4y I. \ -tk m Pr{Esii>ENT White Librae Cornell UNiVERsiTV BX1806 .R64"i87r'*' '•"'™^ The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029392168 7489 t |0tttiftc(il $tam against tde Jflatm , . 0f tde (Eartd '^^'^ CONSIDEEED EST THEIR BEAEING ON THE THEOEY OF ADVANCED ULTEAMONTANISM. ' Veritas liberaKt vos.' Joan. viii. 32. H^sr, W; W, "RoVierts |«onlJ €l)itJ0it, wbxs^ii. LONDON: LONGMANS, GEEEN, EEADEK, AND DYEK, PATEENOSTBR EOW. 1870. [_Price Two Shillings.] 2 'iM LONDON: BOESON AND SONS, PEINTERSj PAUOEAS BOAD, N.W. ^M tdf |0ntiftral §tcxm dpmt i\}t ^otm of it)t (Eartji OONSIDEEED IN THEIR BEAEESTG ON THE THEORT OP ADVANCED ULTRAMONTANISM. Rome in the 17th century stigmatising as false and anti- scriptural opinions she has since learnt from the Englishman Newton to recognise as true and sound, certainly seems to give the He direct to a theory that can be expressed as follows : 'Rome, let it never be forgotten, is commissioned to teach England and Germany ; not England or Germany to teach Eome. So far as any Englishmen or Germans are at variance with what is authoritatively inculcated in Eome, they are in- falUbly in error.'* But we have been told that the con- tradiction is only in appearance ; ' that the decision referred to was not a mistake on a matter of doctrine or of principle ; that it was not uttered by the Pope ex cathedra, but by Cardinals, for whom no one claims infallibility ; that it was a mere dis- ciplinary enactment very necessary for its times ; that it afforded true doctrinal guidance to contemporary Cathohcs, and was, in fact, the one legitimate appHcation of CathoHc principle to the circumstances with which it dealt.'f In the following pages I will endeavour to viadicate the relevancy of the objection, and show that all such answers as those jnst mentioned ignore the true history of the case. The judgment, the effect of which is in question, was first communicated to the Church in the following weU- known decree, which I transcribe from the Elenchus Lihrorum pro- * Authority of Doctrinal Decisions, by W. G. Ward, p, 96. t Ibid. p. 186. hibitorum, published at Eome in 1640, under the editorship of Capiferreus, who, be it obsei-ved, was secretary to the Index when the edict was issued : ' Decretum Sacrm Coitf/rrfiationis Illustrissimorum S.B.E. Cardil. a S. D. N. Faulo Papa V. Sanctdque Sale Apos- tolicd ad Indicem Librorum, eorumdemque permissionem, jjroldbltionem, expurgationem, et impressionein, in universd Rrpublicd Christiana speciallterDeputatorum, ubiquepubli- candum. ' Cum ab aHquo tempore citra, prodierint in lucem inter alios nonnulli libri varias hsereses atque errores continentes, ideo Sacra Oongregatio Elustriss. S. R. E. Cardd. ad Indicem Deputatorum, ne ex eorum lectione graviora in dies damna in tota Republica Christiana oriantur, eos omnino damnandos atque prohibendos esse voluit ; sicuti prsesenti Decreto penitus damnat et prohibet, ubicumque et quovis idiomate impressos aut imprimendos. Mandans, ut nullus deinceps, cujuscunque gradus et conditionis sub pcenis in Sacro Concilio Tridentino, et in Indice Librorum prohibitorum contentis, eos audeat im- primere aut imprimi curare, vel quomodocmique apud se detinere aut legere. Et sub iisdem pcenis quicunque nunc illos habent, vel habuerint in fiitm-um, locorum Ordinariis, seu Inquisitoribus, statim a prjEsentis Decreti notitia exliibere teneantur. Libri autem simt infrascripti, videlicet : 'Theologise Calvinistanmi Libri tres, auctore Corn-ado Schlusserburgio. ' Scotanus Redivivus, sivo Comentai-ius Erotematicus in tres priores libros Codicis, ite. ' Gravissima) Quasstionis de Christianai-um Ecclesiarum, in occidentis praesertim partilnis, ab Apostolicis tomporibus ad nostrum usque a;tatem continua successione et statu, historica cxplicatio. Auctore Jacobo Ussorio, S. Theologi;v in Dublini- ensi Acadomia apud Il^bernos I'l-ofossoro. 'Frodcrici Achillis Ducis A\'irtemberg. Consultatio do Principatu inter Proviticias Europ;v, habita Tubhio-r in lllustri CoUegici, anno Christi 1(W2. 'Donnclli Enucleati sivc Conu-utariorum llugonis Donelli de Jure Civili in compeudlum ita redactoruni, »)v.c. ' Et quia etiam ad notitiam prssfatse Sacrse Oongregationis pervenit, falsam illam doctrinam Pythagoricam, divinasque Scripturse omnino adversantem de mobiKtate Terrse et im- mobilitate Solis, quam Nicolaus Copernicus de revolutionibus orbium celestium, et Didacus a Stunica in Job etiam decent, jam divulgari et a multis recipi, sicuti videre est ex quadem epistoM impressa cujusdam Patris Carmelitse, cui titulus, Lettera del E. Padre Maestro Paolo Aiitonio Foscarini Car- meKtano sopra 1' opinione de' Pittagorici, e del Oopernico, deUa mobility della Terra e stabilita del Sole, et il nuovo Pitta- gorico Sistema del Mondo, in Napoli per Lazzaro Scoriggio 1615; in quS, dictus Pater ostendere conatur prsefatam doc- trinam de immobHitate SoHs in centro Mundi, et mobUitate Terrse, consonam esse veritati et non adversari Sacrse Scrip- turse : Ideo ne ulterius liujusmodi opinio in perniciem Ca- tholicsB veritatis serpat, censuit dictos Nicolaum Oopernicum de revolutionibus orbium, et Didacum a Stunica in Job suspendendos esse donee corrigantur. Librum vero Patris Pauli Antonii Foscarini Oarmelitse omnino prohibendum atque damnandum; aliosque omnes Libros pariter idem docentes, prohibendos, prout prsesenti Decreto omnes respective prohibet, damnat, atque suspendit. In quorum fidem prsesens De- cretum manu et sigiUo Ulustrissimi et Eeverendissimi D. Oardinalis SanctsB CEecilise Episcopi Albanensis signatum et munitum fuit die 5. Martii 1616. ' P. Episc. Albanen. Card. Sanctse Ceeciliaj. Locus+sigilli. 'P. Franciscas Magdalenus Capiferreus, Ord. Prasdicat. Secretarius.' I subjoin a translation of the part we have to do with : ' Since it has come to the knowledge of the above-named Holy Congregation that that false P}i;hagorean doctrine, altogether opposed to the divine Scripture, on the mobihty of the earth and the immobility of the sun, — ^which Nicolas Copernicus in his work De Revolutio7iibus Orbium Ceelestium, and Didacus a Stunica in his commentary on Job, teach, — is being promulgated and accepted by many, as may be seen from a printed letter of a certain Carmelite father, entitled 6 Lettera del R. Padre Maestro Paolo Antonio Foscarini sopra V opinione de' Pittagorici, e del Copernico della mohilita della Terra e siahilita del Sole, 8fc., wherein the said father has endeavoured to show that the doctrine of the immobility of the. sun in the centre of the universe, and the mobility of the earth, is consonant to truth and is not opposed to Holy Scrip- ture ; therefore, lest an opinion of this kind insinuate itself further to the destruction of Catholic truth, this Congrega- tion has decreed that the said books — Nicolas Copernicus De Revolutionibus and Didacus a Stunica on Job — be suspended till they are corrected ; but that the book of Father Paul Antony Foscarini the Carmehte be altogether prohibited and con- demned, and all other books that teach the same thing ; as the present decree respectively prohibits, condemns, and sus- pends all. In witness whereof this decree was signed and sealed with the hand and seal of the most illustrious and Reverend Lord Cardmal of Saint Ca;ciha, Bishop of Albano, on the 5th day of March 1616.' Now the Ultramontanist does, and, as we shall see, must, admit, that if this decree had been accompanied ^ith the clause 'quibus Sanctissimo per me infrascriptum relatis, Sanctitas sua decretum probavit et promulgari prascepit,' its declaration ought on his theory to have been infalUbly true ; but appearing as it did without that notice, it had not, he contends, the slightest pretensions from the principles of his school to be accounted anything more than a con- fessedly fallible utterance. Looking back, then, and calcu- lating what, humanly spcakino-, the chances were, he would fain persuade us that the erroneous decision under the cir- cumstances, so far from being a difficulty to him, is a positive argument in his favour, 'llow truly remarkable,' exclaims Dr. Ward, 'that no ad\erse doeision was put forth for which any one could even claim infallibility ! that the decree issued was C(iiigrej;ational, and not Pontifical ! . . . . T\1io can fail to see in all tliis the finger of (uhIT* 'Merito,' says M. Bouix, 'alligari valot dicta condemna- tio ad coufirmandum poutificiiu infallibilitatis pr;rrogativam. * Autlioritij of Doctrinal Decisions, pp, 182, 183. Nam si hoc totum Galilsei negotium perpendatiir, cuidam supemsB providentias tribuendum est, quod decreto Oar- dinalium non accesserit solita clausula de pontificia confirma- tione aut speciali mandato Our prsecise quoad tale decretum oinissum est, quod omitti non solet? Our iUa omissio quam sic testatur commissarius Sancti Officii, Pater Olivieri, on avait amis de /aire approuver le decret par le Pape ? Id fortuito casui forsan quis adscribendum existimabit! At mihi Hceat altiorem causam autumare. Cum nempe de- cretum istud errorem contineret, singulari sua providentia prsepedivit Christus ne a Romano Pontifice ex cathedr^ confirmaretur ; et sic illsesa remaneret cselitus concessa inerrantise prserogativa' (Bouix, Tractatus de Papa, vol. ii. p. 476). Tbe simple truth of the matter is this : — The custom re- ferred to is, comparatively speaking, quite modem; and the notion that a decree of the Index in 1616 ought by usage to have had the clause involves an anachronism most discredit- able to the author of a treatise on the Roman Curia. To prove this sufficiently for my purpose, I need only refer to the work whence I have taken the decree. The Elenchus of Capiferreus was, as I have said, pubhshed in 1640. It pro- fesses to give 'omnia decreta hactenus edita.' It contains, in fact, twenty-five congregational edicts. Not one has the clau- sula. So much for the insinuation that the omission in the case before us was something quite providentially exceptional; something that might have indicated an abnormal deficiency of authority. I now raise these two questions : — First, is it true that the Ultramontanist's general doctrine on the authority of Congregational decrees justifies his relegating the decision in question to the class of confessedly fallible utterances? Secondly, does not the denial of this judgment's infaUibihty involve an abandonment of the only ground upon which the infaUibility of a decree with the clause can be reasonably defended ? On turning to M. Bouix's Tractatus de Curia Romand* — a work Dr. Ward most warmly recommends to our notice — we learn that there are three kinds of Congregational decrees : * Pars iii, cap. vii. p, 471. 1. Those which the Pope puts forth in his own name after consulting a Congregation. 2. Those which a Congregation puts forth in its own name with the Pope's confirmation or express order to publish. 