Search This Blog

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Pastor F. E. Pasche: Prof. J. Schaller's testimony; Copernicanism Part 19a

[2019-05-17: see more references to Engelder below; 2017-02-10: See added note at bottom]
      This continues from Part 18g-2 a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Pastor F. E. Pasche
(younger years)

      After completing the blog series on Dr. Carl Schöpffer's last great book against Copernicanism, I want to return again to America, to the spiritual heartland, to Missouri.  And this time I want to reveal more of the pastor that has only been briefly covered in several previous blogs – Pastor Frederick Emil Pasche (1872-1954).  Both Robert Schadewald and Dr. Gerardus Bouw give him some coverage as a prominent proponent against Copernicanism.  
      I have used information from Pasche's books in previous blogs:
  1. Walther's sermon which spoke of the Sun's orbit around the Earth
  2. 1886 Synodical Conference essay against Copernicanism
  3. Lehre und Wehre essay by "W.M." in 1898
  4. Der Lutheraner article in 1878 (by Pastor Köstering)
Robert Schadewald reports the following of Pasche:
Perhaps the most prolific LCMS geocentrist was Frederick E. Pasche (1872–1954).  Pastor Pasche wrote two substantial geocentric books in German—Christliche Weltanschauung.  Kosmogonie und Astronomie (Christian Worldview: Cosmogony and Astronomy) in 1904 and Bibel und Astronomie (Bible and Astronomy) in 1906.  In 1915, Pasche published a 49-page pamphlet entitled Fifty Reasons: Copernicus or the Bible
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
      To begin my sub-series on Pasche, I want to start out backwards by publishing the Foreword to the last of his publications -- Fifty Reasons: Copernicus or the Bible from 1915.  Why?  Because it shows that Pasche was not unknown in the Synodical Conference in the early Twentieth Century.  And this essay applies to all of Pasche's writings against Copernicanism. 
      The Foreword was written by a notable professor of the old Wisconsin Synod (WELS) Prof. John Schaller, of whom we have heard good things earlier.  It appears to me that Schaller may have been the only teacher in the Synodical Conference, besides Franz Pieper, who actually had anything published against Copernicanism in the 20th century. [NOTE: See added note at bottom ***] As that century proceeded, it is notable that there were progressively fewer publications defending against Copernicanism, except of course by Rev. Wallace McLaughlin.  Because of its forthrightness and importance, I am taking the liberty of publishing this Foreword to the world.  Thankfully, it was written in English and so required no translation work on my part (all highlighting is mine):

