In the above are the following assertions. 1, That any one (except Galileo, restrained for his own misconduct) was at liberty to teach the earth's motion as true, provided he confined himself to philosophy, and let theology alone. 2, That the Inquisition pronounced no opinion upon the truth of the doctrine. 3, That it pronounced no opinion upon the orthodoxy of the same. We deny each of tese positions, upon the clearest reasons, which we shall bring forward. But we do not deny that much has been stated which, when closely examined (for articles in reviews do not deal in references), would probably establish the fact that the prohibition of 1616 was mainly due to the injudicious ardour with which Galileo pressed the theological question. Nor do we deny that the conduct of the philosopher was weak and ungrateful in putting into the mouth of the wrongheaded personage of his dialogue the arguments urged to him in personal conference by his benefactor Urban, with a hint that they came from a high quarter. All parties admit that it was the irritation of the pope at this conduct which led to the final proceeding.
to the first of the preceding assertions. There were, at the time in question, three distinct modes of maintaining a theory. First, as a mathematical hypothesis, assuming it not es true, but as sufficient to explain phenomena, and leaving its truth or falsehood aside, or even implying the latter. Secondly, as a truth, but without any reference to the Scriptures : maintaining it by arguments, and implying that if the Scriptures really assert the contrary, there must be something wrong hi those arguments, but that if tho latter really amount to demonstration, then the interpretation of the Scriptures, which makes them assert the contrary, must bo wrong. Thirdly, as an abeolute truth, confirmed by reason and Scripture both. In the article we are examining, the first and second of these modes are confounded : and it is thought that when Galileo was warned off the third mode, and told to write " as a mathematician and by way of hypothesis," and to con fiue himself to " demonstration," lie was left with permission to use the second mode. This is not correct, but the mistake is a natural one. We have already seenDF«.?10NSTRATION] that demonstration, as applied to physical hypotheams, meant only explanation : and that it could be said that a false hypothesis might give true demonstration; that is, might be shown to be capable of accounting for phenomena! To learn how matters stood in the present case, we must look to the words of the authorities. Of these there were two, the Inquisition, which took cognisance of the acts of heretics, and the Congregation of the Index, which examined and censured their books. In one and the same year (1616) the former silenced Galileo, the latter condemned the great work of Copernicus, and the writings of his followers. The decree which condemns them calls the doctrine of the earth's motion "false and altogether contrary to Scripture." And this decree prohibits not only the work of Foscarini, which endeavours to show that the doctrine is not contrary to Scripture, but also that of Copernicus, which does not touch the question of theology. This is plain enough, but we can make it still plainer. Four years after (1620), the same Cardinals of the Index, finding that the work of Copernicus could by slight alterations be made to speak the language of hypothesis, published the corrections under which they would allow it to be read.
Wo put a few senteuces of the work side by side with the alterations dictated by authority :— This surely will settle, in reasonablo minds of all persuasions, the question how much is permitted to a person speaking as a mathe matician, and by way of hypothesis. If Copernicus say the earth is a star [a word implying motion], the cardinals strike it out: if that it may be so, they alter it into a professed assumption for purposes of calculation. /low indeed could they allow dim/ prohibet on an opinion described by themselves as Dirinee Scripturte (mane adreraantcm For the documents cited see /Ueda, 'Alma& Nov.,' lib. ix. sect. iv.
Next, as to time assertion that the Inquisition pronounced no opinion on the truth of the doctrine. The two propositions, affirming both its falsehood and heresy, were drawn up, it is said, by the qualifieators• or 9uali Bern, inferior officers of the court, and not the court itself. This is a strange argument, and to make it relevant to any point it must be shown that the declaratory power of the Inquisition was lodged in its inferior officers, and not in its judges. If the tribunal were so consti tuted, it matters nothing to the point in question ; for the qualifiers did declare against the doctrine, that is, the court did pronounce a decision In its usual form and manner, and we assert nothing more. All that was done in any other case was done in this one. But in point of fact, it will be found that the qualifiers are only the assistants of the judges ; and the voluntary adoption of their conclusions by the cardinals makis those cardinals themselves the responsible parties. But further : it is not true that the final sentence of 1633 did no more than Mato the theses of the qualifiers as recapitulation of the proceedings of 1616. The defence before us asserts that the Inquisitors "did not at all trouble theioselves with considering the truth or falsehood, the inno cence or poison, of time opinion asserted." To this let the sentence Itself reply :—" And that this pernicious doctrine might be altogether removed, and might not further creep in, to the great injury of Catholic truth, a decree emanatedfrom the Sacred Congregation of the Index, by which the books which treat of this doctrine were prohibited, and the doctrine Itself was declared false, and altogether contrary to Scripture. But since a book has appeared at Florence in the pant year (1632), of which the inscription you [Galileo] were its author, the title being' &c., and whereas time sacred gation has come to know that since the printing of that work the false opinion of the motion of the earth has increased more and more from day to day, the said book was diligently considered," &c. And in the recantation Galileo is made to say that the opinion of the earth's motion le false and heretical, and that ho abjures and detests that error and heresy. It thus appears that there are four parties who declare the doctrine false and heretical—the qualifiers, the Inquisitors, the Congregation of the Index, and (perforce) Galileo lihnself.