3. Those which a Congregation with the Pope's sanction puts forth in its own name, but without the Pope's confirmation or express order to pubKsh. Decrees of the first and second class, we are told, are certainly ex ca- thedri, and to be received with unqualified assent under pain of mortal sin. According to Zaccaria — a very great authority — even de- crees of the last class are not fallible, in the sense that they can ever condemn as erroneous a doctrine which is not so. To this M. Bouix demurs ; and liis reasons for so doing place his own position in the clearest possible Kght. As Dr. Ward has misrepresented that position, and as jSI. Bouix himself tries to shuffle out of it when he comes to deal with the diffi- culty under discussion, I will quote what he says, at full length, and in his own words. ' Privilegium inerrantiaa Komano Pontifici divinitus con- cessum ipsi omnino personale est ; neque potest Summus Poiitifex prserogativam illam aliis communicare. Textus enim Sacras Scripturas, et traditionis documenta quae Summi Pontificis infaUibUitatem adstruunt, simul aperte banc pite- rogativam exhibent tanquam ipsi exclusive ex di-\Tiia insti- tutioue propriam. Jam vero si infallibilia forent decreta dogmatica ex mandate generali a Sacris Congregationibus edita, incommunicabilis non esset infallibilitatis pran'ogativa. nee soli Komano Pontifici exclusive propria. Niim per ejus- modi generale mandatum deputantur quidem Cardmales ad judicandum de doctrina; ct auctoritato Pontificia hoc suum munus explent ; at judicia Cardinalium non sunt pivpric jmllcia ipsiusmet Pontifiuis, e as a strictly jiersoual prerogative. He cannot tliere- fore delegate it to others. Ilenco a decision to be infalli- ble must represent the Pope's own judgment on the matter it 11 is about. The general order under which the Congregations act invests them, indeed, with authority to decide, but, con- taining no judgment on the point to be decided, cannot render the decree they publish solely in virtue of that order, Papal in the sense required to guarantee it from error. Aiid as to Zaccaria's appeal to the testimony of experience — that a Congregation has never yet put forth an erroneous decision — the fact, if it be a fact, may be accounted for by supposing that the Cardinals have always been wise enough to consult the Pope before issuing a decree in a difficult case. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, the only decisions covered hy this reasoning are those that are not Papal judgments at all — those that cannot in any true sense be said to represent the Pope's own mind on the question at issue. But it is ad- mitted that the condemnation of Copernicanism was, and was known to he, a Papal judgment, and that the decree of 1616 was the result of Paul V.'s having applied his own mind to the very point to be settled. ' Paul V.,' says Dr. Ward, ' undoubtedly united with the Congregation of the Index in solemnly declaring that Copernicanism is contrary to Scrip- ture.'* Undoubtedly, then, that declaration is positively dis- quahfied for being placed under the only class of utter- ances M. Bouix has any right to call confessedly falhble. Now let us see whether its infalUbility can be denied vsdth- out abandoning the only ground on which the ex cathedrS. character of decrees of the second class can be defended, granting, for argument's sake, that they are decrees with the clause. Why does the Papal confirmation, or express order to pub- lish, argue infalhbihty ? Because, says M. Bouix, either fact proves that the judgment published is the Pope's own decision for the Church : — ' Infalhbilia sunt dicta decreta in posteriori etiam casu, id est, quando eduntur quidem nomine Sacra Congregationis, sed de speciali mandato Papse, aut accedente ipsius confirmatione. ' 1°. In casu accedentis Pontificise confirmationis, patet de- cretum ipsimet Pontifici esse attribuendum ; si quidem illud * AntlwHty of Doctrinal Decisions, p. 144. 12 confirmando suum fac'd. Et, cum aliunde sit dogmaticum el piilillcetar, per illud Summus Pontifcx universalem Ecclesiam docere censeiidus est ; ac proinde, infalliljile sit ejusmodi de- cretum necesse est. '2°. Infallibile etiam est decretum dogmaticum, SacrcB Congrecjatlonis nomine editum, si publicetur de speciali man- dato Pontificis. Hoc ipso enim quod Summus Pontifcx, habita notitia de aliquo ejusmodi decreto dogmatico, vult et jubet illud publicari, ipsum approbat ac suum facit. Proinde ipsemet judicat ac definit id ipsum, quod in decreto definitur. Ergo non minus valebit istud decretum quam si a Pontifice ipso imme- diate et ipsius nomine ederetur et publicaretur. Ergo et per ipsum censendus est Pontifex tanquam universalis Doctor, ac proinde infallibiliter, de dogmate pronuntiare' (Pars iii. c. \"ii. p. 480). A moment's reflection will show that ]M. Bouix stands pledged to the following principle : — Whenever the Pope passes judgment on a question of doctrine, and causes that judgment to be communicated to the Church, whether di- rectly, in his own name, or indirectly, in the name of a Cvn- fjregation, he judges ex cathedra, and infaUibly. Dr. Ward does not choose to see this, and gives a very different ac- comit of the matter. 'The Pope,' he says, 'exercises two different functions, not to speak of more: (1) that of the Church's Infallible Teacher; and (2) that of her Supreme Governor. The former he can in no sense delegate ; but of the latter he may delegate a greater or less portion, as to him may seem good. Moreover, in either of these characters he may put forth a doctrinal de- cree ; but with a somewhat different bearing. It' he put it forth as Universal Teacher, he says, in effect, "I teach the wliole Chnrcli such a doctrine;" and the doctrine is of course known tliei'eb)- to be infallibly true. But it' he put forth a doctrinal decree as Supreme (iovernor, lie says, in effect, ''I shall govern the Church on the principle that this doctrine is true.'' Tliat the dorti'liie so recommended has an extremely strong claim on a Catholic's interior assent, is the very thesis wliieh we are presently to urge ; but, of course, it is not in- 13 fallibly true ; because no Papal dicta have that characteristic, unless the Pope utters them in his capacity as Universal Teacher' (Autli. of Doc. Dec. pp. 130, 131). Thus, according to Dr. Ward, the question turns on the mode of publication. Papal dicta put forth by the Pope in his capacity of Universal Teacher are ex cathedrS,, and to be ac- counted infallibly true. Papal dicta put forth by the Pope in his capacity of Supreme Euler are not ex cathedra, but con- fessedly fallible. How, then, does it foUow from the Pope's having ordered a Congregation — which, mark. Dr. Ward tells us, p. 132, represents him exclusively in his capacity of Su- preme Governor — to pubHsh even a doctrinal decree in its name, that he has spoken ex cathedra ? And most clearly it follows from the distinction laid down, that a Papal judgment com- municated to the Church solely through the medium of a disciplinary decree is confessedly not ex cathedra. Let us hear what the Pope himself has to say upon this subject. On the 8th of January 1857 the works of a distinguished theologian and philosopher, Giinther, were condemned by what, according to all theological rule, was nothing more than a disciplinary decree.* Giinther himself submitted, and so did many of his followers. Some of them, however, contended that a mere disciplinary decree was not conclusive against the soundness of their master's tenets. Whereupon, to set them right, his Holiness, on the 15th of June, the same year, addressed a brief to the Archbishop of Cologne, containing the following passages : ' Nos quidem, pro Apostolici Nostri ministerii ofBcio, nullis unquam parcentes curis nuUisque laboribus, ut fidei depositum Nobis divinitus concreditum integrum inviolatumque custo- diatur, ubi primum a pluribus Venerabilibus Fratribus spec- tatissimis Germaniaa Sacrorum Antistitibus accepimus, non pauca Giintheri libris contineri, quse ipsi in sincerse fidei et catholicse veritatis pemiciem cedere arbitrabantur ; nulM in- terposit^ mor^, eidem Congregationi commisimus, ut ex more, opera ejusdem Giintheri accurate diligenterque excuteret, perpenderet, examinaret, ac deinde onmia ad Nos referret. * Conf. Bouix, Tractatus de Ouria Eomana, pars iii. cap, vii. p. 471. 14 Cum igitur ipsa Oongregatio Nostris mandatis obsequuta suo- que munere functa, omnem in hoc, gravissimo sane maximi- que momenti negotio, curam et operam scite riteque collo- caverit, nullumque prsetermiserit studium in Giintheriana doctrina accuratissimo examine noscenda ac ponderanda, ani- madvertit plura in Giintheri libris reperiri omnino improbanda ac damnanda, utpote quae catliolicsB Ecclesise doctrinae maxime adversarentur. Hinc rebus omnibus a Nobis etiam perpensis, eadem Oongregatio Decretum illud suprem^ Kostra Auctori- tate probatum, Tibique notissimum edidit, quo Giintheriana opera prohibentur et interdicuntur. Quod quidem Decretum, Nostr^ Auctoritate sancitum Nostroque jussu vulgatum, suffi- cere plane debebat, ut qusestio omnis penitus dirempta censere- tur, et omnes qui catholico gloriantur nomine clare aperteque inteUigerent sibi esse omnino obtemperandum, et sinceram haberi non posse doctrinam Giintherianis hbris contentam, ac nemini deinceps fas esse doctrinam iis Hbris traditam tueri ac propugnare, et illos hbros sine debita facultate legere ac retinere. A quo quidem obedientias debitique obsequii officio nemo immunis propterea videri censerique poterat, quod in eodem Decreto vel nuUas nominatim propositiones notarentur, vel nulla certa stataque adhiberetur censura. Ipsum enim per se valebat Decretimi, ne qui sibi integrum putarent, ab iis qufe Nos comprobavimus, utcumque discedere.' Thus the Pope says in effect, 'The original judgment on Giinther's works, because it was Papal, cleai'ly ought to have been accounted ex cathedra, althoxicih it was pre- sented to the Church solely through the medium of a disci- plinari/ decree; in other words, although it icas put forth by the Pope excluclveJii in his eapaciti/ of Supreme Bulcr.'' A. more thorough-going indorsement of the principle wc have extracted from M. Bouix, in opposition to Dr. Ward's, it would be difficult to conceive. The former gentleman, indeed, in his y'ractatus de Papa, to save himself from the consequences of his own doctrine when applied to the decree of lGlt>, catches at Hlie clause,' and quietly argues as if it were the same thing as a Bull or Brief of confimiation. But the as- sumption is false. The clause is a notice not from the Pope 15 himself, but from the Secretary of the Congregation, who certifies, not that his Holiness approved the decree publicly, but in his the attestor's presence ; and ordered it to be pub- lished : — in whose name ? In the name of the Congregation. And mark, in the case of Giintlier's condemnation, the de- cree itself contained no assertion whatever that the works condemned were unsound. ' Yet,' says Pius IX., ' that decree, sanctioned by our authority and promulgated by our command, plainly ought to have sufficed that the whole question be judged entirely settled, and all who boast of the Catholic name should clearly and distinctly understand that complete obedience was to be paid to it ; and that the doctrine contained in Giinther's books might not be accounted sound. . . . Nor could any one deem himself excused from rendering such