Prof. John Schaller
Wisconsin Synod
The author of this booklet has risked a tilt with Science. That is a venturesome undertaking in these days of ours where Science reigns supreme, a veritable goddess before whom millions of faithful worshipers bow their heads in childlike trust. Science has become the masterword to conjure with because it claims to have laid down a firm foundation for a Weltanschauung which happily eliminates all those troublous concepts of sin and guilt, of eternity and a responsibility to an almighty God. Whoever dares to touch this beloved and admired idol with an unfriendly hand, with the nefarious purpose of exhibiting its brazen worthlessness, must expect to be caught up in the vortex of a crushing whirlwind of fanatical vituperation. For Science with its highpriests and devotees is intolerant to the last degree.
But let it be remembered that our author is at odds only with Science; he has no quarrel with science which is content with a lowercase initial. Just plain science is a valuable aid to man since it diligently assembles knowable facts and marshals them into some logical order for purposes of study and application. Its domain is that of observation, and it rests content with recording what it actually sees and hears. It goes no farther beyond the individual perceptions than to express in general, abstract terms a summary of known facts announcing the so-called “laws” which may be deduced from observed occurrences. Plain science is continuously reaching forward into the region of the unknown, seeking to increase the actual store of human knowledge; but as it never pretends to know what is unknown, so does it never attempt to overstep the boundaries which are set between that which is knowable and that which is naturally unknowable. Briefly, just plain science is real knowledge, not fancy.
But Science, the fetish of the modern world, reincarnation of the ancient idol Philosophy, scorns the boundaries which will forever mark the limit of plain science. From some bare foothold in fact, Science vaults into the saddle of that spirited steed Imagination and sets out to uncover the veiled mysteries of the universe. This adventure would be more promising if the steed were of pure pedigree. But no highpriest of Science could ever command the services of an undefiled imagination; the steed is alway a sideling jade, variously afflicted with pantheism, materialism, evolutionism, atheism, or a combination of these ailments. Thus every foray is doomed to failure at the outset. This fact, though sufficiently vexatious in all conscience, would not necessarily discredit those attempts at reaching the unattainable, if it were generally understood that the fanciful flights of Science were meant for pastime only. But it is an unfortunate habit of Science to proclaim as facts the alleged discoveries made in the trackless realms of fancy. Oh yes, Science will always tell us that this and that is an hypothesis; but Scientists and their unthinking followers, quickly losing sight of the difference between the finest hypothesis and the most insignificant fact, will just as surely insist, after a little while, that what entered the world as a guess becomes a fact by many repetitions. To mention but one instance. The hypothesis of evolutionism, having been adopted by Scientists generally, is not only used as a fact, but insisted upon as such, though to this day no investigator has been able to observe a single case of actual evolution. Hence plain science is compelled to record habitual untruthfulness as one of the deplorable characteristics of Science.
While plain science is not, and never can become, dangerous to a Christian believer, Science has been determinedly at work to overthrow the foundations of faith, and has succeeded in deceiving thousands to their eternal detriment. An accomplishment of which Science is especially proud is the successful destruction of faith in the Scriptures as the real revelation of God. Disguised as astronomy and geology, Science has demonstrated triumphantly that the very first chapters of the Bible contain nothing but myths, which are of no greater historical value than the cosmogony of any pagan people. This was the inevitable result of scientific speculation. No mind imbued with the errors of pantheism, deism, or monism, could by any possibility reconstruct the history of creation along the lines laid down in the record of which God is the author. It matters not that all the real facts of astronomy and geology agree very well with the Mosaic presentation and the point of view prevailing in the whole Bible; since Science has decreed that these facts shall be utilized for deductions based upon other points of view, and has declared its deductions to be facts, thousands of deluded sinners have been led to discard as antiquated the entire revelation of God in the Bible, including the Savior and His salvation.
Thus, since Science (not plain science, mind you!) is at war with the fundamental doctrines of Christian faith, it follows that all true Christians must be at war with Science. They cannot sit complacently by while the vain imaginings of the princes of this world are offered as true answers to the most vital questions with which every human being is concerned. It is in this spirit that our author makes his attack upon Science. Sure of his foothold in the inerrant Word of God, he, in particular, aims to show up the fatal weakness of the vaunted deductions of Astronomy (not astronomy, please!). The reader may not agree with the writer in every argument. He may, for instance, admit the possibility that the statements of Scripture referring to the sun as a moving body, were not meant to say that the sun does really move (though such an admission is much like playing with fire!). But he will surely agree that the writer has successfully arraigned Science for untruthfulness in allowing the impression to prevail that its astronomical hypotheses have attained the dignity of facts, whereas they can never be established as such. If it is too much to hope that this brief treatise will actually bring back some erring hearts to certain faith in the Bible, it will surely be welcomed as a fearless witness of the truth by those who, though certain of their footing in Holy Scripture, are yet conscious of the unholy power of Science to corrupt the heart of a believer.
Wauwatosa, Wis., March 27, 1915.
J. Schaller.
      It was most refreshing for me to again run across this writing from the dear Prof. Schaller.  May God bless it to His glory!
      I will comment more on Pasche's booklet 50 Reasons later.  But first I want to cover his earlier books that were published in the German language... in Part 19b.

