(11 



MOTION OF THE EARTH. 



MOTION OF THE EARTH. 



811 



i,.: :, 



mining it not as true, but aa sufficient to 



|4ain phenomena, and leaving it* truth or falnehood aside, or even 

 implying the latter. Secondly, us a truth, but without any reference 

 to the Scripture* : maintaining it by argument*, and implying that if 

 the Scriptural really assert the contrary, there must be something 

 wrong in those argument*, but that if the latter really amount to 

 demonstration, then the interpretation of the Scriptural, which make* 

 them assert the contrary, must be wrong. Thirdly, an an absolute 

 truth, confirmed by reason and Scripture both. In the article we are 

 examining, the first and second of these modes are confounded : and it 

 is thought that when Galileo was warned off the third mode, and told 

 to write " as a mathematician and by way of hypothesis,'' and to con- 

 fine himself to " demonstration," he was left with permission to use 

 the second mode. This ia not correct, but the mistake is a natural 

 one. We hare already seen [DEMONSTRATION] that demonstration, as 

 applied to physical hypothesis, meant only explanation : and that it 

 i mlil be said that a false hypothesis might give true demonstration; 

 that is, might be shown to be capable of accounting for phenomena.' 

 To learn how matters stood in the present case, we must look to the 

 word* of the authorities. Of these there were two, the Inquisition, 

 which took cognisance of the acU of heretics, and the Congregation of 

 the Index, which examined and censured their books. In one and the 

 same year (1616) the former silenced Galileo, the latter condemned the 

 great work of Copernicus, and the writings of his followers. The 

 decree which condemns them calls the doctrine of the earth's motion 

 "false and altogether contrary to Scripture." And this decree 

 prohibits not only the work of Foscarini, which endeavours to show 

 that the doctrine is not contrary to Scripture, but also that of 

 Copernicus, which does not touch the question of theology. This is 

 plain enough, but we can make it still plainer. Four years after (1620), 

 the same Cardinals of the Index, finding that the work of Copernicus 

 could by slight alterations be made to speak the language of hypothesis, 

 published the corrections under which they would allow it to be read. 

 We put a few sentences of the work side by side with the alterations 

 dictated by authority : 



Copemiou. Correction required. 



This question (of the motion of It matters nothing whether the 

 the earth) in not yet settled, and i earth be taken as the centre 

 not to be despised by any means. [remember that the word centre 



in those days implied immove- 

 ability] or not, BO far as solving 

 the phenomena of celestial motions 

 is concerned. 



Since then there is nothing to Since then vie attume the motion 

 hinder the motion of the earth. of the earth. 



On the triple motion of the 

 earth (heading of a chapter). 



These three stars (the earth 

 being one). 



On the hypothetii of the triple 

 motion of the earth. 



Omit these words, because the 

 earth is not a star, as Copernicus 

 makes it to be. 



This surely will settle, in reasonable minds of all persuasions, the 

 question how much is permitted to a person spooking as a mathe- 

 matician, and by way of hypothesis. If Copernicus say the earth is a 

 star [a word implying motion], the cardinals strike it out : if that it 

 may be so, they alter it into a professed assumption for purposes of 

 calculation. How indeed could they allow nilM prohibit on an opinion 

 described by themselves as Dirina Scripturce omnt'no adrertaiilem 1 

 For the document* cited see Kiccioli, ' Almag. Nov.,' lib. ix. sect. iv. 



Next, as to the assertion that the Inquisition pronounced no opinion 

 on the truth of the doctrine. The two propositions, affirming both its 

 falsehood and heresy, were drawn up, it is said, by the quolificators- or 

 qualifiers, inferior officers of the court, and not the court itself. This 

 is a strange argument, and to make it relevant to any point it must be 

 shown that the declaratory power of the Inquisition was lodged in its 

 inferior officers, and not in its judges. If the tribunal were so consti- 

 tuted, it matters nothing to the point in question ; for the qualifiers 

 did declare against the doctrine, that is, the court did pronounce a 

 decision in its usual form and manner, and we assert nothing more. 

 All that was done in any other case was done in this one. But in point 

 of fact, it will IK.- found that the qualifiers are only the assistants of the 

 judges ; and the voluntary adoption of their conclusions by the cardinals 

 make* those cardinals themselves the responsible parties. But further : 

 it i* not true that the final sentence of 1633 did no more than state the 

 theses of the qualifier* as recapitulation of the proceedings of 1616. 

 The defence before us asserts that the Inquisitors "did not at all 

 trouble themselves with considering the truth ' or falsehood, the inno- 

 cence or poison, of the opinion asserted.'* To this let the sentence 

 itself reply : " And that this pernicious doctrine might be altogether 

 removed, and might not further creep in, to the great injury of Catholic 

 truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index, 

 by which the books which treat of this doctrine were prohibited, and 

 the doctrine lUelf was declared false, and altogether contrary to 

 Scripture. But since a book ha* appeared at Florence in the past year 

 (1682), of which tho inscription shows that you [Galileo] were its 

 nthor, the title being Dialogo,' Ac., and whereas the sacred Congre- 

 gation has come to know that since the printing of that work the false 



opinion of the motion of the earth has increased more and more from 

 day to day, the said book was diligently considered," 4c. And in the 

 recantation Oalileo is made to say that the opinion of the earth's 

 motion is false and heretical, and that he abjures and detests that 

 error and heresy. It thus appears that there are four parties who 

 declare the doctrine false and heretical the qualifiers, the Inquisitors, 

 the Congregation of the Index, and (perforce) Galileo himself. 