due tribute of obe- dience and submission on the ground that in the decree no propositions were marked by name, no determinate censure was expressed. For the decree itself was quite sufficient to prevent any one's thinking himself at liberty to depart in the slightest degree from what we have approved.' I submit, then, that his Holiness plainly teaches us that the question does not turn on any such distinction as Dr. Ward imagines, but that Catholics ought to regard it as infalUbly certain that an opinion is unsound, if the Church has received an official intimation that the Pope has declared it to be so. I have only, then, to show that the Church re- ceived an official intimation that the decision against Coperni- canism was Papal, and that judgment's claims on Ultramon- tanist ground to be accounted infallibly true will be evident. But, in the first place, I contend that the decree of 1616 by itself was such a notice ; for it emanated from a Congregation acting under the provisions of a Bull which distinctly gave the Church to understand, that decisions of the kind would invari- ably be examined and ratified by the Holy See before publi- cation, and would go forth clothed with Papal authority. With regard to all the Congregations Sextus V. had said, ' Congregationes quindecim constituimus, singuhsque certa negotia assignavimus, ita ut graviores difficilioresqv£ consulta- tiones ad nos referant. . . . Et quoniam divinis oraculis admo- nemur, ubi multa consilia, ibi salutem, adesse e£edem Congre 16 gationes pro earum arbitrio viros Sacras Theologian, Pontificii Oa3sareiqiie juris peritos, et rerum gerendarum usu pollentes in consultationibus advocent atque adhibeant ; ut causis, quaistionibus, et negotiis quam optima discussis, quae Dei gloriaj animarumque saluti, et justitise atque asquitati con- sentanea maxime erunt, decernantur : graviora vero quwcunqice ad nos vel successores nostras deferantur, ut quid secundum Deum expediat, ejus fjratia adjuvantp, mature statuamus.'' And with special reference to the Congregation of the Index: ' Quare ut Cardinales, qui ad libros prohibendos expurgan- dosve delecti sunt, in ea cura diligenter ac majore cum fractu versentur, has illis facultates tribuimus, ut librorum ejusmodi catalogos et indices, aut proxime confectos, eorumque regulas editas recognoscant atque examinent, certorum auctorum libros proliibitos, aut quo^-is modo in prioribus indicibus sus- penses diligenter excutiant, et prout expedire judicaverint, permittant libros, qui post Indicem Tridentini Concilii jussu editum prodierunt, CatliolicaB doctrinse Christianorumque mo- rum disciplinse repugnantes, expendant ct recognoscant, ac uhi nobis retulerint, nostra auctoritate I'ejiciant.' There could have been no doubt that the question to be settled bj the decree of 161(> had been dealt with as one of the graviora. It concerned the prohibition of a work hitherto sheltered under the highest ecclesiastical patronage — the con- demnation of a theory that had been before the Church un- censured for more than seventy years — one that many of the ablest scientific men of the day thought would tiu-n out to be the truth. The consequences of a mistake might be very serious. I say, then, that as soon as the decree appeared, Cathohcs ought to have presumed from Soxtus A'.'s Bull* that it expressed not only the judgment of the Cardinals of the In- dex, but the judgment of the Pope, and that his Holiness had directly sanctioned its issue. * liVomond of Louvnin, on the strcn<;tli of this Bull, regarded it as cer- tain that llio lU'LTuo liiul liL'oii examined iind ratified by the rope, but he doubts whetlier iinythinK biit a direct utterauco from the Vo\>e to the Church would warrant his pronounolna; the Copcruicans oj)c>i kerctUs, 17 But the publication of the Dialogo caused Eome in 1633 to challenge the Church's attention to testimony directly evincing the Papal character of the decision — to the very evidence in fact which compels Dr. Ward to admit ' that Paul Y. undoubt- edly united vfiih. the Congregation of the Index in solemnly declaring that Copernicanism is contrary to Scripture.' It then appeared from the account of things* vv^hich the Congregation of the Inquisition, by order of Urban VHI., promulgated expressly for the benefit of Catholic men of sci- ence, — that, on Galileo's impeachment before the Holy Office in 1615 for his doctrine on the fixity of the sun and the motion of the earth, and for his manner of dealing with the objected passages of Scripture, the following steps were taken by that holy Tribunal to obviate the inconveniences and prejudices which were arising and prevailing to the injury of the sacred faith : 1. By order of the Lord Pope and the Lord Cardinals of the supreme and universal Inquisition two propositions were qualified by the theological qualifiers of the Holy Office as follows, — That the sun is in the centre of the universe and im- movable from its place, is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptm'e. That the earth is not the centre of the universe nor im- movable, but that it moves, and also has diurnal motion, is absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith. 2. To deal mildly with the accused, it was decreed in a Congregation held in the Pope's presence, on the 25th February- 1616, that Cardinal Bellarmine should enjoin him to give up altogether the said false opinion; and in the event of his refusal, the Commissary of the Holy Office was to command him, under threat of imprisonment, to abandon it altogether, and forbid him to teach, defend, or treat of it in any manner whatever, either by word of mouth or in writing. The following day this order was executed, and Galileo on promising obedience was dismissed. * See Appendix A. B 18 3. The Index was brought into action to give public effect to these proceedings. 'And to the end,' said the document, 'that so pernicious a doctrine might he altogether taken away, and spread no further to the lieavy detriment of CathoHc truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index, in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.' ' Et ut prorsus toUeretur tam pemiciosa doctrina neque ulterius serperet in grave detrimentum Catholicse veritatis, emanavit decretum a Sacra Cougregatione Indicis, quo fuerunt prohibiti libri qui tractant de hujusmodi doctrina ; et ea de- clarata fuit falsa et omnino contraria sacrse et divinse Scrip- turse.' ' We do not weU see,' says Dr. Ward, commenting on the Brief ' JEximiam iwctwi,' 'how "penitus dirempta" can well imply anything less than a final and absolute determination.' And I do not see how ' prorsus toUeretur' can well mean less than ' penitus dirempta.' And observe in what emphatic and unmistakable terms Rome repudiated the notion that the decree might be inter- preted as a practical direction, as a measure of caution for the time being, or as anything short of an absolute settlement of the question. 'Understanding,' the Congregation said, 'that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di (iali- leo Galilei Jelle due niassime Si!resim propriam talis esse nntura3 ut ab omnibus viris doctis et Catliolicis cen- seatur hiercsis post diligentem criminis oognitionem' (Z)e T7rt. Did. Fidei, disp. XX. sect. ii. tiO, C2, (!:i). * Speaking of tho Declarations of tlic Congregntion of the Council of Trent, Fagnanus sajs ; ' Quotiescunque emergentia dubia nondum dooisa roBolvuntur, ad prascriptuni t'onstitutionis Sixti V. do omnibus consuevit iieri relatio Tapm a Cardinali Prafecto vol a 8ocretai-io Congrogatiouis, ut ego ipse diu obsorvavi, livct hi in (/(iliirationibus ixprimi ncc opus sit, nee semjii'f solcat' {Uc Const, r. Qiioiiiam, torn., i. p. 134). 25 Galileo to abjure his opinions, inasmuch as they had not been condemned ex cathedra ; but he thinks the Congregation pro- ceeded in ignorance, not malice :* ' Porro in hoc mihi videtur dictum tribunal ahquid humani passum esse ; sua3 scihcet potestatis limites excessisse, et in- justum exstitisse, non quidem ex pravo ullo affeciu, seel ex errore. Enimvero dictam Galilsei opinionem nondum infaUi- bilis Ecclesise auctoritas, id est, Summus Pontifex ex cathedra loquens, erroneam aut hsereticam pronuntiaverat. Ipsa autem Inquisitionis congregatio poterat quidem de ista opinione judi- care, eique notas theologicas quse justse viderentur (etiam hsereseos) inurere, et prohibere sub poenis no quis earn externe propugnaret. At hoc ipsius judicium utpote cui nondum accesserat Summi Pontificis ex cathedr^ loquentis confirmatio, remanebat faUibile. Proinde, nee Galilseus, nee quivis aHus, poterat juste adigi ut interne et ex animo iUi judicio ad- hsereret.t Unde Sacra Inquisitionis Congregatio, GaHlseum adigendo ut corde sincero et jidi non fictd opinionem de terrse motu abjuraret, idque antequam cardinalium hac in re judi- cium confirmasset ex cathedr^ loquens Summus Pontifex, potes- tatis SUES Hmites excessit, ac injuste egit' (p. 485). As if a Congregation composed of Cardinals, carefully- selected by the Pope to try a difficult case, might be credited with a piece of theological ignorance that would disgrace a candidate for ordination ! M. Bouix is forgetting the Munich Brief. ' Incidit in Soy 11am cupiens vitare Charybdim.' But how about the Pope's share in the business ? The Congregation did not exceed its rights in the opinion of the * Monsignor Marini, on the contrary, is ia ecstasies over the sentence, and thinks that perhaps no judicial act ever came up to it in wisdom and justice : ' Non possiamo a rendere 11 debito elogio alia giustizia, sapienza, e moderazione della stessa Inquisizione, non affermare non esservi fosse mai stato nfe cosi giusto n6 cosi sapiente atto giudiziario che questa seutenza' (^Galileo e V Inquisizione, p. 141). t Dr. Ward, on the contrary, dogmatically asserts that no Catholic is permitted to hold the opinion here advanced. I cannot think that he has succeeded in vindicating his own doctrine on the subject. It is certainly quite irrelevant to the present Issue ; for plainly the assent demanded from GalUeo by Urban VIII. was of the most absolute kind— the assent of faith. 26 Pope, and whatever injustice it committed lies at Urban VHI.'s door. Upon that point there cannot be the shadow of a doubt. M. Bouix is prepared for something of the kind being said. ' Objicies : Hac in re nihil egit Inquisitionis tribunal nisi assentientc et dirigente Urbano VIII.; ergo si admittatur error, in ipsum Papam refundendus est. 