|
|
GALILEO
THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE
Galileo's treatise on "The Authority of Scripture in
Philosophical Controversies" was written at a time when the
Copernican theory of the constitution of the universe was
engaging the attention of the world. A Benedictine monk,
Benedetto Castelli, called upon to defend the theory at the
grand-ducal table of Tuscany, asked Galileo's assistance in
reconciling it with orthodoxy. His answer was an exposition of
a formal theory as to the relations of physical science to
Holy Writ. This answer was further amplified in the "Authority
of the Scripture," addressed in 1614 to Christina of Lorraine,
Dowager Grand-Duchess of Tuscany, an able and acute defence of
his position. A year later another monk laid Galileo's letter
to Castelli before the Inquisition, whereupon the philosopher
was summoned by Pope Paul V. to the palace of Cardinal
Bellarmine, and there warned against henceforth holding,
teaching, or defending the condemned doctrine. Nevertheless,
in a few years Galileo (see SCIENCE, vol. XV) had to suffer
trial and condemnation by the Inquisition for publishing his
"Dialogues on the System of the World," which gave the
Ptolemaic theory its death-blow.
Some years ago I discovered many astronomical facts till then unknown.
Their novelty and their antagonism to some physical propositions
commonly received by the schools did stir up against me many who
professed the vulgar philosophy, as if, forsooth, I had with my own hand
placed these things in the heavens to obscure and disturb nature and
science. These opponents, more affectionate to their own opinion than to
truth, tried to deny and disprove my discoveries, which they might have
discerned with their own eyes; and they published vain discourses,
interwoven with irrelevant passages, not rightly understood, of the
sacred Scriptures. From this folly they might have been saved had they
remembered the advice of St. Augustine, who, dealing with celestial
bodies, writes: "We ought to believe nothing unadvisedly in a doubtful
point, lest in favour of our error we conceive a prejudice against that
which truth hereafter may discover to be nowise contrary to the sacred
books."
Time has proved every one of my statements, and proving them has also
proved that my opponents were of two kinds. Those who had doubted simply
because the discoveries were new and strange have been gradually
converted, while those whose incredulity was based on personal ill-will
to me have shut their eyes to the facts and have endeavoured to asperse
my moral character and to ruin me.
Knowing that I have confuted the Ptolemaic and Aristotelian arguments,
and distrusting their defence in the field of philosophy, they have
tried to shield their fallacies under the mantle of a feigned religion
and of scriptural authority, and have endeavoured to spread the opinion
that my propositions are contrary to the Scriptures, and therefore
heretical. To this end they have found accomplices in the pulpits, and
have scattered rumours that my theory of the world-system would ere long
be condemned by supreme authority.
Further, they have endeavoured to make the theory peculiar to myself,
ignoring the fact that the author, or rather restorer, of the doctrine
was Nicholas Copernicus, a Catholic, and a much-esteemed priest, who was
summoned to Rome to correct the ecclesiastic calendar, and in the course
of his inquiries reached this view of the universe.
The calendar has since been regulated by his doctrine, and on his
principles the motions of the planets have been calculated. Having
reduced his doctrine to six books, he published them under the title of
"De Revolutionibus Coelestibus," at the instance of the Cardinal of
Capua, and of the Bishop of Culma; and, since he undertook the task at
the order of Pope Leo X., he dedicated the work to his successor Paul
III., and it was received by the Holy Church and studied by all the
world.
In the end of his dedicatory epistle Copernicus writes: "If there should
chance to be any mateologists who, ignorant in mathematics yet
pretending to skill in that science, should dare, upon the authority of
some passage of Scripture wrested to their purpose, to condemn and
censure my hypothesis, I value them not, and scorn their inconsiderate
judgment. For it is not unknown that Lactantius (a famous author though
poor mathematician) writes very childishly concerning the form of the
earth when he scoffs at those who affirm the earth to be in form of a
globe. So that it ought not to seem strange to the intelligent if any
such should likewise now deride us. The mathematics are written for
mathematicians, to whom (if I deceive not myself) these labours of mine
shall seem to add something, as also to the commonweal of the Church
whose government is now in the hands of Your Holiness."
It is such as Lactantius who would now condemn Copernicus unread, and
produce authorities of the Scripture, of divines, and of councils in
support of their condemnation. I hold these authorities in reverence,
but I hold that in this instance they are used for personal ends in a
manner very different from the most sacred intention of the Holy Church.