Next, as to the question whether the Inquisition declared the doctrine 

 heretical. That, so far as its authority extended, and in its own usual 

 sense and meaning of the word, it did do so, is clear enough from what 

 precedes. But, as may be supposed, a general word which belongs to 

 an extensive system of law has many uses. The argument about the 

 itylut curia seems to us unanswerable. In our Court of Queen's Bench, 

 peaceful persons were adjudged to have done many things by force and 

 arms, because the court, originally instituted for matters connected 



suppression of heresy, and having no choice but to determine all causes 

 sent before it by the Pope (as was that of Galileo), was as much com- 

 pelled by its forms to consider every point with nominal reference to 

 heresy and orthodoxy, as the Court of Queen's Bench to decide a.-ti.nn 

 for breach of contract on a supposition of money detained by force. 

 Whether the maxim of our law in fetione jura temper tubtatit < 

 can be applied to the Office called Holy ; whether the high authority 

 which Roman Catholics reckon to be infallible when it docs pronounce a 

 decision was not culpably negligent in withholding its power from the 

 scene of action, and in allowing an inferior tribunal to assume the 

 function of interpretation which it asserts to belong peculiarly to itself 

 are questions on which Roman Catholics themselves are likely cni mirh 

 to be divided in opinion. But however this may be, to require them to 

 admit that their church has decided against the motion of the earth, 

 as a matter of faith, and in its asserted infallible character, is to ask 

 them to yield more than the opponents of the disputed doctrine ever 

 thought they could claim as having been done for them. On this point 

 we can cite a most unwilling contemporary witness, Fromond of Lou vain , 

 whose ' Autaristarchus,' written against the motion of the earth, was 

 published at Antwerp in 1631. Fromond was a very zealous I: 

 Catholic, an ardent opponent of the Copernican doctrine, and a firm 

 believer in the fact of the sacred writers having intended to declare 

 the stability of the earth. One of his chapters is thus headed, " Is the 

 Copernican opinion now to be held heretical ? " This of itself is some- 

 tliing, for it is to be remembered that the work hod passed through 

 the hands of the united censure of Philip IV. of Spain and the ecclesi- 

 astical authorities. What would these examiners have said to a work 

 on the Nicene Council with a chapter headed " Are the followers of 

 Arius to be considered as heretics ? " But to proceed : Fromond. who 

 wants to get all the condemnation that he can for his opponents, begins 

 by citing Roman Catholics who have expressed opinions on the subject : 

 and it is remarkable how mild the censure is, even of those who wrote 

 after the decree of the cardinals. Tanner says the opinion is " con- 

 demned, and cannot any longer be safely held ; " Mersenne, that " any 

 one may justly think it rash,* particularly after the manner in wliirii 

 the cardinals have expressed themselves." The author goes on to 

 state, with a slight, but very slight, tone of reproach, that there are 

 men, both learned and Catholic, in Italy, France, Germany, aixl lirlgium, 

 who care little for the opinion of the cardinals, and who say tli . 

 power of these dignitaries is not supreme and pontifical, and that until 

 this last-named power is exerted, they are safe and not within tin- 

 limits of heresy. But Fromond doubts whether they are "safe 

 enough." He points out that the books which are in the Index are 

 condemned (according to the bull of Seztus V., which modelled both 

 the Index and the Inquisition into the form which they had when 

 Galileo was silenced) by the authority of the pope, expressly delegated 

 for that purpose ; and he then feels justified tn drawing tlir following 

 inference. " If," says he, " the general opinion of the Catholics of our 

 time be correct, namely, that the pope speaking i cathedra cannot err, 

 though not supported by a general council, then it is all up with 

 Copernicus, and his paradox (to use a gentle word) appears rash, ami 

 next thing to heresy, ay, even more." Having thus, as it were, mode 

 his utmost point, and still not got quite so far as heresy infallibly pro- 

 nounced, he checks himself thus : " This is what a severe judge might 

 think. But when I consider how circumspect and free from haste 

 pontiff* generally are in their decrees on matters of faith t cathedra. 

 and also their practice of malting those decrees in their own names and 

 in >t in those of others, and since Sextus V., in the diploma which 

 established the fifteen congregations of cardinals expressly says, ' Of 

 those decrees which relate to the dogmas of the faith, we reserve the 

 interpretation to ourselves ' it seems necessary to mitigate the censure 



Thin word raih, Itmrrarita, ! of great force. It had a technical meaning, 

 and wai> constantly used at the time of which we write, a* for aught we know 

 It may be now, u an epithet diitinclivc of an offence minor to hereay. 

 Accordingly when a print ntyloa the opinion rath, it is to be inferred that he 

 would rcfiuc to ay it wsa herttical : jiut aa hearing a lawyer call an offence 

 manftlaughtcr, we abould suppoae him to deny that it amounted to murder. So 

 that, when Mcr^enne qualifies aa only trrnfrarittm that which the court of which 

 be ii speaking had pronounced falium tt/ormalitrr harrtirum, he limit* the 

 power of that court In the ame manner s Fromond did, though more briefly. 