'Respondeo: Distingue antecedens : nisi assentiente Urbano VIII. quatenus doctore privato transeat ; quatenus loquente ex cathedr^, nego. Item, distingue consequens : refundendus error in ipsum Papam quatenus dociorem privatum, transeat ; qua- tenus loquentem ex cathedra, nego. Unde ad summum ex objectione sequeretur ipsum etiam Urbanum VIII. quatenus doc- torem piivatum hac in re deviass^ (p. 486). So the head of a Congregation is not to be held officially responsible for the acts it does with his full knowledge and consent ! But M. Bouix writes as if he knew nothing of those extracts from the original minutes of the process M. I'Epinois published some three years ago in the Revue des Questions Ilistoriques. In the face of that e^•idence he might as well deny that GalUeo's trial took place at all, as say that the Pope did not preside over it fi'om first to last in his official cajiacity. It was not that the Congregation did nothing ' nisi assentiente et dirigente Urbano VIH.,' but ' nisi jubente et mandante Sanctissimo.' The facts were as follows : — The Dialogo was published at the beginning of the year 1632. Late in the spring it reached tlie authorities at Rome. Towards the end of tlic smnmer liis Hohnoss ordered a com- mission to examine tlie work, and draw up a report of the circiiiiistanccs luider wliich the imprimatur had l)oen obtained. The iolldwing list was returned of the points forming the corpus delicti : observe No. lY. :— ' Confonne alP ordiiie dclln Siintila vcsfra si e distosa tutta la scrie del I'alto occorso circa 1" impressione del libro del (lalilei (jualc pui eslato iinprossn in Fiivn/.a Nel libra poi ci sono da coiisiderare come per corjio di dclitto le cose so- il uenti : 27 ' I. Aver posto 1' imprimatur di Eoma senza ordine e senza participar la publicatione con chi si dice aver sottoscritto. ' II. Aver posto dal corpo dell' opera et aver posto la medi- cina del fine in bocca di un sciocco et in parte che ne anche si trova, se non con difEcolta, approvata poi dall' altro inter- locutore freddamente, e con accennar solamente o non distin- guer il bene che mostra dire di mala voglia. ' HI. Mancarsi nell' opera molte volte e recedere dall' hipo- tesi, o asserendo assolutamente la mobility della terra e stabi- Hta del sole, o quabficando gli argumenti su che la fonda per demostrativi e necessarii, o trattando la parte negativa per impossibile. ' TV. Tratta la cosa come non decisa, e come che si aspetti e non si presupponga la definizione. ' V. Lo strapazzo degl' autori contrarii, e di chi piu si serve S. Chiesa. ' VI. Asserirci e dichiararsi male qualche uguagHanza nel comprendere le cose geometriche tra 1' intelletto umano e divino. ' VII. Dar per argomento di veritk che passino i Tolemaici ai Oopernicani, e non e contra. ' Vm. Haver mal ridotto 1' esistente flusso e reflusso del mare nella stabUitk del sole e mobibta della terra non esistenti. ' Tutte le quali cose si potrebbono emendare se si giudicasse esser qualche utilita del Ubro del quale gli si dovesse far questa grazia' (MS. minutes of the process, p. 387 ; quoted in Revue des Questions Historiques, July 1867, pp. 156-8). The immediate result of this representation was an injunc- tion to stop the sale of the Dialogo, and sequestrate all obtain- able copies (IMarini, p. 117). And on the 23d of September a letter was sent by the Pope's command to the Inqmsitor- General of Florence, bidding him serve Galileo with a sum- mons to present himself before the Commissary of the Holy Oifice in Rome some day during the ensuing month, ' Sanctissimus mandavit Inquisitor! Florentise scribi ut eidem Galileo nomine S. Congregationis significet quod per totum mensis Octobris proximum compareat in Urbe coram Commissario Generali S. Officii, et ab eo recipiat promis- 28 sionem de parendo huic pra3cepto, quod eidem faciat coram notario et testibus, ipso tamen Galileo penitus inscio, qui in casu quo illud admittere noluit, et parere iion promittat, pos- sint id testificare, si opus fuerit' (Quoted by Alarini, p. 120, from MS. p. 394). On the 1st of October, Galileo acknowledged the execu- tion of this order, and promised obedience (MS. p. 398 ; quoted by Marini, p. 121). At the same time, he did not mean to go if he could help it. On the 13th he wrote to Cardinal Bar- barino expressing his surprise 'that his enemies had been able to persuade the authorities that his work deserved suppression : and the pain he felt at having been summoned to Eome as though he had committed some grave delinquency. In aU his writings he had ever kept the interests of the Chvirch steadily in view; and though he would rather die than disobey, he trusted that his great age, the state of his health, what he must suffer in a journey to Rome, might be considered suffi- cient reasons for the Congregation to grant him at least a reprieve.'* Niccolini, not without misgi-\dngs, and mainly in deference to Father Castelli's advice, presented the letter. In -v-NTiting back to Galileo on the subject, he points out the necessity of absolute submission ; that he must not think of defending his opinions, but must be prepared to make any retractation the Holy Office chose to demand : ' Quanto poi al negozio, creda pure che gli saru necessario non entrare in difesa di quelle cose che la Congregazione non approva, ma deferire a quella, e ritrattarsi nel modo che vor- ranno i Cardinali di essa, altrimenti trovera difficolta grand- issime nelF espedizione della causa sua, come e intervenuto a molti altri ; ne paidaitJo cristianamciitc, si pud pniendere altro die quello che voijliono loro, come tribunal supremo che non pu!j eri'rt/'c.'t In the mean time the ambassador left no stone unturned to get the order rcsciiulod ; but in v;iin. Cinotti, one of the Carelinals, and iSiguor l>occabell;i, tlic Assessor of the Holy * Ojirrr ili '.). 1 TIki Cardinal, I ima5,'iiio, purposel.v omitted the words for Oalileo's sake, that his cuomios might not ti\-it him with being under special restraint. 33 But the evidence -was dead against him. And we cannot wonder that the consultors of the Holy Office — Augustinus Oregius, Melchior Inchofer, and Zacharias Pasqualigus — pro- tested against his defence, and declared their conviction that the accused had held, defended, and taught the theory of the earth's motion. It remained for the Pope to determine what should be done. He must have been morally sure that Galileo had not spoken the truth ; and had it been his object to crush tlie man, he would, I take it, have cited witnesses to convict him of perjury, or he might have condemned him for heresy on the data he had. Instead of doing either of these things, he decreed as follows : Galileo was to be questioned about his intention. He was to be threatened with the torture.* If he stood the threat, * ' Lugendum est,' remarks M. Bonix, ' quod in processus decttrsu tortu- ram physioam Galiljeo Cardinales comminati sint.' Yes; but more lament- able still is tie moral blindness of those who could see no harm in tricking a person into making a confession by threatening the torture, when, from age or other circumstances, its actual infliction was not intended. ' Si inquisitores habent vehementem opiuionem contra i-eum, quamvis extra processum, possunt eum verialiter terrere, minando torturam, etiamsi legitima indicia non procedant ; quia hoc non est torquere, nisi sit persona timida. ' Em-sus, torquere non possunt minores 14 annis' (ita Delrius, lib. v. sect. ix. contr. Tilladiego, pol. i. 3, n. 322). 'Possunt tamen tales terrere ducendo sub equuleo absque ligatura' {ita Miranda, ibid, initio). ' Et tandem non possunt torquere senes. Sed senectus non est annoi-um numero computanda (ut doeet VUlagut, Prax. Ci-im. tit. v. c. xxi. n. xii. requi- rens annos 60), sed valetudine, robore, qualitate delicti et deUnquentis, inqui- sitorum arbitrio. Quando vero torquere non possunt, posse terreri, ait Caval- canus, p. iii. n. 126' {Diana, Summa, pars post. n. 108, 140, 141). It is not true that the Popes only permitted the use of tortm-e ; they enjoined it, as M. Bouix perfectly weU knows, under threat of excommunica- tion, and promoted it by express decrees. See Constitutions, ' Ad extirpanda,' of Inn. IV., Alex. IV., Clement IV., and the foUowing: ' InhsGrendo decretig alias per feUcis recordationis Paulum Papam Quartum D. N. Pius V. decrevit omnes et quoscunque reos confessos et con-rictos de hseresi pro ulteriori veri- tate habenda, et super complicibus, fore torquendos arbitrio D. D. Judicum' (Quoted by Carena, de Sancto Off. pars ii. p. 66). The Holy Office, it was held, could less than any Court dispense with this method of getting at the truth, and for the following reasons : ' Inquisitores,' says Diana, ' debent esse proniores ad torturam, quia crimen h(sresis est occultum et difficilis proba- tionis. Simancas addit aUam rationem, quia confessio rei in casu hseresis non solum reipublicHS sed ipsimet heretico proficit' {Summa, pars post. 104). ' Quod hasretici torqueantur pro ulteriori veritate cfec. clarissimum est, et ab omnibus pro indubitato prsesupponitur. Quoniam hffiresis delictum est in mente residens, et occultum, singulare habet hoc Officium S. Inquisitionis ut 31 he was to be condemned, after making the abjuration 'de vehement!' in a full assembly of the Holy Office, to im- prisonment during the pleasure of the Sacred Congrega- tion. An injunction was to be laid on him never again to treat of the heliocentric theory, for or against, by word of mouth or in writing, under pain of being dealt with as a relapsed heretic. The Dialogo was to be prohibited. And that all might loiow these things, his Holiness commanded the Congregation to send copies of the sentence to all the Nuncios Apostolic, to all the Inquisitors of heretical pravity,* and expressly to the Inquisitor of Florence, Avho was to sum- mon a number of mathematical professors to hear it read pubHcly. Ms. fol. 451. 'Die 16 Junii 1633. Galilei de GalUeis de quo supra proposito cautus Sanctissimus decre\'it ipsum interrogandum esse super intentione, et comminata ei tortura, ac si sustinuerit, previa abjuratione de vehementi in plena congregatione S. Officii, condemnandum ad carcerem arbitrio Sacra3 Congregationis, injuncto ei ne de csetero scripto vel per tormenta judices violatce Eeligionis possint se certificare, an tene, an male, de fide eenserit reus in hoc Sancto Tribimali inquisitus.' ' Quod confitentes Be hiEreticalia verta protulisse, Bed intentionem lucreti- cam ecse habuisse negantos, qvod super ista inUntionis qvalitate torqueantnr, et torquere soleant in hoc Sancto Ofiicio, nemo in hoc Sacro Tribunal!, vel mediocriter TersatuB, ignorat . . . Katie hujns eonclusionis est qnia de jn(cn- tioiw istius rci non potest Ecclesia {qua; de occultis non solet judicare) sese certificare nisi pier tormenta et oh id reos svper intentione ista torquere soltt' (Carena, de S. Officio, pars ii. pp. 62, 63). Nevei-theless I beliere that, as a rule, the physical torments of the Inquisition ivere less severe than those of most Beculai- courts of the day. Certainly we find the best authorities dis- countcnanciuK and inveighing against novel and excessive kinds (cf. Fctjna in Eymeric. liinct. pars iii. p. 5'J4). * In this part of the order the Pope not obscm'ely intimated his will that the Copernicanly-minded C'atholioB should be forced to yield assent to the de- cinion of 1616. For the lociil tribunals of the Inquisition were to take their tone from the Supreme Com-t. 