A short time after the article GAIrLEo, was first published, there appeared in a leading Roman Catholic publication, the Dublin Review' (July, 1838, vol. v. pp. 72-116), a controversial article upon the celebrated interference of the Inquisition. This article was much cited, and seems to have been considered by some, at least, of the English and Irish Roman Catholics as a triumphant reply to the account usually given. We shall here briefly examine the main assertions, and the question which arises out of them.
We have already expressed our opinion of the use which is made of Galileo's trial by Protestants : and we repeat that Roman Catholics have a good right to consider the manner in which this ease is harped upon as a'high compliment to the authority which through so many centuries possessed the power of doing as much or more on every day of every year. That the whole proceeding was disgraceful to the parties con cerned is generally admitted even by Catholics ; but the question, and one which h not been fairly handled by Protestants, is, how far those parties can claim to be the representatives of the church which declares itself infallible in matters of faith. The importance of Galileo's trial depends upon its connection with this question ; and party zeal has mixed up with it all manner of discussion upon the character of the proceeding itself, and the motives of those who originated it. English men would do well to remember, with regard to the latter points, their own Star-Chamber, the astronomy of the Act of Uniformity, and the decision of the University of Oxford • that no woman has a right to defend herself against the king.
Even in Italy the defence of the Inquisition has been long and openly given up by many. Witness the expressive silence of the account of Galileo, in the Elogi degli Uomini illustri Toscani,' Lucca, 1772, taken from a contemporary Milan periodical ; the declaration of Frisi (Milan, 1775) that "the imagination is horrified, and the virtuous and feeling mind shudders," at the language applied to Galileo in the sentence passed upon him ; and that of Fabbroni (Pisa, 1784), that "it is better to be silent upon the details than by recalling them to increase the horror which every virtuous mind ought to feel against the injustice of that time." And the article in the 'Dublin Review' styles the Inquisition "superlatively cruel in Spain, more mild and sparing of human life in Rome "—only more mild than superlatively cruel.
That the. Roman Church decided against the earth's motion has been generally affirmed by Protestants, and denied by Catholics, we believe with justice. But that the church which claims infallibility in essential matters suffered two local tribunals, the office of which was the suppression of heresy, to pronounce, and, as it turns out, to pronounce wrongly, upon a question of astronomical fact, is all but universally admitted. Nevertheless, even this is denied altogether by the author of the article before us, whose account of the matter is as follows—. That Galileo, in 1615, not content with supporting the Copernican doctrine as a truth, which it was open to him to do, persisted in invading what himself admitted to be the prerogative of the church, by declaring that the sacred Scriptures could be interpreted against Ptolemy and for Copernicus; and this, in spite of many friendly warnings, that he must confine himself to " demonstrating his system," and writing "as a mathematician, and by way of hypothesis." That when the first attempt was made upon him in 1615 (which was rejected by the Inquisition for informality), as much licence as the above was distinctly mentioned as given to all. That the prohibition of 1616, to teach or write in favour of the Copernican doctrine, was a prohibition to Galileo only, not to others, and was brought about partly by Galileo's persisting in forcing the theological question upon the court, and partly by the imprudence of his advocate, Cardinal Orsini, in pressing the subject upon the pope. That before this prohibition was given, on the occasion of Galileo's first personal•appearance, the qualificators of the Inquisition, whose office it is to put the propositions bearing on the points at issue before the court, drew up the two famous theses, in which the doctrine of the earth's motion was called false and heretical. That when Galileo, in 1632, brought on the pro ceeding of 11633, not only by a breach of the prohibition, but by a sarcastic reference to it, and a caricature of the arguments of his friend and benefactor, the reigning pope, these theses were merely cited in the preamble of the sentence, and are not there to be taken as any thing but recapitulation. That the word heretical, in the proceedings of the Inquisition, is the stylus curies, and that even offences against morals or the public peace, apart from all doctrine, must be styled heretical, before that court can assume jurisdiction.