SEQUEL TO COPEKNICUS. 285 



Padua edition of Galileo's works, published in 1744, contains the Dia- 

 logue which now, the editors say, " Esce finalmente a pubblico libero 

 uso colle debite licenze," is now at last freely published with the requi- 

 site license ; but they add, u quanto alia Quistione principale del moto 

 della terra, anche noi ci conformiamo alia ritrazione et protesta dell' 

 Autore, dichiarando nella piu solenne forma, che non puo, ne dee am- 

 metersi se non come pura Ipotesi Mathematice, che serve a spiegare 

 piu agevolamento certi fenomeni ;" " neither can nor ought to be ad- 

 mitted except as a convenient hypothesis." And in the edition of 

 Newton's Principia, published in 1760, by Le Sueur and Jacquier, of 

 the Order of Minims, the editors prefix to the Third Book their Decla- 

 ratio, that though Newton assumes the hypothesis of the motion of the 

 earth, and therefore they had used similar language, they were, in do- 

 ing this, assuming a character which did not belong to them. "Hinc 

 alienam coacti sumus gerere personam." They add, " Ca3terum latis a 

 SLimmis Poutificibus contra telluris motum Decretis, nos obsequi pro- 

 fitemur." 



By thus making decrees against a doctrine which in the course of 

 time was established as an indisputable scientific truth, the See of 

 Rome was guilty of an unwise and unfortunate stretch of ecclesiastical 

 authority. But though we do not hesitate to pronounce such a judg- 

 ment on this case, we may add that there is a question of no small 

 real difficulty, which the progress of science often brings into notice, 

 as it did then. The Revelation on which our religion is founded, seems 

 to declare, or to take for granted, opinions on points on which Science 

 also gives her decision ; and we then come to this dilemma, that 

 doctrines, established by a scientific use of reason, may seem to contra- 

 dict the declarations of Revelation, according to our view of its mean- 

 ing; and yet, that we cannot, in consistency with our religious views, 

 make reason a judge of the truth of revealed doctrines. In the case ot 

 Astronomy, on which Galileo was called in question, the general sense 

 of cultivated and sober-minded men has long ago drawn that distinc- 

 tion between religious and physical tenets, which is necessary to re- 

 solve this dilemma. On this point, it is reasonably held, that the 

 phrases which are employed in Scripture respecting astronomical facts, 

 are not to be made use of to guide our scientific opinions ; they may 

 be supposed to answer their end if they fall in with common notions, 

 and are thus effectually subservient to the moral and religious import 

 of Revelation. But the establishment of this distinction was not accom- 

 plished without long and distressing controversies. Nor, if we wish t 