'Jura ubiiiuc eliuiinnt majoreH EcclesiiT' causaB, et prnsertim qufs articn- loB fidci tangnnt, ad Sedem Aiuistolicam esse referendas. Ergo privati eivi- tatum Inquisitores, si tutius el seeuvius tractai-e omnia cupiunt, cum leges deficinnt, aut etiara obscurm sunt lepes, stylum et eonsuetudincm Snpremi SenatuB Inquisitionis lienmiiai, quto cetenirum caput est, consulant et se- quantur. In liao enira nullum eat erroris ptiieulum ; mim privterquam quod a BapientiBsiiiiis jiulieibiis et vigilnntissimiB eiiufa^ fidei triietantm-, quotidie etinm Siniimum I'diitiliei'm eensulere licet, cnjns judicium quantam in rebus fidei liiilieat anetoritatein explorntist^imum est. apud Catholicos' {Franciscus I'eijmi in Kijmeiic. Direct. Inqnisil. I>e Aucturit. £.rtrav. p, 1-19). 35 verbo tractet amplius quovis modo de mobilitate terrse nee de stabilitate solis et e contra, sub poena relapsus. Libnun vero ab eo conscriptum, cui titnlus est : Dialogo di Galileo Galilei Linceo, prohibendum fore. Prseterea, ut hsec omnibus innotes- cant, exemplaria sententise de supra ferendse transmitti jussit ad omnes Nuncios Apostolicos, et ad omnes hereticse pravitatis Inquisitores, ac prsecipue ad Inquisitorem Florentise, qui earn intimarent in ejus plen^ congregatione, accersitis etiam et coram plerisque mathematicge artis professoribus pubHce legi.'* Accordingly, on the 21st of June, Galileo underwent a final examination with respect to bis intention in writing the Dialogo.^ He was asked to say whether he held, or had held, and since when, that the sun is in the centre of the universe, and that the earth is not the centre, but moves, and with a diurnal movement. He rephed that before the determination of the Congrega- tion of the Index, and until he received an order to the con- trary, he had suspended his judgment on the matter, and had thought it open to dispute whether the truth lay with Ptolemy or Copernicus, there being no reason in the natm-e of things why either might not be right. But the moment his superiors decifled the question he ceased to doubt, and held, and con- tinued to hold, the opinion of Ptolemy, that the earth is fixed, and that the sun moves. The Congregation submitted that his having written the Dialogo was inconsistent with this statement, and tu-ged him to speak the truth. He said that his object in writing the Dialogo was to ex- hibit the astronomical and physical arguments that might be advanced on both sides of the controversy ; and to show that as reason could not settle the question, recourse must be had to a higher teaching — ' alia determinatione di pin sublimi dot- trine.' He concluded by again asserting that he did not hold the condemned opinion, and had not held it since its condem- nation.t ^ * Bevue des Questions Historiques, vol. iii. p. 129. t Ibid. ' Extraits du ms. dn Vatican,' vol. iii. pp. 168, 169. J Dr. Ward seems to think that GaUleo was probably speaking the tmth. I think lie -will change his mind after referring to the philosoplier's letter to 36 He was then warned that the presumption was so strong af!;ainst him, that if he did not confess, the court must have recourse to the remedies the law provided for such cases. He repeated his assertion that he had not held the opinion of Copernicus since he had been ordered to give it up : 'I am in your hands, and you must do what you think fit.' He was then told in plain terms, that if he did not speak the truth, he would be put to the torture. ' I am here,' he said, ' to obey. I have not held that opinion since the decision against it.' The Congregation, having so far carried out the Pope's decree, dismissed him to his place : ' Et cum nihil aliud posset haberi in executionem decreti, habita ejus subscriptione, remissus fuit ad locum suum.' The next day he was summoned to the convent of the Minerva ; and there, in the presence of the Cardinals and prelates of the Holy OfSce, the sentence we have already con- sidered was pronounced, and he made his abjuration. It appears that on the 30th of June his Holiness again expressly enjoined the publication of the sentence.* The assertion, then, that the Pope directed the proceed- ings simply as a doctor privatus, and did not make himself officially responsible for the result, is plainly at variance with the truth. And whatever may be thought of tlie decree of the 16th of June as a display of personal feelmg, its doctrinal significance is indisputable. It was an act whereby his Holiness caused a Pontifical Congregation to inculcate it first on Galileo, and then on the Church, tliat the opinion of the earth's motion, having been absolutely condemned as false and altogether opposed to God's Word, ouglit to be detested by Catholics as a heresj^ opposed to the Holy Catholic and .Vpostolic Roman Church. And the lesson to us is, that a Papal utterance purporting to be deelarator}- of the mind of the Hiily Eoman Church on a Prinoo C'csi, 'J.T Sojit. 1 fi2 1 ; to Cosaro Marsili, 7 Deo. 10'24 ; to Elia Dioilati, 15 Jan. 1(1;):!; conl'. also Niccoliiii'h letter, '.I April KW:!. * Ms, ;)(! Jim. 1G33. ' Onlro ilu Papo a I'luquisiteur do Floreuco do pnb- lier la sonleiioo oonti-o Galilee' ('Exti-aits du ms. du Vatican,' Scouc dcs Quest. Hist. p. Ki'.l). 37 point of doctrine, put forth to influence the faith of Cathohcs, may be a misleading blunder. ' In a thousand different ways,' says Dr. Ward, ' he (the Pope) may sufficientlj- indicate his intention of teaching the Church ; but whenever and however he may do so, the Holy Ghost interposes to preserve his instructions from every the slightest intermixture of error' {Brief Summary, p. 13). And elsewhere, drawing a parallel between the Pope and an Apostle, he says, ' In the Christian Church there is no " acceptation of persons ;" no doctrinal favouritism : whatever doctrine is in- fallibly revealed at all, is infallibly revealed for the whole Church. The Apostle may have originally addressed it to a local church, or even to an individual ; but he none the less de- livered it in his capacity of Universal Teacher. Still, then, we have come to no point of difference between the Apostolic Rule of Faith as understood by all Christians, and the inodern Roman Catliolic Rule as understoodby Roman Catholics ; except, indeed, that in the former there icere twelve Universal Teachers, and in the latter there is no more than one' (Second Letter to F. Ryder, P-32). ' The question is not about addressing himself, but about commanding interior assent. But the Pope — mark this — never exacts absolute and unreserved assent to any doctrine from indi- vidual Catholics, except where he exacts such assent from the whole body of Christians, otherwise he luould himself destroy that unity of faith ivhich it is his office to maintain' (' Infallibility and the Council,' Dublin Review, Jan. 1870, p. 200). But Urban VIII. did exact from Gahleo absolute and unreserved assent to the doctrme of the decision of 1616, therefore he exacted such assent from the whole body of Christians; there- fore his act was ex cathedr^. Q.E.D.* I have yet another question to raise. If the Ultramontanist * And quite recently ' an ex eathedi-a act is an act in which some Pope purports to teach the whole Church obligatory dootriae' {Dublin JReview for April 1870, p. 399). And must not the Pope he purporting to teach the Church obligatory doctrine when he commands such a Congregation as that of the Inquisition to represent it to the Church that a cei-tain doctrine has been insisted upon in Eome as a truth of revelation — as a portion of the teach- ing of the Roman Church ? 38 could show us that the judgment against Copernicus was nothing more than a decision on a matter of doctrine put forth by a Pontifical Congregation, would he be out of his difficul- ties ? I think not. He is obliged by his theory to regard the Munich Brief as an infallible utterance. Accordingly, he must believe that the Holy Ghost has guaranteed the absolute truth of an instruction to this effect. ' It results from the principles of true theology that men cannot have that perfect adhesion to revealed truth which is necessary for the progress of science and the refuting of error, unless (1) they peld that subjection which is to be rendered in an act of divine faith, not only to dogmata expressly defined by decrees of Ecumeni- cal Councils and the Roman Pontiffs, but also to those things which are delivered as divinely revealed by the teaching authority of the Church dispersed throughout the world, and which are therefore accounted by Catholic theologians to appertain to the faith. And unless (2) they subject them- selves in conscience as well to the decisions on matters per- taining to doctrine that are put forth by the Pontifical Con- gregations ; as also to those heads of doctrine that are retained by the common and consistent consent of Catholics as theolo- gical truths, and conclusions so certain that opinions adverse to the same, though not to be called heretical, yet deserve some other censure.' Now, here the Pope apparent!}- bids us attribute the same authority to decisions on matters of doctrine that emanate from the Pontifical Congregations, as to those heads of doctrine Catholics are bound to account theologically certain. In other words, he seems to claim for the former theological certainty. But not to juvss tliis point, and taking the words of the Brief as they stand, we must conclude from them, that Catholic men of science in lli;)3 wei'c bomid in conscience, in order to have that perfect adhesion to re\ealod truth A\hioh is necessary for true scientific progress and the refuting of error, to submit themselvos to a tk-cision scientifically f;iJsc and doctrmally erroneous ; and since the decree of lOlG was in full force in l(i.S7,that Catholic men of science were under that obligation at a time when e\ cry one up to the science of his day knew the decision was false. 