2nd §, No 7., Fup. 16. ’56.] 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
127 
tions ever made, has its peculiar zest in the fact 
of the proposition denied belonging to physical 
science, being capable of demonstration, and 
having since actually received demonstration satis- 
factory to the very successors of the Inquisitors 
who denied it. Without at all wishing to deprive 
this singular case of its pre-eminence, it strikes 
me that a very amusing as well as instructive list 
might be made of propositions now universally 
admitted, but formerly condemned by those who 
had authority to pronounce. I think this list 
might be picked out of all denominations in the 
seventeenth century, whether called church or sect, 
and the pot-and-kettle nature of the results would 
make them useful knowledge to the over zealous 
of our day, whether in church or sect, as before. 
The instance I shall produce, is a decision of 
the University of Oxford in 1622, six years 
after the decision of the Inquisitors, and eleven 
years before its practical application to Galileo’s 
second offence. The account is given in Wood’s 
Historia, &c. (pp. 326-328.). One William Knight 
had promulgated certain opinions on the rights of 
subjects, seditious enough in their intent, and dis- 
respectful enough in their insinuations as to what 
kings might, could, and perhaps would be guilty 
of. But the University, not satisfied with com- 
mitting Knight to prison, where many persons had 
been before him for much less audacious supposi- 
tions, collected certain of his theses, and summoned 
a convocation to condemn them, as being, so says 
Wood, against Scripture, Councils, Fathers, the 
Primitive Church, and the safety of the Monarchy. 
One of these propositions runs as follows, and the 
Censura is appended. It passed, according to 
Wood, unanimously. 
“Subditis meré privatis, si Tyrannus tanquam latro 
aut stuprator in ipsos faciat impetum, et ipsi nec potes- 
tatem ordinariam implorare, nec alia ratione eftugere 
periculum possint, in presenti periculo se et suos contra 
Un ae sicut contra privatum Grassatorem, defendere 
cet. 
“ Censura. Hee propositio est falsa, periculosa, impia.” 
It was enacted that all persons presenting them- 
selves for degrees should subscribe these censures, 
and make oath that they would neither hold, 
teach, nor defend the opinions therein con- 
demned. 
Conceding periculosa as applicable in the cur- 
rent time to the enunciation of the proposition, 
and seditiosa to its intention, it will strike many 
.that the epithets falsa and impia put the declara- 
tion of the University almost on a par with that 
of the Inquisitors. For myself, I would rather 
condemn the earth’s motion ten times over, than 
affirm, with the Convocation of 1622, that Famine 
se contra regem stupratorem, sicut contra privatum, 
defendere non licet : and this proposition the Uni- 
versity compelled young graduates to swear to, or, 
which is much the same thing, they compelled 
them to swear that the contradiction of it was 
false. 
To the proposition that the bishop might ex- 
communicate the civil magistrate, the convocation 
applied only the milder erronea, and not the 
strong falsa. The words were always significa- 
tive of difference in degree ; thus the Inquisitors 
qualify the earth’s motion as falsa in philosophia 
et ad minus erronea in fide. It is curious that 
the University should have been more sure that a 
woman has no right to defend herself against a 
king than that a bishop has no right to excom- 
municate the king. It is curious that the In- 
quisitors should have been more sure of the 
physical falsehood of the earth’s motion than of 
the heresy of the doctrine. It is curious that no 
Protestant should have remembered 1622, while 
twitting the Papist with 1633. It is curious that 
no Roman Catholic should have happened to light 
upon the Oxford decision, for retort upon the 
heretic. It is all curious together. M. 
ILLUSTRATIONS OF MACAULAY. 
Schomberg’s Monument.—In speaking of the 
great Duke of Schomberg, in vol. iii. p. 638., Mr. 
Macaulay informs us that his corpse, to which 
“every honour was paid,” was deposited with 
funeral pomp in Westminster Abbey! This ill 
accords with what is well known, as stated by 
Mason in his History of St. Patrick's Cathedral, 
Dublin, notes, p. 50.: 
“Near to the monument of Archbishop Jones, there is 
a large slab of black marble, fixed high in the wall, with 
an inscription thereon, te the memory of the renowned 
Frederic, Duke Schomberg. The remains of this great 
general were removed to this cathedral immediately after 
the battle of the Boyne, where they lay until the 10th of 
July, and were then deposited under the altar; the inter- 
ment of Duke Schomberg is noted with a pencil in the 
register; the entry is almost illegible, insomuch that it 
has been often sought for in vain. Although he well 
merited from the gratitude of a country in whose cause 
he fell, and the favour of a prince whom he faithfully 
served, such a testimonial, no memorial of the place of 
his interment was erected until the year 1731.” 
Dean Swift was actuated by a just indignation 
towards the relatives of this great man, who, 
though they derived all their wealth and honours 
from him, neglected to pay the smallest tribute 
of respect to his remains ; and after many fruitless 
applications made by him and the chapter of his 
cathedral, — “ postquam per epistolas, per amicos, 
diu ac sepe orando nil proficere,” — caused the 
present slab to be erected, and himself dictated 
the inscription, which is given by Mr. Mason, and 
is, as one might expect, of rather a caustic cha- 
racter.* For interesting letters upon the subject, 
ai The inscription is given in «N.& Q,? 1 S. vii. 
341. See also p. 18. of the same volume. ] 