I am ready to renounce any religious errors into which I may run in this
discourse, and if my book be not beneficial to the Holy Church may it be
torn and burnt; but I hold that I have a right to defend myself against
the attacks of ignorant opponents.
The doctrine of the movement of the earth and the fixity of the sun is
condemned on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the
sun moving and the earth standing still. The Scriptures not being
capable of lying or erring, it followeth that the position of those is
erroneous and heretical who maintain that the sun is fixed and the earth
in motion.
It is piously spoken that the Scriptures cannot lie. But none will deny
that they are frequently abstruse and their true meaning difficult to
discover, and more than the bare words signify. One taking the sense too
literally might pervert the truth and conceive blasphemies, and give God
feet, and hands, and eyes, and human affections, such as anger,
repentance, forgetfulness, ignorance, whereas these expressions are
employed merely to accommodate the truth to the mental capacity of the
unlearned.
This being granted, I think that in the discussion of natural problems
we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and
demonstrations. Nor does God less admirably discover Himself to us in
nature than in Scripture, and having found the truth in nature we may
use it as an aid to the true exposition of the Scriptures. The
Scriptures were intended to teach men those things which cannot be
learned otherwise than by the mouth of the Holy Spirit; but we are meant
to use our senses and reason in discovering for ourselves things within
their scope and capacity, and hence certain sciences are neglected in
the Holy Writ.
Astronomy, for instance, is hardly mentioned, and only the sun, and the
moon, and Lucifer are named. Surely, if the holy writers had intended us
to derive our astronomical knowledge from the Sacred Books, they would
not have left us so uninformed. That they intentionally forbore to speak
of the movements and constitution of the stars is the opinion of the
most holy and most learned fathers. And if the Holy Spirit has omitted
to teach us those matters as not pertinent to our salvation, how can it
be said that one view is de Fide and the other heretical? I might here
insert the opinion of an ecclesiastic raised to the degree of
Eminentissimo: That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how
we shall go to Heaven, and not how the heavens go.
Since the Holy Writ is true, and all truth agrees with truth, the truth
of Holy Writ cannot be contrary to the truth obtained by reason and
experiment. This being true, it is the business of the judicious
expositor to find the true meaning of scriptural passages which must
accord with the conclusions of observation and experiment, and care must
be taken that the work of exposition do not fall into foolish and
ignorant hands. It must be remembered that there are very few men
capable of understanding both the sacred Scriptures and science, and
that there are many with a superficial knowledge of the Scriptures and
with no knowledge of science who would fain arrogate to themselves the
power of decreeing upon all questions of nature. As St. Jerome writes:
"The talking old woman, the dotard, the garrulous sophist, all venture
upon, lacerate, teach, before they have learnt. Others, induced by
pride, dive into hard words, and philosophate among women touching the
Holy Scriptures. Others (oh, shameful!) learn of women what they teach
to men."
I will not rank among these same secular writers any theologists whom I
repute to be men of profound learning and sober manners, and therefore
hold in great esteem and veneration; yet it vexes me when they would
constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not
consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment. It is true
that theology is the queen of all the sciences, but queen only in the
sense that she deals with high matters revealed in noble ways, and if
she condescends not to study the more humble matters of the inferior
sciences she ought not to arrogate to herself the right to judge them;
for this would be as if an autocratic prince, being neither physician
nor architect, should undertake to administer medicines and erect
buildings to the danger of the lives of his subjects.
Again, to command the professors of astronomy to confute their own
observations is to enjoin an impossibility, for it is to command them
not to see what they do see, and not to understand what they do
understand, and to find what they do not discover. I would entreat the
wise and prudent fathers to consider the difference between matters of
opinion and matters of demonstration, for demonstrated conclusions
touching the things of nature and of the heavens cannot be changed with
the same facility as opinions touching what is lawful in a contract,
bargain, or bill of exchange. Your highness knows what happened to the
late professor of mathematics in the University of Pisa--how, believing
that the Copernican doctrine was false, he started to confute it, but in
his study became convinced of its truth.
In order to suppress the Copernican doctrine, it would be necessary not
only to prohibit the book of Copernicus and the writings of authors who
agree with him, but to interdict the whole science of astronomy, and
even to forbid men to look at the sky lest they might see Mars and Venus
at very varying distances from the earth, and discover Venus at one time
crescent, at another time round, or make other observations
irreconcilable with the Ptolemaic system.
