GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES. 123 



heavens. It was a far-reaching and most pregnant generalisation 

 when men first took in the idea that the arrangements which 

 their books had hitherto called by the expression " nature " were 

 merely a very few of the most obvious aspects of a vast organisa- 

 tion, which could be, and which must be, searched into by obser- 

 vation. At once a multitude of familiar phrases lost their mean- 

 ing, and many accepted truths had to be dethroned. 



And the effect of the discussion in the days of Galileo was not 

 only to make men revise their formularies about the earth's 

 motion, but to impress them most forcibly with the possibility 

 that such a process might have to be gone through about a very 

 large number of other things. The prevailing views were held by 

 the Church authorities as by every one else. They were not 

 really a part of the Divine revelation. Some people thought they 

 were, and (we may admit it was a misfortune) the very authorities 

 who had to pronounce, used language which was to some extent 

 mistaken in the same direction. On the other hand, it is clear 

 now that men of mark and standing asserted over and over again, 

 that the new theories need not in any point contradict Holy 

 Scripture. It was a matter which was not clear all at once. It is 

 often not immediately evident that novel scientific views do or do 

 not contradict Revelation. They have to be made precise, to be 

 qualified, to be analysed, and that by fallible men. During the 

 process many Catholics will naturally make mistakes, and there is 

 no reason why, now and then, Church authority itself should not 

 make a mistake in this particular matter. When the requisite 

 reflection has had time to be made, then it is seen, as it was in the 

 case of the views under discussion, that what was held by Catholic 

 persons was something quite apart from Catholic faith. And we 

 have no objection to admit that reflection was quickened, and 

 caution was deepened by the case of Galileo. In this sense, and 

 not in any other, that case may be called " emancipatory." If the 

 Church authorities ever feel themselves called upon to pronounce 

 on the dates or the authorship of the Hexateuch, or on the forma- 

 tion of Adam's body, they will proceed we may say it without 

 suspicion of undutifulness with more enlightened minds than the 

 Congregations which condemned Galileo. 



The teaching Church is composed of fallible men, who must 

 sometimes, in certain departments, make mistakes, and who 

 must learn by experience as other men learn. The part of a dutiful 