39 The case before us does a great deal more than exemplify the truth that Pontifical Congregations are not, strictly speak- ing, infalhble. It shows that they can make mistakes we should not expect from wise and learned men. It demon- strates that God will permit their maturely formed, repeat- edly expressed, and long-sustained judgment to be in direct antagonism to the truth He is disclosing through 'the hght that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.' How, then, can any dominion over the scientific thought of their age be legitimately claimed for them ? Here Dr. Ward comes to the rescue, and with characteristic boldness denies that their condemnation of Copernicanism was a mistake at all in any proper sense of the term. He explains himself thus : ' If a decree is put forth claiming infallibility, it purports to have God's unfailing guarantee of its truth. But it is most certain that Galileo's condemnation was not put forth with any claim to infallibility; and we ask, therefore, what such a decree does purport to be? No answer but one can possibly be given, as a moment's consideration wiU evince. It purports to instruct Cathohcs in that conclusion which legitimately follows from existing data. Now, we argued at much length, that the contrariety of Copernicanism to Scrip- ture was the consequence legitimately resulting from the data of 1616 (see pp. 140-152; 160; 182). The reason why Copernicanism is now justly held to be consistent with Scrip- ture is its having been scientifically estabhshed (pp. 142-3) ; but so far was this from having been the case in GaHleo's time, that, on the contrary, as a matter of mere science, its falsehood was more probable than its truth (pp. 146-152). Nor was Galileo's confidence in the scientific strength of his theory any presumption of its real strength, because the one main argument on which he laid his stress is now admitted by every one to have been absolutely worthless (p. 400). By accident he was right; but, "formally," even as a man of science, he was wrong. ' The decree purported to be — not infallibly guaranteed by God, but — the true conclusion from existing data. Well, it was the true conclusion from existing data : how, therefore, 40 in any true sense, can it be called mistaken ? On the con- trary, it afforded "true doctrinal guidance to contemporary Catholics" (p. 186). For (1) it inculcated on them that doctrinal lesson which legitimately resulted from existing data ; and (2) it warned them against " a most false, proud, irreverent, and dangerous principle of Scriptural interpreta- tion." AVhat is that principle? "The contradicting the obvious and traditional sense of Scripture, on the strength of a theory scientifically unlikelj." And this is a principle as anti - Catholic now as it was then'* {Doctri. Decis. pp. 199, 200). This account of the matter, besides that it utterly fails to do justice to the terms of the condemnation — false and alto- gether opposed to the divine Scripture— lies open to this fatal * It is worth obseiTing, that Foscaiinus, whose position the Congregation singled out to exemplify what it meant to condemn, takes the greatest pains to gnard against giving the slightest countenance to such a principle. He insists in limine on the scientific merit of the heliocentric theory, and mates its acknowledged likeUhood a reason for attempting its theological defence : ' Percio molti moderni si Bono indotti e persuasi finahnente a sequirlo, ma con alquanto di timore e di rimorso ; perciocchS parve a loro, che alia Scrit- tura Sacra ei fusse tahnente contrario, che non si potessero con esso concili- are le autoriti, che gli repugnavano. . . . lo per me, considerate tutte queste cose (per il desiderio, che tengo, che le dottrine ricevano quant' 6 possibile aumento, lame e perfezione, e se ne sgomhrino tutti gli errori, con rilncervi dentro la pura verita), sono andato fra me stesso specnlando in qnesto modo. O questa opinione de' Pittagorici e vera, o no ; se non 6 vera, non e degna che se ne parli, ne che si metta in campo ; se o vera, poco inporta che contrad- dica a tutti i filosofi ed astronomi del mondo, e che per sequirla e prati- carla s' ahhia da fare una nuova filosofia cd astronomia, dependente da nuovi principj ed ipotesi, che questa pone. Quelle, che appartiene alls Scritture Sacre, n6 anco gli nuocera, perciocchfi una veritri non u contraria all' altra. Se dunque 6 vera 1' opinione Pittngoricn, senza duhbio Iddio avi'a talmente dettate le parole della Scrittm-a Sacra che possauo ricevere sense accomodate a quell' opinione b ooncUiamento con esse. Questo S il motivo, che m' in- dusse a considerare ed a cercai-e, {stanti: la lirobabilita eviih-nte della gia dttta opinione) il modo, e la strada di nccordnro molti luoghi dcUa Scrittura Sacra con essa, ed interpretrali, non scnza fondnmonti toologici o fisici, in modo tale che non gli contraddicano afl'atto ; acii6 quando eUa si vcdrii (per caso) e doterminata espressamente, e con certozza esser vera, [siccomc ora per pro- habile c ricerutd) non se gli ritrovi iiitoppo alouno, che 1' impedisca e che gli dia fastidio, privando indcgnamentc il mondo del venerahile o sacrosanto commnc'io della tanto da tutti i buoni desiderata verita' (Lettera del P. Fos- caiini, Ojiere di G. G. vol. v. pp. -lliO-l). The real qucsUou at issue was, are the expressions of the sacred wiitere ill relation to the physical order to be judged hy tlie siinie rule as those re- lating to things moral and spiritual. Tii <'oudommng Conernicauism as alto- t,'ellier contrary to Scripture, Rome \irliu\lly said yes. Was that the right answer ? 41 objection. Its interpretation of the decree is the one Urban Vin. and his Congregation prohibited : ' Tratta la cosa come non decisa, e come che si aspetti e non si presupponga la definizione.' If Home meant what she said, either in 1633 she utterly mistook the force and scope of her own decree issued about seventeen years before, in which case she blundered over the very easiest matter that could possibly come before her ; or that decree was meant to be taken as absolutely true, in which case even Dr. AVard must admit that it was a mistake in every sense of the term. The truth is, Dr. Ward proceeds throughout on miscon- ceptions of fact. To begin with, he supposes (pp. 157 and 172) that there were two decrees of the Index in 1616, issued about the same time; one purely doctrinal, the other purely dis- ciplinary. The former, he holds, was the declaration referred to in Bellarmine's certificate ; the latter was the ' Quia etiam ad notitiam.' The former, he says, certainly affected liberty of thought; but then it was never repeated, and concerned only contemporary Oathohcs. And he bids us notice (p. 183) how it avoided the dangerous and untheological confusion imphed in censuring Copernicanism as false. The latter, he admits, continued in force to the time of Benedict XIV.,* and must be considered for all practical purposes to have been re- enacted by every successive intermediate Pontiff ; but then, being purely disciplinary, it affected only liberty of action. The reader knows that the purely doctrinal and temporary decree. Dr. Ward says was never repeated, never existed; that the decree Dr. Ward would persuade us was a purely * Venturi and others say that Benedict XIV. suspended the decree ia question. I have not been ahle to verify their statement ; what I have made out is, that the books condemned by that decree were ia an Index published by order of Benedict XIV., to which was attached a constitution containing the following : ' Absolutum itaque juxta mentem nostram laudatum Indicem, et ah iisdem Cardinalibua revisum atque recognitum, typis camera? nostrse ApostoliciE edi volumus, ipsumque pmsentibus litteris nostris tanquam expresse insertum liahentcs, auctoritate Apostolicli tenore prsesentium approbamus et confirma- muB, atque ab omnibus et singulis personis, ubicumque locorum existentibus, iuviolabOiter et iuconcusse obsei-vari prsecipimus et mandamus, &c. Datum EomiE, apud Sanetam Mariam Majorem sub annulo Piscatoris die xxiii. Deo. MDCOLYii.' [Index Librorum prohibitomvi, S. D. N. Pii VI. jussu editus Eomje MDCOLXXXVI.). 42 disciplinary enactment, Rome ruled to be doctrinal as well as disciplinary ; that the dangerous and untheological confusion Dr. Ward would relegate to an unauthoritative preamble, Rome indorsed and insisted on as a part of the declaration. ' Et ut prorsus tolleretur tam perniciosa doctrina, neque ulterius serperet in grave detrimentum CatholicsB veritatis, emanavit decretM?n a Sacra Congregatione Indicis, quo fuerunt prohibiti libri qui tractant de hnjusmodi doctrina, et ea declarata fuit falsa, et omnino contraria sacras et divinse Scriptm-a:'.' One wovild not have supposed it possible for a man of Dr. Ward's ability, with this passage and its context — not to speak of other evidence — before liim, to miss seeing what Bellarmine meant. But I observe that, after professing to have compared Dr. Madden's translation of it with the Latin, he retains and founds his argument on a word in the former that does not exist in the latter. Speaking of the sentence in p. 163, he says: 'We will draw special attention to a few passages by italics. The translation is founded on Dr. jNIadden's ; but we have made various changes, to bring it (as we think) into nearer ac- cordance with the Latin.' Now mark how he translates and italicises the extract just given : ' And in order that so per- nicious a doctrine should be taken wholly away, and no longer allowed to spread, to the great detriment of the Catholic Truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred College of the IiuJcr, in which the books were prohibited which treat of doctrine of this kind ; and that doctrine was declared false by it, and altogether contraiy to the sacred and divine Scrip- tui'es.' And how the interpolated 'it' is utilised in p. 109 :* 'All their expressions, howe\er, ai'e quite inconsistent with the supposition, tluvt they regarded this decree as the Popo'.s judgment ex cathedra. Thei/ ascribe that decree, in fact, to the Coiiij reflation of the Index, and not to the Pc^'i'.' Few people, 1 belie\ e, enter into contro\ersy with more honest iiiteiitidiis tlian Dr. Ward. 1 admire his cai'nestuess * Wlioro, if liii will poiinit mo to Boy so, ho strikes mo as failiug, is in not being a BuUUucutly ^iii(/c'/i( thinker. 43 and zeal in behalf of what he thinks is God's cause, and cordially acknowledge that he has very great intellectual gifts. Still there is evidently something in his temperament which unfits him for being a trustworthy exponent of docu- mentary evidence. Again, look at the considerations which constitute his proof that the heUocentric theory at the time of its con- demnation was scientifically unhkely. He begins (p. 146) by insisting on the proposition that simplicity is no proof of truth; and gives us the benefit of 'Mr. Mill's remark on the subject. He asserts, ' that in Coper- nicus' or even Gahleo's time this argument hardly furnished a presumption, much less did it estabHsh a likelihood' (p. 147). Then, to show that ' before Galileo's time the Copernican theory was a mere guess, a mere conjecture,' he quotes from De Morgan's Motion of the Earth a specimen of what he calls ' the chief,' but what the Professor calls ' the more common arguments,' then used on both sides ; and exclaims, ' Such were the arguments of which it has been gravely contended that they would justify Catholics in disbeheving the obvious and traditional sense of God's written Word !' (p. 149.) But when those arguments were most in vogue the Coper- nican interpretation of Scripture was not prohibited, and we may safely say, never would have been, if better ones had not been adduced. So that one does not see how their absurdity helps Dr. Ward. We are next presented with the following account of the scientific status of Copernicanism in Galileo's time, from what Dr. Ward calls an extremely fair and able paper in the Ram- bler of Januarj' 1852.