It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is
proved. The prohibition of astronomy would be an open contempt of a
hundred texts of the Holy Scriptures, which teach us that the glory and
the greatness of Almighty God are admirably discerned in all His works,
and divinely read in the open book of the heavens.
It may be said that the doctrine of the movement of the sun and the
fixity of the earth must de Fide be held for true since the Scriptures
affirm it, and all the fathers unanimously accept the scriptural words
in their naked and literal sense. But it was necessary to assign motion
to the sun and rest to the earth lest the shallow minds of the vulgar
should be confounded, amused, and rendered obstinate and contumacious
with regard to doctrines of faith. St. Jerome writes: "It is the custom
for the pen-men of Scripture to deliver their judgments in many things
according to the common received opinion that their times had of them."
Even Copernicus himself, knowing the power of custom, and unwilling to
create confusion in our comprehension, continues to talk of the rising
and setting of the sun and stars and of variations in the obliquity of
the zodiac. Whence it is to be noted how necessary it is to accommodate
our discourse to our accustomed manner of understanding.
In the next place, the common consent of the fathers to a natural
proposition should authorise it only if it have been discussed and
debated with all possible diligence, and this question was in those
times totally buried.
Besides, it is not enough to say that the fathers accept the Ptolemaic
doctrine; it is necessary to prove that they condemned the Copernican.
Was the Copernican doctrine ever formally condemned as contrary to the
Scriptures? And Didacus, discoursing on the Copernican hypothesis,
concludes that the motion of the earth is not contrary to the
Scriptures.
Let my opponents, therefore, apply themselves to examine the arguments
of Copernicus and others; and let them not hope to find such rash and
impetuous decisions in the wary and holy fathers, or in the absolute
wisdom of him that cannot err, as those into which they have suffered
themselves to be hurried by prejudice or personal feeling. His holiness
has certainly an absolute power of admitting or condemning propositions
not directly de Fide, but it is not in the power of any creature to
make them true or false otherwise than of their own nature and de
facto they are.
In my judgment it would be well first to examine the truth of the fact
(over which none hath power) before invoking supreme authority; for if
it be not possible that a conclusion should be declared heretical while
we are not certain but that it may be true, their pains are vain who
pretend to condemn the doctrine of the mobility of the earth and the
fixity of the sun, unless they have first demonstrated the doctrine to
be impossible and false.
Let us now consider how we may interpret the command of Joshua that the
sun should stand still.
According to the Ptolemaic system, the sun moves from east to west
through the ecliptic, and therefore the standing still of the sun would
shorten and not lengthen the day. Indeed, in order to lengthen the day
on this system it would be necessary not to hold the sun, but to
accelerate its pace about three hundred and sixty times. Possibly Joshua
used the words to suit the comprehension of the ignorant people;
possibly--as St. Augustine says--he commanded the whole system of the
celestial spheres to stand still, and his command to the moon rather
confirms this conjecture.
On the Copernican system interpretation is simplified; for if we
consider the mobility of the sun and how it is in a certain sense the
soul and heart of the universe, it is not illogical to say that it gives
not only light, but also motion to the bodies round it. In this manner,
by the standing still of the sun at Joshua's command, the day might be
lengthened without disturbing the order of the universe or the mutual
positions of the stars. This interpretation also explains the statement
that the sun stood still _in medio coeli_. Had the sun been in the
middle of the heavens in the sense of rising and setting, it had hardly
been necessary to check its course; but _in medio coeli_ probably
signifies in the middle or centre of the universe where it resides.
I have no doubt that other passages of the Scriptures could be likewise
interpreted in accordance with the Copernican system by divines with
knowledge of astronomy. They might say that the word "firmament" very
well agrees, ad literam, with the starry sphere. Ad literam, if they
admit the rotation of the earth, they might understand its poles, when
it is said Nec dum terram fecerat, et flumina, et cardines orbis
terrae. [Nor yet had He created the earth, or the rivers, or the hinges
for the globe of the earth.] Surely cardines, or "hinges," are
ascribed to the earth in vain if it be not to turn upon them.
I.--THE DEFENDERS OF FALLACY
II.--SCRIPTURAL AND EXPERIMENTAL TRUTH
III.--FACT AND FAITH