89; also Humboldt, Cosmos (English translation, London, 1868), vol.iii, p.
169.
Here we may pause for a moment to note one of the chief differences between scientific and theological reasoning considered in themselves.
Kepler's main reasoning as to the existence of a law for cometary movement was right; but his secondary reasoning, that comets move nearly in straight lines, was wrong.

His right reasoning was developed by Gassendi in France, by Borelli in Italy, by Hevel and Doerfel in Germany, by Eysat and Bernouilli in Switzerland, by Percy and--most important of all, as regards mathematical demonstration--by Newton in England.

The general theory, which was true, they accepted and developed; the secondary theory, which was found untrue, they rejected; and, as a result, both of what they thus accepted and of what they rejected, was evolved the basis of the whole modern cometary theory.
Very different was this from the theological method.

As a rule, when there arises a thinker as great in theology as Kepler in science, the whole mass of his conclusions ripens into a dogma.

His disciples labour not to test it, but to establish it; and while, in the Catholic Church, it becomes a dogma to be believed or disbelieved under the penalty of damnation, it becomes in the Protestant Church the basis for one more sect.
Various astronomers laboured to develop the truth discovered by Tycho and strengthened by Kepler.