ThefirsteffectofMonsignorMarini’sbookseemedusefulincoveringtheretreatoftheChurchapologists。Aidedbyhim，suchvigorouswritersasWardwereabletothrowuptemporaryintrenchmentsbetweentheRomanauthoritiesandtheindignationoftheworld。
ButsometimelatercameaninvestigatorverydifferentfromMonsignorMarini。ThiswasaFrenchman，M。L’Epinois。LikeMarini，L’EpinoiswasdevotedtotheChurch；but，unlikeMarini，hecouldnotlie。Havingobtainedaccessin1867totheGalileodocumentsattheVatican，hepublishedseveralofthemostimportant，withoutsuppressionorpious-fraudulentmanipulation。
ThismadealltheintrenchmentsbaseduponMarini’sstatementsuntenable。Anotherretreathadtobemade。
Andnowcamethemostdesperateeffortofall。Theapologeticarmy，revivinganideawhichthepopesandtheChurchhadspurnedforcenturies，declaredthatthepopesASPOPEShadnevercondemnedthedoctrinesofCopernicusandGalileo；thattheyhadcondemnedthemasmensimply；thatthereforetheChurchhadneverbeencommittedtothem；thatthecondemnationwasmadebythecardinalsoftheinquisitionandindex；andthatthePopehadevidentlybeenrestrainedbyinterpositionofProvidencefromsigningtheircondemnation。Nothingcouldshowthedesperationoftheretreatingpartybetterthanjugglerylikethis。Thefactis，thatintheofficialaccountofthecondemnationbyBellarmin，in1616，hedeclaresdistinctlythathemakesthiscondemnation“inthenameofHisHolinessthePope。”[81]
[81]SeethecitationfromtheVaticanmanuscriptgiveninGebler，p。78。
Again，fromPopeUrbandownward，amongtheChurchauthoritiesoftheseventeenthcenturythedecisionwasalwaysacknowledgedtobemadebythePopeandtheChurch。UrbanVIIIspokeofthatof1616asmadebyPopePaulVandtheChurch，andofthatof1633
asmadebyhimselfandtheChurch。PopeAlexanderVIIin1664，inhisbullSpeculatores，solemnlysanctionedthecondemnationofallbooksaffirmingtheearth’smovement。[82]
[82]ForreferencesbyUrbanVIIItothecondemnationasmadebyPopePaulVseepp。136，144，andelsewhereinMartin，whomuchagainsthiswillisforcedtoallowthis。SeealsoRoberts，PontificaldecreesagainsttheEarth’sMovement，andSt。GeorgeMivart’sarticle，asabovequoted；alsoReusch，IndexderverbotenenBucher，Bonn，1885，vol。ii，pp。29etseq。
WhenGassendiattemptedtoraisethepointthatthedecisionagainstCopernicusandGalileowasnotsanctionedbytheChurchassuch，aneminenttheologicalauthority，FatherLecazre，rectoroftheCollegeofDijon，publiclycontradictedhim，anddeclaredthatit“wasnotcertaincardinals，butthesupremeauthorityoftheChurch。”thathadcondemnedGalileo；andtothisstatementthePopeandotherChurchauthoritiesgaveconsenteitheropenlyorbysilence。WhenDescartesandothersattemptedtoraisethesamepoint，theyweretreatedwithcontempt。FatherCastelli，whohaddevotedhimselftoGalileo，andknewtohiscostjustwhatthecondemnationmeantandwhomadeit，takesitforgranted，inhislettertothepapalauthorities，thatitwasmadebytheChurch。CardinalQuerenghi，inhisletters；theambassadorGuicciardini，inhisdispatches；Polacco，inhisrefutation；thehistorianViviani，inhisbiographyofGalileo——allwritingunderChurchinspectionandapprovalatthetime，tooktheviewthatthePopeandtheChurchcondemnedGalileo，andthiswasneverdeniedatRome。TheInquisitionitself，backedbythegreatesttheologianofthetimeBellarmin，tookthesameview。Notonlydoeshedeclarethathemakesthecondemnation“inthenameofHisHolinessthePope。”
butwehavetheRomanIndex，containingthecondemnationfornearlytwohundredyears，prefacedbyasolemnbullofthereigningPopebindingthiscondemnationontheconsciencesofthewholeChurch，anddeclaringyearafteryearthat“allbookswhichaffirmthemotionoftheearth“aredamnable。Toattempttofaceallthis，addedtothefactthatGalileowasrequiredtoabjure“theheresyofthemovementoftheearth“bywrittenorderofthePope，wassoonseentobeimpossible。AgainsttheassertionthatthePopewasnotresponsiblewehaveallthismassoftestimony，andthebullofAlexanderVIIin1664。[83]
[83]ForLecazre’sanswertoGassendi，seeMartin，pp。146，147。
FortheattempttomakethecrimesofGalileobreachofetiquette，seeDublinReview，asabove。Whewell，vol。i，p。283。