* ' The Ptolemaic theory had sufficed for centuries to explain * The foUowing is Delambre's summary : ' Les reflexions de Copemic, de Kgpler, et de Galilee sufSsaient pour qu'on fut Copemicien de boime foi, de persuasion et d'inclination ; ore voyoit une foule de probabiUtes ; les adver- saires memes conviennent que pom* les tables astronomiques rhypothdse est pins commode, et ils la permett'ent en ce sens. Galilee, par ses dficoUTertes, a leve quelques difficultes ; les phases de Venus et la mesui-e plus exacte dss diamfetres, la rotation du Soleil, les satellites de Jupiter, ont augmente des probabUites deja si fortes. Les lois de Kepler ont ajoutg a la beaute et 3, la simplicitS dn systeme. Newton en montrant que les lois de Kepler sont des corollaires mathgmatiques du principe de la pesanteui' uuiTerseUe, a lie plus intimement encore toutes les parties du syst6me ; U a prouve I'impossibilite 44 and to account for all the observed motions of the planets as logically and as precisely as the Copernican theory does now ; and it was during all this time found capable of taking in and preserving all the exact knowledge of the world. Such being the state of the case .... a new system suddenly makes its appearance, and claims to supersede the old ; and on what grounds? Because it accounted for phenomena in a more simple way than the old theory. But then the old theory did accomit for phenomena, however complex it might have been; and simplicity is not always an infallible test of truth. Again, it was in analogy with the newly-discovered system of Jupiter's satellites, and accounted for the moonhke phases of Venus which the telescope revealed. And these three points constituted about the whole p)roof lohich Galileo could bring forword. His other arguments, from the tides and magnetism of the earth, are all moonshine. The Newtonian theory of gravitation was then unknown; and the periods of the revolutions of the planets appeared quite as disconnected and random as did the cycles and epicycles of the old theory. Newton first explained the one law on which the revolutions depended; before his time there was nothing to mal-e the Copernican system more plausible and reasonable than the Ptolemaic theory. The modem demonstrations of the annual motion of the earth — namely, the micrometrical observations on the discs of the bodies of the solar system, and especially the great discovery of the aberra- tion of light, by which that motion is made evident to the senses — were then unknown : and as to the diurnal motion, it physique du mouvoment du Solcil autour do la TeiTe : respSrience do Richer prouve 1g mouvement dim-no ; I'abeiTation dicouvcrto par BrmUoT deinontre le mouvement annuel. La question est ii-rOvooaWemeut droidoe. Toutes los objec- tions asscz /«/i7i's rf'ai7(t'»c.s', dispai'sisscutdeviiutdespreuves si positives et si liii:ii liuos. Les thCologiens scnsCs seront les premiers aujonrd'liui A demander qu'ou iutorprotc I'Ecriture comme le proposaient lu'plor, OnlilOe ct Fosoarini. ' Riccioli avouo quo les iuquisitours n'ont pronouuco sui" lo sens dos passages do I'Ecrituro quo d'npros lo tCmoignago dos astronomos d'alors, qui ne voyaiont aucune demonstration volable du mouvoment do la Terre. F.iijin, qiKiiid nil compan' les clogcK i/i(i' lUccioU doiiiic u I'hiipothi.ii' qii'il combat, a 1(1 fitibh'tts<- (/r.s' fdiatnts qii'il liti oppotic, 0}i croit foir nil arocat charge mijltv6 hti (le jihiith'r lint' I'uiiat' qii'il salt imuii'(tht\ qui ii'apporte qiw des arguments pilugalilrx, jKircc qu'il n'lj en u i>ai< d'autrcs, ct qui salt lui-mcmc que sa came cut perdne' (Delambro, Ast. Mod. vol. i. p. G80). 45 was unproved till Richer s voyage to Cayenne, where he was obliged to shorten his pendulum. And it is only within the last few months that an experiment has been devised by which this motion may be exhibited to the senses — namely, by the apparent revolution of the plane of the vibration of a pen- dulum fixed over a horizontal table. Before these demonstra- tions, there was no solid reason to induce men to disbelieve the evidence of their senses. Tlie most decided Copemicans were reduced to mere 'probabilities, and were obliged to confine them- selves to preaching up the simplicity of the Copernican sys- tem, as compared with the absurd complexity of that of Ptolemy. It is now generally taken for granted that the Copernican theory is self-evident. So far from that being the case, we may safely affirm, that up to Galileo's time the balance of proof was in favour of the old system; that is, the old system was at that time the probable one, and Copernicus' theory the improbable one' (pp. 15, 16). This writer is not famous for his caution; yet even he does not venture to commit himself to the position that in Galileo's time, i.e. when the doctrine of the earth's motion was condemned, the balance of proof was in favour of the geo- centric theory. Accordingly Dr. Ward supplements him as follows : ' But fairly and temperately as this writer expresses him- self, it would seem nevertheless that he states Galileo's scien- tific status at somewhat greater advantage than truth will warrant. M. Artaud, in the volume named at the head of this article (pp. 306-321), draws attention to a paper contri- buted by M. Leon Desdouits, a Cathohc savant, to the Univers CatJwlique of March 1841. The gravity of the air, M. Desdouits reminds his reader, was first discovered by Torricelli after Galileo's death. The Florentine philosopher therefore, from ignorance of this fundamental truth, was in an inextricable difficulty. To say that the earth is whirled through the terrestrial air, was plainly inconsistent with phe- nomena ; while yet he could give no sufficient reason for sup- posing that the earth carries the air with it in its revolution. He was unable therefore to complete a theory of his own which he could even reconcile with known facts ; and since 46 • his opponents had no difficulty whatever in so reconciling theirs, it is not too much to say that his hjrpothesis, in its then incomplete state, was " scientifically unhkely," i. e. that there were stronger grounds for rejecting than for accepting it.' Here is a pretty piece of confusion ! IVJiat weight the air has was not accurately known in Galileo's time ; nor tiU Tor- ricelli's experiment in 1643 had any proof been given that the pressure of the atmosphere causes the phenomena of a common pump.* But the following extract from Baliani's letter to Galileo, dated October 26, 1630,t wiU show the sort of reminder those need who talk of TorriceUi as the discoverer of the gravity of the air, and argue that his master must have been placed in an inextricable difficulty from ignorance of this fim- damental truth. I give Mr. Drinkwater's translation : ' I have beheved that a vacuum may exist naturally ever since I knew that the air has sensible iceir/hf, and tliat you taught me in one of your letters how to find its weight exactly, though I have not yet succeeded with that experiment. From that moment I took up the notion that it is not repugnant to the natm-e of thmgs that there should be a vacuvun, but merely that it is chfficult to produce. To explain myself more clearly : if we allow that the air has weight, there is no difference heticeen air and water e.rrept in degree. At the bottom of the sea the weight of the water above me compresses evonthmg round my body ; and it strikes me that the same thing must happen in the air, we being placed at the bottom of its immensity. We do iKjt feel its weight, nor the compression roimd us. be- cause our bodies are made capable of supporting it. But if we were in a vacuum, then the weight of the air above our heads would be I'elt. It would be felt very great, but not infinite, and therefore determinable ; and it might be over- come by a force proportioned to it. lu fact I estimate it to * Yet l]ir lii/jHithcsis wne not new ; for, to qnotc Pr.Wliewell, ' Doscnrtos, in a li'tirr ol' tli(' iliilc o£ Ki.'U, cNpliuns tlio suepiiision of mcrcTuy in a tulio cluHLcl al tlic tiiji, liy till' prcKKiiri' of llu' coUiniu of ail- roaoliinf; to the clouds' (llisiiinj i)f Iiul. Siii'iirm, vol. ii. p. "I'J). Evi'U Ai'istotle knew that the air has wui^lil (f!. Ih' Ciilu, lib. n. r. iv.). I cj-of (/; a. a. m. vd. vol. ix. p. ill. 47 be such, that to make a vacuum I believe we require a force greater than that of a column of water thirty feet high,'* As to the summary from the Rambler, its accuracy may be estimated by its assertion that ' before Newton's time there was nothing to make the Oopernican system more plausible and reasonable than the Ptolemaic' Long before Newton's time the ablest anti-Copernicans had abandoned the Ptolemaic theory as quite indefensible.! Kepler's and Galileo's disco- veries left but two types of system for the scientific man to choose between — the Copernican and the Tychonic. It was not, as the Rambler piits it, the case of an upstart theory trying to supersede one that had been in possession for ages, and which was fully up to its work ; but of a struggle between two new systems, — the Copernican having the advantage in point of age, — for the place left vacant by one that had received its deathblow from both. And their claims may be fairly stated thus : — Both could account for the celestial phenomena — the latter nearly or quite as well as the former ; but the former was by far the simpler explanation, and as an hypo- thesis was universally preferred. And when it was known that the planets were globular opaque bodies, like the earth deriving light from the sun, and that they moved round the sun ; and when it seemed to be the law that the smaller body should revolve round the larger,| the omis probandi lay very * Life of Galileo, p. 90. t ' Tra questi ei pu6 comprendere il Padre Clavio Geemta, uomo dottis- simo, il quale vedendo il poco fondamento dell' opinione comune, quantunque egli per altro eonfuti la Pittagorica, nondimeno oonfessa che gli aBtronomi, per levare molte diffieolta, che non pienameute sono tolte dal comune eistema, Bono sforzati a cercare di prowederseue di alcun altro' (Lettera del P. Fos- carini, G. G. Opere, vol. *•. p. 460). ' Oiniies denique planetas eolem motu proprio circumcmrere. Verum tmiTersa hsec et plura ejusdem novas ccelestis philosophisB volentes concedi- mus' (Fromundus, Ant. Arist. u. xvii. p. 91). Conf. Eiocioli, Astr. Befor. vol. i. p. 85, and prolog, viii. 9. ' TJtra hypothesis Copernici an Brahei (nam antiguas Ptolemaicas falsas esse cerium est) sequenda sit' (J. Kep. Admonitio; Venturi, vol. ii. p. 74). And conf. Gassendi, torn. i. 134. X CredihiliuB enim est, magnum esse corpus, circa quod minora circum- eunt : sic enim Satiu-nus, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Mercurius omnia minora sunt corpora ipso corpore SoHs, circa quod Ola circumeunt : sic Luna minor est Tel- lure, circa quam Luna ciroumit ; sic quatuor satellites Joviales minores sunt ipso Jovis corpore, circa quod iUi volvuntur. Jam vero si Sol movetnr, Sol 48 decidedly with the advocates of the more complex arrange- ment giving the earth an apparently abnormal position. Now there never had been more than two good arguments on their side — one against the diurnal, and one against the annual, movement of the earth. Tycho had urged, if the earth revolves on its axis once in twenty-four hours, how is it that a piece of lead dropped from a high tower falls straight to the base, instead of being left behind ? And if the earth moves round the sun once in the year, how is it that the fixed stars present no annual parallax, in spite of the enormous dimensions of the earth's orbit, and yet some of them have a diameter of two minutes ? Galileo announced, and verified by experiment, the law that meets the first objection. The second was sho^vn by the telescope* to derive its force