[2019-05-17: In 1944, Prof. Th. Engelder clearly defended against Copernicanism in his book Scripture Cannot Be Broken, for example p. 89-91:
"All right, they say, let us remain in the domain of common science, physical science, and the Bible is wrong because science teaches that the earth rotates on its axis, etc., and Josh. 10:13 should have stated: “ And the earth stood still.” — Wrong again! Copernicanism indeed teaches that; but everybody except the sciolists knows that the system of Copernicus is based on a — hypothesis. The argument that Scripture is not inspired because of its alleged conflict with some hypothetical assumption has a most flimsy basis. And there is no reason in the world why we should decree that Joshua employed phenomenal and not scientific language."
He also continued his defense on pp. 142-143, 145, 153, 156-159, 161, 215 (also "Kopernicus")
2017-02-10: I have discovered that in 1913, Prof. Th. Engelder defended against Copernicanism in a serialized essay in Lehre und Wehre.  Search for "Kopernikanismus" in Google Books here – pp. 70 and 220 are indicated]

Sunday, June 5, 2016

Frantz: mud, wolf, fish on stilts, cuckoo's egg- Copernicanism Part 18g-2

      This continues from Part 18g-1 a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
      This concludes a 2-part blog publishing my translation of Dr. Alexander Frantz's Foreword to Schöpffer's last great book against Copernicanism:
Translation by BackToLuther. Highlightinghyperlinks, text in square [ ] brackets are mine.

by Dr. Alexander Frantz
to The Contradictions in Astronomy by Carl Schöpffer, pages IX - XVI
(conclusion from Part 18g-1)

