4o8 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



the uniformity of Nature. But if the sun 

 stood still for a moment, and no ill-results 

 befell the earth or its inhabitants, that 

 would indeed invalidate the principle. 



Pressure and cold will liquefy air, per- 

 haps solidify it, if enough could be brought 

 to bear, but solidified air would not be a 

 miracle, unless performed without phi/siced 

 means, lilce the water and wine miracle in 

 the New Testament ; but if the air should 

 fail to support combustion in any given 

 case, under conditions in which it ordinarily 

 supports it, that would be a miracle, and 

 would disprove the uniformity of Nature. It 

 is true that our belief in the uniformity of 

 Nature does uot rest upon the same basis as 

 our belief in the principles of mathematics ; 

 for instance, that two parallel lines can 

 never meet if indefinitely extended, or that 

 the three angles of a triangle are equal to 

 two right angles, but for my own part my 

 belief in one is just as unshakable as my 

 belief in the other. I do not know, from 

 experience, that no particle of matter can 

 be destroyed, and yet I believe it absolutely. 

 We do not, any of us, know from experi- 

 ence that any calamity would befall the 

 earth if the sun were to stand still for half 

 an hour, yet docs anybody doubt it ? 



I notice that all the divines who have 

 spoken or written upon this subject with- 

 hold their belief in the principle of uni- 

 formity, in order to save that other cher- 

 ished belief — the belief in the Biblical mira- 

 cles. It is incredible what ducking and 

 dodging they will be guilty of, what meta- 

 physical fogs they will conjure up, and what 

 enormous assumptions they will swallow, in 

 order to keep their childish fables from be- 

 ing discredited. The Bishop of Carlisle 

 says the scientific man " can well afford to 

 be generous " and leave the theologians in 

 undisturbed possession of their venerable 

 old scarecrows ; but science knows no gen- 

 erosity but the generosity of truth. A mira- 

 cle is the suspension or annulment of natu- 

 ral law, and there is not the slightest proof, 

 physical or metaphysical, that a natural law 

 ever has been, or ever can be, suspended or 

 annulled except by some other well-known 

 natural law, which thus comes into play and 

 keeps up the continuity of Nature ; and the 

 belief or assumption that there has been or 

 can be is the worst kind of infidelity — in- 

 fidelity toward the works of One in whom 

 there is no variableness or shadow of turn- 

 ing. John BuRRorcns. 

 I Wkst Pakk, New Yokk, I^^oremher 23, 18&5. 



SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM. 

 Messrs. Editors : 



I NOTICE, in your issue for November 

 last, an editorial comment upon the attitude 

 which Mr. St. George Mivart has assumed, 

 in his recent article in the " Nineteenth 



Century," on " Modem Catholics and Scien- 

 tific Freedom." Permit me to correct what 

 seems to me an erroneous inference on your 

 part in regard to this matter, to wit, that 

 Mr. Mivart's opinion is Catholic opinion. 

 So far from this being the case. Catholic 

 opinion holds that Mr. Mivart, in the ex- 

 pression of such views as he puts forth in 

 his late article, is treading upon rash and 

 dangerous ground, and that the animus of 

 his paper is without doubt heretical. Catho- 

 lics can not safely follow him into the ex- 

 tremes to which he goes, nor is it to be sup- 

 posed that Mr. Mivart's individual opinion 

 is either an authentic or authoritative ex- 

 pression of Catholic views as regards Galileo 

 or evolution, although it must be admitted 

 that the utterances of a gentleman of Mr. 

 Mivart's justly earned scientific and philo- 

 sophical reputation merit the most respect- 

 ful attention and careful consideration. 

 While it can not be said that Mr. Mivart's 

 paper contains any formal heresy, its tone 

 is certainly doubtful and inconsistent with 

 the spirit of the Church. He bases it upoa 

 a presumed mistake on the part of the 

 Church in the so-called condemnation of 

 Galileo. Mr. Mivart calmly takes this as a 

 matter of course, and does not pretend to 

 advance a single argument in favor of his 

 position — an easy way, indeed, of "brush- 

 ing aside " the objections of all opponents. 

 In the eyes of Catholics and all impartial 

 witnesses, the Church has never made any 

 such mistake as Mr. Mivart strangely and 

 surely, without due consideration of the 

 facts of the case, imputes to her. 



In the first place, a condemnation to be 

 dr Jide^DUst come ex cathedra from the Pope 

 himself, and be promulgated in brief or bull 

 as sueJi. Secondly, the condemnation of no 

 congi-egat ion alone is binding t/e/Vc; and, 

 thirdly, there was not even such condemna- 

 tion of the heliocentric system by the Con- 

 gregation of the Index. Facts are facts, 

 and the slip-shod assumption that a thing is 

 such and such can not pass unchallenged, 

 especially when an argument or theory id 

 based upon a misrepresentation. A con- 

 gregational condemnation requires a unani- 

 mous vote by the members of the Congrega- 

 tion, and in the ease of Galileo only seven 

 out of ten cardinals signed the paper con- 

 demning his doctrine. Furthermore, the 

 heliocentric system was not a proved fact 

 in Galileo's time, but merely a scientific 

 probability with tremendous weight of sci- 

 entific authority against it, and, in the then 

 crude condition of physical knowledge, the 

 action of the seven cardinals in condemning 

 the new theory can be readily defended 

 upon grounds of prudence. 



In conclusion, I would like to call your 

 attention to a flagrant fallacy in Mr. Mivart's 

 paper— a blunder, indeed, which it seems 

 strange that a man of his logical acumen 



