224 THE PROBLEM OF EVOLUTION 



personal God, and of all the remarks made this 

 evening, not one has given me such great pleasure as 

 this I could not indeed desire anything better. 

 That we know very little by means of our natu 

 ral powers regarding the nature of this God was 

 acknowledged long ago by Christian philosophy 

 and theology. 1 



Here again we find misunderstandings. 2 



In speaking of the rock of the Church, to which 

 Professor Plate referred at the close of his address, 

 he alluded to various historical matters connected 

 with Copernicus, Galileo, etc., A word of correction 

 is necessary. The highest ecclesiastical authority 

 never expressed any definite condemnation of the 

 Copernican theory. That the Congregation of the 

 Index made a mistake at that time, every one will 

 grant, the Congregation is not infallible. 3 



It would perhaps have been better not to drag 

 these subjects into our present discussion. They 

 led us off from what was relevant to my lectures, 

 and brought us to controversial questions. 



To my regret, Professor Plate also dragged in the 

 Reformation a subject that I am obviously unable 



1 For the completion of this remark see p. 108 et seq. 



2 The reproach so often made against theism, that it pictures God 

 anthropomorphically as a more perfect human intelligence, is explicable 

 only by the profound ignorance regarding the Christian Theodicy which 

 prevails among its opponents. Cf. on this subject my remarks on the 

 speeches of Plate (p. 108), of Plotz (p. 177), of Schmidt-Jena (p. 198), and 

 of Thesing (p. 203). 



3 In the article mentioned on p. v Dr. Burdinski interpreted this 

 sentence as meaning that every one now grants the Church not to be 

 infallible (!) 