What is not reasonable, what is non-conceptual and thoughtless, will also not be true and real; and the public should be grateful to our author that he has uncovered in part the contradictions of astronomy – in its development, in its proofs and allegations; indeed, we have no hesitation to assure the reader that this contingent [of astronomers] can abundantly multiply their unreasonable claims, if one feels the history of science by its inductive pulse, as it is narrated to us by [William] Whewell (Philosophy of Inductive Sciences, translated into German from English by J.J. von Littrow).  This historical work has been published with the symbol: λαμπάδια εχοντες [page X] διαδώσουσιν αλλήλοις.  The inductive sciences or their masters may share at least with each other their candles; but no reasonable person should be beguiled to believe that his reason becomes reasonable by these λαμπάδια [candles]. It belongs to a different light, one light, the light and life (John 1:4).   It belongs in fact to a higher light in the sense to realize that natural light is not only natural light, but also natural light; otherwise nobody vouches for whether what is praised as light is not just an extinguished torch or, so to speak, pitch (or bad luck) instead of the torch. Unfortunate it is that in the history of the astronomy, epoch-making luminaries really faced such a thing which is raised by its adherents to the heavens where it does not belong at all, and is not yet discovered up to today, what also our author did not forget to suggest.
But if one now recommends this writing to all those who must have a very obvious interest to see disposed the Edomite defiance which pretends to entrench the education of the present with the ramparts of an unthinking, as also without evidence, atomistic natural science — will they finally convince themselves that Astronomy does not deserve the faith which she presumes?  Will they finally cease to accept the wolf in the herd as a lamb, or as a falsely denounced friend?  Will they learn to be afraid to reconcile the world view of Holy Scripture, which is just opposite of the Copernican astronomy, with a worldview that emerges like a mirage from a false science, or rather to reveal it to the latter?  One might well ask more and greater questions; but in view of the portrayal which the author sketches on pages 15-16 in his writing, all questions are silenced.  We instead want to wait to see whether this writing does not for many, those who are doubtful and timid, strengthen their courage to fight when he sees the gaps in the ramparts; and if it will not awaken some of those who are indifferent to the old watchword: “Prepare yourselves, you Christian people!”  [page XI]
There will not be missing mockers for this book, as not all do not regard the words of the Psalm as a poetic gimmick, but as a full reality and truth: “His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it.” [Psalm 19: 6]  It would be a real shame if this desire of the whole earth should not go out as a bridegroom from his chamber, if they should not look forward like a strong man to run [Psalm 19:5], but would sit still like an Olympic idol.  And yet the Word stands fast, that the reproach of Christ is to hold greater riches than the treasures of Egypt [Heb. 11:26], …… Or is one to praise an education that has been so blind and drunk in the enjoyment of its supposed glory, that it no longer likes to recognize the mud, full of errors and lies, that flows in its stream?   And with it they want to water the souls for everlasting life?!
But is it not all too daring when a layman raises objections against a science like astronomy, which is supported by so many famous and celebrated names, and their far-reaching influence has so firmly established it that everyone gives it the honor of being a queen of the sciences?  Here it must be said that it is a contradiction to apply an illegitimate reign to this falsely famous queen.  It is quite odd enough to appoint astronomy to this royal dignity; — and if they let the commandment go out now from their usurped throne: "Bow, down, man, before the terrible spectacle of immense space and the innumerable bodies floating therein; let it shatter your thinking and your form will be so puny, that you become an atom born from the conditions of mud, or [page XII] (as spoke Mästlin, Kepler’s teacher) “a mere point, a speck, or still smaller something if one can say generally still something;” — in such a way we only hear in it the speaking of an illegitimate despot against whom one must call every man to pull himself together, to claim his divine right, and, after the counsel of St. Martin [Luther], to be distinguished from this higher but dumb nature by the superiority of His Word, and to tear himself away from the soul-murderous obligation to measure his life and nature with the eyes of the body.  
And so we then recommend this writing, which incidentally also recommends itself well to all those who are not yet taken in too much by blind faith in the astronomical humbug.  The occasion of the recent controversy over astronomy [Lisco-Knak Affair if 1868] has given quite complimentary testimonies of what confidence they hold in the fundamental Copernican dogma, without tact or tactics  –  it is as a giant who can make a faith in the Holy Scriptures, proven seven times in fire, flee the field of battle, or can eat it for breakfast.  One can also understand the indignation, when by a good firm confession, this giant is dispatched as a school boy, and when the indignant, who have sent this giant on ahead into battle, are even unable in their eagerness to show whether this gigantic figure stands on its own ankles, or whether it is only a tiny weever fish standing on stilts as tall as a tree.  Or could they maintain the strength of this giant with something other, as with a crackling fire in junipers and with agitations, this: on the best way to enforce the extremely important and necessary law, that without a rigorous exam in orthodox astronomy, no more may a candidate of theology climb a pulpit and no more may a pastor sit on the school board in the colleges?  — However in the whole of natural science is there hardly any other dogma than the fundamental Copernican dogma, which teaches the exact  opposite of what the senses perceive daily, so taken to measure the credibility of natural science [page XIII] with the credibility of Holy Scripture, which simply holds to what the senses see  –  consider the spectacle seen in the sky as an object – so that the meaning should be taught, and this purpose cannot be achieved with objects that before only deceive the senses.  