GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES. 117 



Copernican works, and in the condemnation of 

 Galileo, was sound and prudent, and what might 

 reasonably have been expected. I am not sure 

 whether Dr. Ward goes quite so far as regards the 

 condemnation of Galileo by the Inquisition ; but he 

 does so in respect of the previous decree of 1616. 

 His ground is that at that period the Copernican 

 doctrine was, even scientifically speaking, improbable ; 

 while it gave a shock to those who venerated the 

 traditional interpretation of Holy Scripture. Few 

 men have a greater respect than myself for the 

 memory of the able writer whose views I am about to 

 criticise; but physical science was not his strong 

 point. His knowledge of metaphysical philosophy 

 was great ; so, too, was his knowledge of dogmatic 

 theology ; but he does not appear to have been well 

 versed in natural science, and with that modesty 

 which is a characteristic of sound and solid learning, 

 he was careful never to pretend acquaintance with 

 any particular branch of knowledge, unless he really 

 possessed it. 



He was at times even scrupulous in expressing his 

 acknowledgments for the assistance he had received 

 from others in matters outside the limits of his own 

 studies ; as also in admitting an error if he felt really 

 guilty of one ; showing therein a candour and honesty 

 of purpose that we do not always meet with. So 

 much I say in tribute to an honoured memory. I 

 now proceed to state why I cannot follow his views. 

 It is surely paradoxical, to say the least of it, to 



