RELIGION AND SCIENCE. 293 



real answer is. The reply could not be completely given by any one 

 until after the invention of the spectroscope in 1861 — some forty 

 years ago. 



Copernicus taught the heliocentric theory — that the planets re- 

 volved about the sun, as we know that they do. In 1616 his books 

 were placed upon the index, there to remain 'until corrected.' The 

 action of the Congregation of the Index was an incident in the dis- 

 tressing history of Galileo. It was not taken, however, until the 

 congregation had consulted leading astronomers and had obtained 

 their verdict that the heliocentric theory was without foundation.* The 

 pseudo-science of the Aristotelian professors (nearly all of whom were 

 inimical to Galileo for personal as well as philosophical reasons) was 

 opposed to the science of Copernicus. With this verdict in their 

 minds it is not strange that the congregation should have proceeded 

 against Galileo for heresy. 



The system of Copernicus was proposed in 1543. It was true in its 

 grand outlines; it was erroneous in many details. It was not proved 

 till Galileo's discoveries of 1610. Tycho Brahe, the greatest authority 

 of his time, expressly rejected it as absurd, and proposed a new system 

 of the world in 1587. Kepler rejected Tycho 's system and proposed 

 his own first system (which was entirely erroneous) in 1597. He 

 proposed his second system in 1609. How could theological doctors 

 know that at last Kepler had reached the true system of the world by 

 his glorious discoveries of 1609 ? His first theory was utterly without 

 foundation. How could theologians, his contemporaries, possibly 

 know that the second was not in like case ? How could they know that 

 he would not live to produce a third? Let us put ourselves in their 

 place. What should we, being doctors of the church, ignorant of 

 physical science, and profoundly indifferent to science as such, have 

 done? Is it too much to conclude that our action would have been 

 precisely that of the churchmen of that day? That we should have 

 done precisely as the Eomans did; as Luther, Melancthon and other 

 protestants had earlier done? Kepler believed that all comets moved 

 in straight lines; that the planets were sometimes repelled, sometimes 

 attracted, by the sun; that each planet had a soul to guide it on its 

 path; that all the planets sang together — Mercury, soprano; Venus, 

 contralto; Mars, tenor; Jupiter and Saturn, bass. How much of all 

 this was the church bound to accept? All of it is false. How could 

 theological doctors possibly sift the false from the true? 



The correspondence of Kepler and Galileo on the question of the 

 tides is interesting in this connection. Kepler likens the earth to an 

 animal, and the tides to its breathings and inbreathings, and says they 

 follow the moon. Galileo laughs at him for this and declares that 

 it is mere superstition to connect the moon with the tides. Ought 

 the Eoman church to have accepted Galileo's dictum? 



* This fact is omitted by the warfare-of-science books. 