For this reason, one should not so easily accept as a contradiction of a sensory deception claiming astronomy, as those who seem to think that it does not depend so much on whether one holds that the sun, or that the earth moves, if only the miracle is not denied; however, there is yet much importance to know whether the Holy Scriptures, although they are not a compendium of science, when their guidance and education refers to the natural world, refers to the sense of appearence or to reality.  It is not proper for the Holy Ghost to make his instruction on objects, only to be corrected by the spirit of man, which must be freed from their false, deceptive appearances.  For example, when the prophet Isaiah cries: "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number” (Isaiah 40:26); so a contortioner of nature could argue: What we see there must first be corrected; because what we see in the heights, deceives by a merely apparent motion, and thus the heavenly bodies are not those to which a free movement is essential, and thus it is at least plausible whether the whole army is brought about by another power.  On the other hand, it must be protested in the strongest terms against the zealous chatter that the Bible-believing theology, by invoking the Holy Scriptures, oppose the advancement in all human sciences, particularly natural science.  They say today, as before, that even astronomers and mathematicians declared: we reject the Copernican dogma, “because it contradicts the Holy Scriptures and visual inspection,” so not only the Holy Scriptures, but also inspection, so important for all empirical knowledge, [page XIV] has to be against itself.  And if now the Copernican system is directed immediately at first by the greatest astronomer of his time [Gauss!], and this astronomer himself has not given one respected and truly tested plan up to this day: how they may attack us and cry against us, we wanted to rely on the Holy Scriptures to defend the scientific research, as we seek not only to carry out research, but also to investigate with seriousness and prudence, as German Science deserves, and not merely to proceed with unsubstantiated claims and fraudulent theories, so that the truth might be known by science to the glory of God. Nature will probably still be the same, on the whole, as in the days of the prophets and apostles; why should not the same “observation” of her be won when it is looked at only not with fleshly eyes of the mind, but with the anointed eyes of the spirit.  Thus research is not adjusted by the appeal to the Holy Scriptures, but provoked for a higher reason and for a worthier purpose, and only the spirit of research and science be released from the immobilizing chains of pride and self-glorification, as it is therein exhausted to a fatal malnutrion (marasmus) and progresses to barrenness, while no fertility drug (Atocium  – ἀτόκιον, means resist barrenness. [Ed.  – may be in error as sources say opposite meaning.]) helps and when it is cooked together in all kitchens of moral indignation and passionate agitations.
What has then the Copernican astronomy, after she has demonstrated the apparent motion of the sun, and the apparent standstill of the earth as a mere illusion and deception; what has she taught for positive evidence and testimony, that she reports to us truth and reality?   What gives her the right to judge on the movement of heavenly stars, if it has not previously ordered the relevant matter of the earth and brought it into perfection?  What have a Kepler, Galileo, and Newton contributed to the inductive epochs, [page XV] to verify the actual so-called philosophical problem of Copernicus by direct observation?  Who made the immediate observation that the Sun, against all appearances, really stands still, and the Earth, against all perception, struggles in a double movement?  One has built around the philosophical stone of Copernicus with scaffolding, and from this scaffolding has measured the stone, has calculated, has viewed with telescopes,  made conjectures, devised hypotheses, and praised much as a miracle, what a delicious gem they had crammed into this scaffolding; but no one can say whether it is a gem or a cuckoo's egg. — One has exercised all art of mathematics, but none has made it doubtful that one can only deduce the possible, but never doubtful the real with mathematics.  Man has made observations abstracted theories, which should explain the observation, but tell in fact nothing, because the observation is to confirm the theory, and is thus interpreted and prepared, as it is useful for the theory.  One has introduced the mechanism as an abstract science into astronomy without at the very least checking whether one deals then really in the heavens with mechanics and mechanical laws.  In the end, of the whole universe, nothing is left but the idea of ​​a dead machine with gears that is set in motion by gravitation.  For the rest is all gear works and gravitation.  Heaven is nothing special, the stars are nothing special, their movement is nothing special, the earth is nothing special, man is nothing, his life, his thinking, is nothing; — and what has God to do in this all agreed world?  What is there of the confession of the triune God in it? — It is almost reachable, as atheism is used with this astronomy, and has its support in her.  And yet, — against this atheistic Queen, that is these idols of human science, it presses the charge, “that she lies”: this should be a crime against the present culture and education, and against  [page XVI] the magnificent peacock tail of natural science that opens up in it? — So we at least do not want the explanation for this science and this education to be that it is guilty, that it is pagan — and worse than pagan.
God protect us in grace before this new darkness, and bless this work to honor His Name!
Written Dom. Cantate 1869.
Dr. A. Frantz.
      I spent considerable time and effort translating Dr. Frantz's Foreword.  I would not have given him all this blog space if he had not thrilled me with his wonderful defense, nay, offense! against... Copernicanism.  As Dr. Frantz says, Copernicanism attempts to eat Christianity "for breakfast".  So with him I say
Prepare yourselves, you Christian people!,  and
God protect us in grace before this new darkness, and bless this work to honor His Name!  Amen!
      In the next Part 19a, I move back to America.  I want to present more on the old Missouri Synod pastor who carried the defense against Copernicanism further to our time than any other... Pastor Pasche.

