpasses France in this department, in which France is poorest. Has Rome ever anathematized logic ? If the reviewer believes it, we ask him to read a Catholic course of theology, - no matter what one, but any one prepared for young theological students, — and he will very soon change his mind. The truth is, all the great, leading scientific discoveries and inventions of which we boast, Christendom owes to Catholics. Parchment and paper, printing and engraving, improved glass and steel, gunpowder, clocks, telescopes, the mariner's compass, the reformed calendar, decimal notation, algebra, trigonometry, chemistry, counterpoint, equivalent to a new creation in music, are all possessions inherited from our Catholic ancestors. The great maritime discoveries, the discovery of the Cape of Good Hope, and the New World, were all made by Catholics before Protestantism was born. The principle of the steam-engine was discovered by Roger Bacon, and the application of steam to navigation was first made by a Spanish Catholic in the early part of the seventeenth century. The application of the sciences to the industrial arts received its principal developments in Catholic countries, and has made any considerable progress in Protestant countries only since the middle of the last century, that is, since the obvious decline of Protestantism in those countries. And yet, a writer who probably never read a Catholic book in his life, and who, we will venture to assert, cannot state correctly a single distinctive dogma of the Catholic Church, and who proves himself by his reckless assertions utterly ignorant of her history, has the impudence to say, that, excepting painting and sculpture, “no one of the arts or sciences has escaped the anathemas of Rome ; and these have only been fostered because they could be made tributary to the idolatrous ceremonies of the Church !"
But our limits do not permit us to proceed. Having, as we trust, sufficiently vindicated the Church from the charges of hostility to literature and science, we must reserve to a future number the reply to the charge of hostility to revelation and religion, which we suppose means an unwillingness to accept King James's Bible as the pure word of God. The Catholic policy in regard to the Bible we will endeavour to explain in
ART. II. — Sixteen Lectures on the Causes, Principles, and
Results of the British Reformation. By J. H. Hopkins, D. D., Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Vermont. Philadelphia : J. M. Campbell & Co. 1844. 12mo. pp. 387.
We agree entirely with Bishop Hopkins, that “the aspect of the religious world, at this moment, presents the same elements of controversy, only under varied forms of practical application, which agitated all Europe three hundred years ago. A little over three hundred years ago, under pretence of religious reform, and of reviving the faith and worship of the primitive Christians, a portion of the nominally Christian world seceded from the Catholic Church, and set up new establishments for themselves, with such forms of worship, such symbols of faith, and under such systems of government, as they judged most advisable. The Church then existing, — and which had been regarded by the whole Christian world, condemned heretics and schismatics excepted, for fifteen hundred years, as the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, — as was to be expected, condemned them as heretics and schismatics, declared them out of the pale of the Church and severed from the communion of Christ.
For three hundred years, these seceders and their successors have been laboring to effect a reversal of the sentence then solemnly pronounced against them, and to convince the world that they were wrongfully condemned ; that their private establishments are really living members of the Church of Christ, and that they, in founding them, acted by the authority of Christ himself, and did not break the unity either of the orthodox faith or of the Lord's body. They have been zealous and diligent, have had learning, talents, genius, and power on their side, but they have labored without success. The sentence has not been reversed; their claims have not been admitted ; and never has the necessity of their undertaking to defend themselves been greater than now. The religious world at this moment seems farther than ever from reversing the sentence recorded against them. The Church from which they seceded is now, if possible, more vigorous than ever, and counts a larger number of members than at any former period of its existence. Its missionaries have penetrated to almost every nook and corner of the globe. It is rapidly regaining the ground it had lost in France, England, and Germany, and has obtained a new empire in America ; while, on the other hand, the Protestant churches, cut up into innumerable sects, are everywhere languishing and disappearing. Nowhere do they gain on Catholicism; nowhere have they gained on Catholicism for the last two hundred years. In fact, they everywhere lose ground. They have lost it in Ireland, in France, in Germany, and are losing it in our own country and even in England. And, what is perhaps more discouraging still to their cause, in the bosom of each and all of their communions there is a wide and deep feeling that the separation from the Catholic Church, if not absolutely unauthorized, was unnecessary and ill-advised ; that what was substituted for the Church does not and cannot supply its place ; that Protestantism has proved a failure; and that nothing remains for us but either to return to Catholicism, or to lapse into complete infidelity.
The seceders, through their successors, are, therefore, unquestionably under the necessity either of abandoning their cause or of renewing the controversy. It is no time for them to be idle, no time for them to sleep, and to dream that the controversy is over. The Church has abandoned none of its