CitationfromMarini：“Galileowaspunishedfortriflingwiththeauthorities，towhichherefusedtosubmit，andwaspunishedforobstinatecontumacy，notheresy。”Thesufficientanswertoallthisisthatthewordsoftheinflexiblesentencedesignatingthecondemnedbooksare“libriomnesquiaffirmanttellurismotum。”
SeeBertrand，p。59。Astotheideathat“Galileowaspunishedfornothisopinion，butforbasingitonScripture。”theanswermaybefoundintheRomanIndexof1704，inwhicharenotedforcondemnation“Libriomnesdocentesmobilitatemterraeetimmobilitatemsolis。”Forthewayinwhich，whenitwasfoundconvenientinargument，ChurchapologistsinsistedthatitWAS
“theSupremeChiefoftheChurchbyapontificaldecree，andnotcertaincardinals。”whocondemnedGalileoandhisdoctrine，seeFatherLecazre’slettertoGassendi，inFlammarion，PluralitedesMondes，p。427，andUrbanVIII’sowndeclarationsasgivenbyMartin。Forthewayinwhich，whennecessary，Churchapologistsassertedtheverycontraryofthis，declaringthatitwasissuedinadoctrinaldegreeoftheCongregationoftheIndex，andNOT
astheHolyFather’steaching。”seeDublinReview，September，1865。
Thiscontention，then，wasatlastutterlygivenupbyhonestCatholicsthemselves。In1870aRomanCatholicclergymaninEngland，theRev。Mr。Roberts，evidentlythinkingthatthetimehadcometotellthetruth，publishedabookentitledThePontificalDecreesagainsttheEarth’sMovement，andinthisexhibitedtheincontrovertibleevidencesthatthepapacyhadcommitteditselfanditsinfallibilityfullyagainstthemovementoftheearth。ThisCatholicclergymanshowedfromtheoriginalrecordthatPopePaulV，in1616，hadpresidedoverthetribunalcondemningthedoctrineoftheearth’smovement，andorderingGalileotogiveuptheopinion。HeshowedthatPopeUrbanVIII，in1633，pressedon，directed，andpromulgatedthefinalcondemnation，makinghimselfinallthesewaysresponsibleforit。And，finally，heshowedthatPopeAlexanderVII，in1664，byhisbull——SpeculatoresdomusIsrael——attachedtotheIndex，condemning“allbookswhichaffirmthemotionoftheearth。”hadabsolutelypledgedthepapalinfallibilityagainsttheearth’smovement。HealsoconfessedthatundertheruleslaiddownbythehighestauthoritiesintheChurch，andespeciallybySixtusV
andPiusIX，therewasnoescapefromthisconclusion。
Varioustheologiansattemptedtoevadetheforceoftheargument。
Some，likeDr。WardandBouix，tookrefugeinverbalniceties；
some，likeDr。JeremiahMurphy，comfortedthemselveswithdeclamation。Theonlyresultwas，thatin1885cameanothereditionoftheRev。Mr。Roberts’swork，evenmorecogentthanthefirst；and，besidesthis，anessaybythateminentCatholic，St。GeorgeMivart，acknowledgingtheRev。Mr。Roberts’spositiontobeimpregnable，anddeclaringvirtuallythattheAlmightyallowedPopeandChurchtofallintocompleteerrorregardingtheCopernicantheory，inordertoteachthemthatscienceliesoutsidetheirprovince，andthatthetruepriesthoodofscientifictruthrestswithscientificinvestigatorsalone。[84]
[84]ForthecrushinganswerbytwoeminentRomanCatholicstothesophistriescited——ananswerwhichdoesinfinitelymorecredittotheolderChurchthatallthepervertedingenuityusedinconcealingthetruthorbreakingtheforceofit——seeRobertsandSt。GeorgeMivart，asalreadycited。
Inspite，then，ofallcasuistryandspecialpleading，thissturdyhonestyendedthecontroversyamongCatholicsthemselves，sofarasfair-mindedmenareconcerned。
Inrecallingitatthisdaytherestandoutfromitslaterphasestwoeffortsatcompromiseespeciallyinstructive，asshowingtheembarrassmentofmilitanttheologyinthenineteenthcentury。
ThefirstofthesewasmadebyJohnHenryNewmaninthedayswhenhewashoveringbetweentheAnglicanandRomanChurches。InoneofhissermonsbeforetheUniversityofOxfordhespokeasfollows：
“Scripturesaysthatthesunmovesandtheearthisstationary，andsciencethattheearthmovesandthesuniscomparativelyatrest。Howcanwedeterminewhichoftheseoppositestatementsistheverytruthtillweknowwhatmotionis？Ifourideaofmotionisbutanaccidentalresultofourpresentsenses，neitherpropositionistrueandbotharetrue：neithertruephilosophically；bothtrueforcertainpracticalpurposesinthesysteminwhichtheyarerespectivelyfound。”