Thursday, June 2, 2016

Dr. Alexander Frantz, another pastor in Germany against Copernicanism; Part 18g-1 (German philosophers; Bible decreases)

[2018-01-03: fixed page links of text of book below in this post and next]
      This continues from Part 18f, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
      To finish off my sub-series on Carl Schöpffer, I want to reveal more of the pastor in Germany who wrote a foreword to his last great work, Die Widersprüche in der Astronomie or The Contradictions in Astronomy -- Dr. Alexander Frantz (1806-1889).  This is notable because Pastor Gustav Knak had seemed to be the only pastor in Germany who defended the Bible against Copernicanism.  But we see now that he was not entirely alone in Germany... in 1869.  Dr. Frantz has been overlooked long enough...  even Dr. Gerardus Bouw overlooks him.  So I now have the honor of publicizing him to the world...  in English.
      Dr. Frantz is a bit of an enigma, for there is not a lot of information available except a few theological books that he published in German, here, and here.  According to one of these books, he was a Doctor of Theology, Superintendent and head pastor of St. Jacobi in Sangerhausen.  Another book from 1858 was entitled The Pretensions of Exact Science Illuminated, with Polemical Glosses, a subject matter that certainly recommended him to write this Foreword!   I am practically certain that Dr. Frantz was Lutheran, although the pressure of the Prussian Union (read "Evangelical" without "Lutheran") was tremendous in Germany.  I found an earlier reference to a “Pastor Frantz” in Lehre und Wehre which is quite possibly the same pastor.  It involved theological disputes in Germany.  —  So I looked to this 14 page Foreword to Schöpffer's book to glean more about him.  At first I thought that I would not publish him because of his seeming over-reliance on renowned German philosophers.  But the more I read, the more I found that his real defense was based on... the Holy Scriptures.  As we have seen from the famous “Lisco-Knak Affair” of 1868,  that any pastor would publicly defend against Copernicanism was quite an oddity in the world, especially in Germany.  So here I present Dr. Alexander Frantz... doing just this:
Translation by BackToLuther. Highlighting, hyperlinks, text in square [ ] brackets are mine.

by Dr. Alexander Frantz
to The Contradictions in Astronomy by Carl Schöpffer, pages III - IX