from an optical delusion. Be- sides, in its best days it was fairly cancelled by a counter one from the Copernican side. The great size which the asser- tion of the earth's annual motion seemed to require for the fixed stars was no harder to believe than the prodigious velocity we attribute to the hea^■enly bodies in denying the diurnal rotation. The physical difficulties Dr. Ward insists on Tycho him- self discredited;! and it is obvious that they could not have maximns et toes snperiores, omnes teiT;i majores, circa tellnrem minorem circumibunt ; credibiliuB igitur est, Tellm-em, corpus parmm, circa Solis cor- pus magnum circumire' (Kepler, As. Cop. lib. iv. p. 544). ' When,' says Dr. Wbewell, ' the syetem of the planet Jnpiter offered to the bodily eye a model or image of the solar systom according to the TieTTs of Copernicus, it supported the belief of such an arrangement of the planets by an analogy all but iiTesistible. It thus, as a wiiter of oui' own times — Sir J. Herschul — has said, " gave the holding turn to the opinions of mankind re- specting the Copernican system" ' (Hist, of Iiid. Sciences, vol. i. p. 301). * ' Pcriti artifices negant, uEam quantitatem volnti rotnndi corporis detegi per inspcctionem ttUsoopii, quin potius quo pcrfectius instrumentum hoc magis flxas ri'prcscntari ut puncta mora, ox quibus radii Incidi in speciem rrinhim oxcant disporgantiu-quo' (Kepler, Kp. As. Cop. lib. iv. p. 49S). I ' Ni'c tot inconvi'nicntia hino provouiimt quot plerique nvhitrantur ; quffi- quo in Poomatc Spliirrico elarissimi Ulius pootir Buchnnani Scoti, mei, cum in \iviB I'BBot, amici cNiraii, nupiv publionta sunt, locum hie non habent. Is enim non animadvcrtit posito nml ii (( irnio, marr it cu'cnmflunm proximumque aorem una pari coiicilnliono coiivolri, iiloiwiuo nuUam violentiam causari, ncc absur- ditali'711, qiiaiil.iini in omnibus iiu, qua; in cKntrarium adducit, iirovouiro' (Tycho Brahe, JCjiisl. Aslr. p. 74). 49 given a moment's trouble to any one possessing the knowledge Baliani's letter implies. Copernicanism, then, was condemned when its formal superiority was universally admitted, when it was supported by a powerful argument from analogy, and had no greater difficulties to contend with than its rival ; and as no one in his senses will say that a theory in such a position deserves to be called scientifically unlikely, — false was the term used, — we may safely pronounce the attempt to justify the decision by an appeal to the scientific data of the time an egregious failure. Dr. Ward thinks very highly of the scriptiural argument for the judgment, and is amazed that Dr. Pusey should speak of the mistakes of theologians in the matter. Yet he him- self gives up all the passages on which those theologians, in fact, mainly took their stand ; and admits ' that perhaps it may be truly maintained with regard to all those texts which speak of the sun's motion, that they merely purport to de- scribe phenomena as such, and that in their simple and obvious sense they would not be otherwise understood.' But he bids us consider the following : ' (Ps. ciii. 5) " Thou who didst found the earth on its stable support (super stabihtatem suam) ; it shall not he moved for euer.'" (Ps. xcii. 1) "He hath fixed the earth, which shall not be moved.''''* Job xxxviii. 4-6, where God Himself speaks, " Where wast thou," asks the Creator, "when I laid tlie foundation of the earth? Upon what were its supports established? (Super quo bases illius stabUitse sunt?)" Texts similar are Ps. xvii. 16, Ixxxi. 5, xcv. 10, cxxxv. 6; Prov. iii. 19, viii. 29. We entreat our readers to study successively these various texts. It is most unfair to speak, as Dr. Pusey speaks, of the mistakes of theologians in the interpretation of these texts. Surely, had it not been for the Oopernican theory, no one, who behoves in the inspiration of Scripture, would have thought of doubting, that in them God expressly declares the earth's immobiUty. If any one hesitates at this statement on first reading them, * The mere expression, 'non commovetitur' (Ps. xcii. 2), Bishop WOMns remarked, proves nothing ; for the Hebrew is radically the same in these : ' Perfice gressus meos in semitis tnis, ut non moveantur vestigia mea' (Ps. xvi. 5) ■ ' Non det in commotionem pedem tumn' (Ps. cxx. 3) ; and Ps. xv. 8. * 50 he must be convinced, if lie will put into words his own ver- sion of their meaning. Take, e. g. the first : Ps. ciii. 5 " Thou who didst found the earth on its stable support ; it shall not be moved for ever." This means, as we are now aware, " Thou who didst place the earth in its orbit ; it shall not cease from steadily revolving therein." But who will say that this is a sense in the slightest degree obvious i And the same test may be applied vnth equal efficacy to every text we have named' (Auth. of Doc. Dec. pp. 141, 142). Yet surely in a book which we admit may naturally speak of the sun as moving, and describe it as ' a bridegroom coming out of his bridechamber ;' 'rejoicing as a giant to run the way;' — 'his going out is from the end of heaven, and his circuit even to the end thereof,' — we need not be surprised to find the earth depicted under images of things fixed and stable. The obvious earth of the Bible is, no doubt, an immovable eartli ; but then it is also the immovable earth of common oli- servation, of a much ruder conception of things even tlian the Ptolemaic. It rests on stable supports, on foundations placed none can tell where ; and the movement denied is that of a building falling to ruin through the shaking or slipping of its basis. Test the following by Dr. Ward's rule: (Job xsxvii. 18) 'Tu forsitan cmn eo fabricatus es coAos, qui solidissimi quasi a'.re fusi suntf (Job xxvi. 11) ' Cohnnnm cceli contremiscunt et pavent ad nutum ejus.' (Ps. cxxxv. 6) ' Qui firmavit ter- ram super aquas.' (Ps. xxiii. 2) ' Ipse super inai'ia fundavit eum, et siqier fliimina prseparavit eum.' (Job xxxviii. 8-11) ' Quis conclusit ostiis mare, quando erimipebat quasi de vulva procedens ; cum ponerem nubem vestimentimi ejus, ot caligine illud quasi pannis infantiaa obvolverem? Ch-cumdedi illud terminis mcis, ct posui vectem et ostia ; ct didi, itsque hue venic-^\ et nan invvcdi's ampVius ; ct liic confringcs tumentes jfiuctus tuos.' (Prciv. viii. 2(i-2',)) 'iVilhui' terram non fecerat ot flmuina, et cardincs orhis terra', (^uamlo prajparabat coclos adoram; qua lido corta lege vi o•^To \allabat abyssos ; quando athera finnnhat siirsioii, ct lilirabat fontos aquai'mu ; quando circum- ' Dr. Willi! is most unfortunate in Lis olioioe. Tlie Vulgate is 'non inclinabitur.' 51 dabat mari terminum suum, et legem ponehai aquis, ne transirent fines szios ; quando appendebat fundamenta terrce.'' (Jer. v. 22) ' Me ergo non timebitis, ait Dominus, et a facie mek non do- lebitis ? qui posui arenam terminum mari, prceceptum sempiter- num, quod non proeteribit, et commovebuntur, et non poterunt, et intumescent Jluctus ejus, et non transibunt illud' When men knew that the heavens were not a firm vault ' most strong, as if they were of molten brass' ' supported by- pillars' ; that the earth has ' no foundations,' ' no bases,' ' no ends,' is not ' surrounded by water naturally tending to over- flow it,' — theologians had received a pretty significant hint that the texts Dr. Ward refers to, must not be pressed to mean more than the stabihty of the earth in its appointed order, whatever that may be. Surely it is indisputable that the course they adopted was more rash, more calculated to bring the authority of Scripture and the Church into con- tempt, than anything Foscarinus or Gahleo wrote: — 'Mos- trando con quanta circospezione bisogni andare intomo a quelle cognizioni naturaU, che non sono de fide, alle quaK possono arrivar 1' esperienze e le dimostrazioni necessarie, e quanto perniciosa cosa sarebbe 1' asserire come dottrina riso- luta nelle sacre Scritture alcuna proposizione, deUa quale una volta si potesse avere dimostrazione in contrario' (Tjetter to Monsignor Dini, 16th February 1614). Thirdly, in spite of the declaration that it was a most grave error to suppose that the opinion of the earth's motion could in any manner be probable — in spite of Rome's solemn judgment that Galileo's doctrine must be regarded as false and heretical, — Dr. Ward would have us beheve (p. 182) that OathoUcs were not prohibited from publishing any scien- tific argument in behalf of Copemicanism, and that the ec- clesiastical authorities allowed consistently (!) throughout tlie fullest and freest scientific discussion of the theory. I presume he rehes on the permission given to treat Copemicanism as an hypothesis.* If so, I venture to remind bim that an hypothesis may be held in two ways: (1) as a possibly true explanation, for the purpose of being tested ; (2) as an avowedly false one, to facilitate the conception of * See Appendix C. 62 phenomena, and for convenience in making calculations ; and that to tolerate an hypothesis only in the latter sense excludes its scientific discussion. Melchior Inchofer, the Consultor of the Holy OfBce, ought to be a good authority on the matter. He says : ' Dico licere ex hypothesi assumpto motu terra3 uti ad puta- tiones mathematicas conficiendas. Patet tum ex consensu Ecclesiaa, quse Copernicanse putationis usum permittit, etsi principia ex quibus ilia deducitur absolute dainnet Porro in usu calculi Copemici duplex esse potest progressus. Alter ex hypothesi pure mathematica, quae tamen a principiis veris et physicis etiam putatis, minime censeatur pendere. Alter ex hypothesi, quae existimetur principiis naturaUbus et veris, vel quae taha habentur niti, et ex eisdem conclusiones certas ac demonstratas, vel quae tales reputantur, deducere. ' Juxta primum, licet eatenus operari, ut posito iUo sys- temate pleraque phaenomena explicentur, periodique omnes motuum, et quicquid hue spectare potest, arithmetice et velut ex arte subducantur, non ahter quam si ex positioni- bus Ptolemaei, aut quibusvis aliis praeter Copemicanas cense- rentru'. Ceterum sicut mathematicus, si postulet lineam dan infinitam, aut quS,vis quantitate continua majorem vel minorem, recte concludet superstrui posse triangulum infinitum, neque tamen verum erit in rerum natura dari lineam infinitam. Recte praeterea deducet lineam esse longitudmem sine lati- tudine et profunditate, si punctum fluere, et lineam esse fluxum puncti supponat, quod tamen reipsa falsuni est et physice impossibile . . . ita prorsus date systemate Copemicano, etsi false et a ratione aheno, deduci possunt putationes vera?, cademque jtrincipia vaga (ut hinc etiam falsitas argiiatiu" et incertitudo) applicari possunt ad alia, qua; in physicis genuinas habent enusas At in si/stematc Copemicano, pro- (jrcdi licet ca/ciiKs, ut e.rami)iari tantum qiieaf, an c.v fahig illis positidiii/iiis, recta' ct cum fi/dcriis nwiHug cohcenntes cUciantur n}ipputatioiics. ' .Jiixtaalloi'um sensum, in iisu calculi (.^opernici catenas est ])i-iigrodietuluni, ut ncdiun de priiicipii)', nisi oitfcndcndo corum Jalm/alciii, ni'd iici/uc dc i/imt pntationc iaii''ofc'fisori Ji filoso/la e di matematica^ prrchi .