Inallanti-theologicalliteraturethereisnoutterancemorehopelesslyskeptical。AndforwhatweretheyouthofOxfordledintosuchbottomlessdepthsofdisbeliefastoanyrealexistenceoftruthoranyrealfoundationforit？Simplytosaveanoutwornsystemofinterpretationintowhichthegiftedpreacherhappenedtobeborn。
TheotherutterancewassuggestedbyDeBonaldanddevelopedintheDublinReview，asisunderstood，byoneofNewman’sassociates。ThisargumentwasnothinglessthananattempttoretreatunderthechargeofdeceptionagainsttheAlmightyhimself。Itisasfollows：“ButitmaywellbedoubtedwhethertheChurchdidretardtheprogressofscientifictruth。WhatretardeditwasthecircumstancethatGodhasthoughtfittoexpressmanytextsofScriptureinwordswhichhaveeveryappearanceofdenyingtheearth’smotion。ButitisGodwhodidthis，nottheChurch；and，moreover，sincehesawfitsotoactastoretardtheprogressofscientifictruth，itwouldbelittletoherdiscredit，evenifitweretrue，thatshehadfollowedhisexample。”
Thisargument，likeMr。Gosse’sfamousattempttoreconcilegeologytoGenesis——bysupposingthatforsomeinscrutablepurposeGoddeliberatelydeceivedthethinkingworldbygivingtotheearthalltheappearancesofdevelopmentthroughlongperiodsoftime，whilereallycreatingitinsixdays，eachofaneveningandamorning——seemsonlytohaveawakenedtheamazedpityofthinkingmen。This，liketheargumentofNewman，wasalastdesperateeffortofAnglicanandRomandivinestosavesomethingfromthewreckageofdogmatictheology。[85]
[85]ForthequotationfromNewman，seehisSermonsontheTheoryofReligiousBelief，sermonxiv，citedbyBishopGoodwininContemporaryReviewforJanuary，1892。FortheattempttotaketheblameofftheshouldersofbothPopeandcardinalsandplaceitupontheAlmighty，seethearticleabovecited，intheDublinReview，September1865，p。419andJuly，1871，pp。157etseq。
Foragoodsummaryofthevariousattempts，andforrepliestotheminaspiritofjudicialfairness，seeTh。Martin，ViedeGalilee，thoughthereissomespecialpleadingtosavetheinfallibilityofthePopeandChurch。Thebibliographyatthecloseisveryvaluable。FordetailsofMr。Gosse’stheory，asdevelopedinhisOmphalos，seethechapteronGeologyinthiswork。Astoastilllaterattempt，seeWegg-Prosser，GalileoandhisJudges，London，1889，themainthinginitbeinganattempttoestablish，againstthehonestandhonourableconcessionsofCatholicslikeRobertsandMivart，sundryfar-fetchedandwire-
drawndistinctionsbetweendogmaticanddisciplinarybulls——anattemptwhichwillonlydeepenthedistrustofstraightforwardreasoners。Theauthor’spointofviewisstatedinthewords，“I
havemaintainedthattheChurchhasarighttolayherrestraininghandonthespeculationsofnaturalscience“p。
167。
Allthesewell-meaningdefendersofthefaithbutwroughtintotheheartsofgreatnumbersofthinkingmentheideathatthereisanecessaryantagonismbetweenscienceandreligion。Likethelandsmanwholasheshimselftotheanchorofthesinkingship，theysimplyattachedChristianitybythestrongestcordsoflogicwhichtheycouldspintothesemistakenideasinscience，and，couldtheyhavehadtheirway，theadvanceofknowledgewouldhaveingulfedbothtogether。
Ontheotherhand，whathadsciencedoneforreligion？Simplythis：Copernicus，escapingpersecutiononlybydeath；GiordanoBruno，burnedaliveasamonsterofimpiety；Galileo，imprisonedandhumiliatedastheworstofmisbelievers；Kepler，accusedof“throwingChrist’skingdomintoconfusionwithhissillyfancies“；Newton，bitterlyattackedfor“dethroningProvidence。”
gavetoreligionstrongerfoundationsandmoreennoblingconceptions。
Undertheoldsystem，thatprincelyastronomer，AlphonsoofCastile，seeingtheinadequacyofthePtolemaictheory，yetknowingnoother，startledEuropewiththeblasphemythat，ifhehadbeenpresentatcreation，hecouldhavesuggestedabetterorderoftheheavenlybodies。Underthenewsystem，Kepler，filledwithareligiousspirit，exclaimed，“IdothinkthethoughtsofGod。”ThedifferenceinreligiousspiritbetweenthesetwomenmarkstheconquestmadeinthislongstrugglebyScienceforReligion。[86]