The venerable publisher of this little work of a well known author has asked me to introduce it with a commendatory short preface. Certainly the writing invites it.  But apart from the fact that my style is not a style of commendation, I can not hold that I would be legitimate in giving this brave writing a recommendation; especially since they could even ask me as an recommending authority, and then I would be able to show no other letter of recommendation than the mockery and scorn with which my name has become known in the camp of the modern Edomites.   Also the author of this writing has not been spared from mockery and scorn, as he himself reports, and the only difference is that with him just the matter that he represents is here ridiculedbut in my writings also theological zealotry and hierarchical tendencies have been read between the lines;  since they can read nothing out of their own breviary.  And so I would be worse recommended than the author because of our modern Edomites.
If one, as the venerable publisher, hopes that a booklet goes out under two names, so they also probably associate this with the idea that the view expressed in the book is established in the mouth of two witnesses and stands firmer [Matt. 18:16].  But this could lead to the thought that in the present case the previous speaker’s writing was thereby used to advise this author.  I would like to cut this rank controversy off [page IV], and only speak by the permission granted me here, to use some observations which can serve to recommend this book directly and indirectly very well.
The author of this paper started almost simultaneously the well-founded objection to the newer astronomy with me, perhaps somewhat earlier.  His occupation as a teacher arranged him for it, and he has the praiseworthy merit for the task which he has positioned himself, neither to respect time, nor effort, still danger; he has pursued his goal without fear or timidity.  I was provoked to this opposition by the impertinent magisterial tone, by the flirtatious smugness with which one spoiled and vain by undeserved applause of the audience, a Professor of Natural Sciences ventured to deny the Holy Scriptures and the religious doctrines.  To me it depended on showing that the statements of the natural sciences and astronomy are by no means so obvious and exact truths in the particulars that before them the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures and the dogmas of theology would have to be silent once and for all; while Dr. Schöpffer directly undertook to draw the untenability of the astronomical evidence to light. —  Meanwhile, at the same time and also earlier, attacks on modern astronomy were undertaken.  It may be remembered here only some.  A teacher, Carol Grande, had issued a small writing for this purpose: Das Weltgebäude vom christlichen Standpunkte [The building of the world from the Christian standpoint]. —  Constantin. Frantz had lodged in his Grundzügen des wahren und wirklichen absoluten Idealismus [Fundamentals of true and real absolute idealism] a strongly worded protest against the newer astronomy, and this work earned him the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. — Goethe has repeatedly shown how unhappy Newton was in his explanations of physical facts. — Hegel, in the History of Philosophy, calls this capricious mathematician almost a barbarian when he gets involved in forging terms. — Franz von Baader, one of the deepest thinkers of the century, has reduced to absurdity the newer astronomy in several small writings. — [page V]
And Schelling?  Not to mention the name only, but some statements of this famous philosopher may stand here which show only too well how he also judges astronomy.  He says in his essay "On Speculation and Empiricism in Physics": “I have often wondered why they declare that a Le Sage speculates, e.g., on nature, and why they do not want to concede the same to us; and I have never found another answer than this: because in his system, the lightweight and loose nature of hypotheses and arbitrary assumptions are, as it were, sanctioned, and if it were possible, immortalized; —  We, however, want just the opposite ... ... Intolerable and unbearable it must be but not to conceive of the phenomena of nature, as they can be like those impositions, as those which has been made in the systems of atomism to the intellect and the imagination .... One does not see at all, — to what purpose and end — nature so busily is when her whole art consists in nothing but this pocket game, which is mirrored in those systems .... They still cannot always rid the times of a Des Cartes,  Euler etc.  How long should then everything old, long evaluated in oblivion, be dragged? .... All of those theories are contrary to experience which are abstracted from experience, which the causes from which they explain not, not in themselves do not know regardless of the experiences which should be explained.  For where this is the case, nothing happens than that one places into the principles everything that is sufficient to account for the already known experience, so they forge the causes, and it depends just so exactly as they need them later.  Even apart from the eternal circle in explaining,  which is made in this case by first deriving the causes from the effects, then again the effects from the self-made causes; so it is natural that those presumed causes at all moments are again insufficient, because but the experience is extended every day, that one [page VI] must always set new provisions in it *) ..... Whoever has not the theory right, can not possibly have a right experience, and vice versa: the fact in itself is nothing.  Quite different it appears even to him who has concepts, than the one who looks without concept at them.  You have to know what is to be seen, and many experimenters are similar to those travelers who could ask quite a lot if they only knew what was to be asked.”
*) So it is decided in astronomy.  Not merely that the Sun stands still in the middle of the solar system, and that the motion of the Earth is the simple principle of the system — then so it is not to be used at all to explain the phenomena in the sky and on the earth — but the Earth must also be the third planet, must have a completely unthinkable rapid movement and even have its own movement about its axis, plus must have a third movement.  Even that does not explain everything. The pathways  must be ellipses, there must be still be invented mutations, refractions, etc.  And the sum of all this arbitrariness, to be bound by the law of gravitation — is the Principle of Astronomy that is not afraid with such monstrosities to make the claim to be a science, indeed the queen of the sciences.

So far Schelling. — Astronomy is able to see and ask quite a lot; it has indisputably the greatest and most precious observation apparatuses.  They observe and — compute.  Ask them whether they also see rightly, and see by rights — and whether also the foundations of their calculations are so doubtless right and true — so they have given till this day still no answer that would be worthy of science.
Recently , a Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, K. Nagy, in a comprehensive work (but unfortunately for laymen too comprehensive): Die Sonne und die Astronomie [The sun and astronomy], which also our author [Schöpffer] had opportunity to use in several places, — definitely made the judgement on astronomy.
Now, when our author naturally develops for several [page VII] reasons the contradictions of astronomy for everyone in his writing, fully justified and unquestionable, and as we want to show that it is also very necessary; — then why do they get riled up about it so terribly in the camp of Edom?  Can the people hear no more reasons there, weigh no more reasons, refute no more reasons?  It seems that they resemble their old fathers, of whom it is written that when the children of Israel came to Edom saying, “Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country: we will not pass through the fields, or through the vineyards, neither will we drink of the water of the wells, and if I and my cattle drink of thy water, then I will pay for it”; — Then came the answer: “You shall not pass through. And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand.”. (Numbers 20:17-20) — Maybe they let the contradiction to Astronomy go, but they smell in it an armament of the children of God whom they hate because of fear.[F. von Raumer  – “One is afraid of you!”]  So they gather among themselves with phrase jingles, which one listens to since there are no church bells ringing, and equip themselves with a zeal reminiscent of the good citizens of a city that boasted there was a lot of light with them, because in former times famous lantern makers had lived among them; they must protect the valuable light; and because it rests with them and does not progress, they might comfort themselves with the fact that the sun stands still. — And what says the Magus of the North [Johann Georg Hamann]?  “Our philosophers talk like alchemists of estimating fertility, though, to judge from their fields and vineyards, one would swear that they know not how to distinguish weeds from wheat, grapes from thorns, nor figs from thistles. — They mimic that juggler who spent the vacuum of his pocket for the big, beautiful, strong spirit, which, if it were possible, even seduced the Elus. The confusion of the language, by which they seduce and be seduced, of course, is a very natural conjuring of automatic reason, it costs little to transfigure into a star of the first magnitude, particularly for rogues of similar blindness.”

[page VIII]  
It is hardly to be expected that the writing of our author, even were it provided with a recommendation from heaven, will cause this automatic reason to come over the barrier, when it is hardly capable of other thoughts than what it has been schooled and trained in.  Because to them nature is no more a living organism which is allowed to speak about itself, but in science which man has contrived and figured as a silent and dead object, that man uses and abuses and would alone only want to rule above the Word; so the lessons must not be made by nature, but in natural science through training; and it can be done without difficulty en masse, as the schools are emptied of religious doctrines, they are filled with inductive, mechanical and mathematical sciences, the combination of training and consequently also the automatism of reason, and as a necessary consequence, barbarism is promoted.  The sad merit will be taken on, as this monster smuggles in as far as possible, by those who seek all information, education and culture of the time in the natural sciences.
The condescension against astronomy is as surprising as the experience that the credibility of the Holy Scriptures in their whole extent decreases, if not even ends, as the credibility of natural sciences increases. This perception is not thereby explained, as one claims and is it heard from the silliest people toadies, that man would now become enlightened, reasonable and freed to use their reason by the natural sciences; — rather, it is founded in the non-use of reason and in the lack of reason.  For a reason that wants to know nothing of God, because it claims it is unable to know of God, is certainly no more true human reason than that in the knowledge, because it has its nature and strength in consciousness of God.  One deprives his [page IX] reason of its religious nature thereby when one does not actuate and promote it; so the reason is of course also unable to emerge in the Word of God as the highest reason, and dives down into the natural sciences, not as a reason to reveal to it what it can no longer now do, but to doze comfortably in it. Non elevari est labi, [he that is not raised above the world necessarily sinks] and it is certain that if reason lacks a higher one or a self uplifting reason or some such light, it is dulled and mired in itself. — If one appeals to those in the waters of reason deposed by the natural sciences, to decree the Holy Scriptures, so one would have these Scriptures deposed of their royal dignity to beggars who are degraded and emaciated of reason, never to leave the illusion that they, in their irrational and non-conceptual statements in natural science, proclaim exact truths.  One should have left it never undisputed, e.g. the thoughtless integration of the concept of nature with matter, or the attraction with gravitation, or the free movement with mechanical movement. But that is over and done now, where a great people mindlessly run after the unthinking concepts of natural science, and considers each experiment that a skilled experimenter shows them to be a piece of nature without further ado.  Thus the abuse of reason on the part of the opponents is conveyed by the disuse of reason.
(to be continued in Part 18g-2)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
      Although Dr. Frantz and C.F.W. Walther shared in referring to names outside of theology, Walther was more reserved.  He only mentioned Carol Grande and Friedrich Schelling, not Goethe, Hegel, or von Baader -- ones who were more antagonistic to orthodox Christian doctrines.  Walther spoke these names in 1868 (to the Eastern District), the year before Dr. Frantz wrote this Foreword.  I have often wondered if there was correspondence between these two theologians... if either one used the others research.
      I will conclude Dr. Frantz's Foreword in the next Part 18g-2.