M IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) / o i/. u. 1.0 !.l l^|2£ |2.5 m i u iM Hiotographic Sciences Corporatton 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 <#^ a\ ^v t^.-."^ ■^ "!- CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreprcductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notet techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any uf the Images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the u"^al method of filming, are checked below. Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D D n D D Couverture endommagAe Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou poliicul^e I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes gAographiques en couleur Coloured ink ji.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or iifustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couieur Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autres documents right binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serrie peut causer de i'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut qu£ certaines pages blanches ajoutAes lors d'une re8tauratio»> apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6ti filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires: L'Institut a microfiimi le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a At* possible de se procurer. Les details de cat exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniquas du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mtthode normale de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. r~n Coloured pages/ n Pagas de couietsr Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies Pages restored and/oi Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicultes Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pages dicolortes, tachetAes ou piquAes Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir QuaSit6 inigaie de I'^mpression Includes supplementary materit Comprend du materiel supplAmentaire Only edition available/ Seule 6dition disponible I — I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~^ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ r~3 Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ pn Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by erreta slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obsnurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont At6 fiim^es A nouveau de fapon A obtenir la t,t iil!9ure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ranio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de r6duction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X >/ I I 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generocity of: Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Library Dalhoutle University L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grAce d la g^nirositi de: Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Library Dalhousie University The images appearing here are the best qu&Mty possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tanu de !a condition at de Is nbttetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du cnntrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont film6s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmis en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinta d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page q»:i comporte une telle empreinte. The last lecorded frame or each microfiche shall contain the symbol — *> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symbolaa luivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be fiSmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Los cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds i des taux de rMuction diff6rants. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour &tre reprcduit en un seul clich6, 11 est film6 d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagram.'nes suivants illustrent la mdthode. ^ 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^au^..^.fAM ^^ 1^^ ^SL3 dh.u ^i^iliUllliliiLlUi' =»a=i^!^^fel GALILEO AND THE COPEIJNICAN SVSTRM, HOW TREATED BY ROMK : A LECTURE, (\ v\ DELIVKREU FEBRUARY 7, 1*57, IN ST. ANDRETS HALL, AxNTlGONLSlI, liV TU» REV. DR. MACGREGOR. ( / II A IJ FAX. N. S. : PUIMTEU BY COMPTON & (0., 30 & 32 BEDFORD ROW. 18G7. .:f^^^^^- ^ ^^^m / J- :^ mB}0M *^3^iiMM^^ !p -^jj JOHN JAMES STEWART COLLECTION t GALILEO AND THE COPEPNICAN SYSTEM, HOW TREATED BY ROME: A LECTURE, DELIVERED FEBRUARY 7, 1867, ^ IN ST. ANDREW'S HALL ANTIGONISH, BT THB REV. DR. MACGREGOR. HALIFAX, N. S.: PRINTED BT COMPTON & CO., 30 & 82 BEDFORD BOW, 1867. % Y \ \^ \'l TO MY SUPBEIOE DUBINO A PBOLONaED STAY IN THE ETEBNAL OITTj THE VERY EEVEKEND o;jV.H'?l iltilitr ry, in that [)art in which it is a mere narration of facts, is the most siinitlo of tho sciences, tho most easily actpiired, the most easily explained, if it deserve even the luimc of science. The veriest dunce who has tlie ability to read from school, and the faculty of memory from nature, can attain to a knowledge of any siiecified Huhject, .vithout the intervention of any other mental exertion. And vet it is remarkable that a historical falsehood, if once floated into currency, is more difficult of eradication than any other inaecurucy what.-^oever. When u philologist, or an astronomer, or a mathematician, falls into error, the error lives (»nly until it is once deteeted. Xo person afterwards attempt^' to renew it. It becomes a forgotten word, and ceases for ever to mislead succeeding Miquirers; but the historical mistake survives refutation, and, even after it has been exposed, and its falsehood clearly de- monstrated in various ways and by various authors, men will not be wanting, and well informed men, too, to reassert it as contidently as ever, as confidently as if it never were called into question, as contidently as if it were conceded truth. The facts connected with the name of Galileo exemplify the truth of my assertion. A false version, for of two contradic- tor}' versions one is necessarily false, was once circulated; and, although several times since refuted by reference to prior narratives and original documents, it still finds be- liever'i by the million. Men, as a usual rule, are either unable or unwilling to undergo tho labor of a thorough investiga- tion ; or else, blindly confiding in the veracity of a second hand narrative, they contentedly regard as history that which never existed as fact. Nor is the example of Galileo unique in this respect. The fable of the Pope Joanna ; the legend of Robert tho Bruce and the persevering spider; the extravagant description of tho cofiin of Ma.iomot, as suspended in mid air; the seem- m m in cl faj sal tol vi| in Kj vc LECTUUK. in^'ly charactei'irttlc ''Tip giiurdrt and at 'oiu " of WoUiiip^tou at WatcrIo(,; the "All is lost ])Ut honor" of tho French K'mj; ut the battle of Pavia; the majority of the hon mots current as proecedir.u^ from the lips of the first Naiioloon ; the pretty cj)i.so(le of Jossio Brown at Lncknow in the last Indian war: tlicse, and a hundred other similar fictions, which rise to recollection faster than language can express, are truth and history in the estimation of the ordinary public, althotigh they are, in reality, as purely creations of some imaginaiivo author's mind as the "Topsy" of l^ncle Tom's (yubin, or the "Enoch Ardoti " of Mr. Tennyson's last poem The tiction, to which on this occasion I wish to (^all your attention, and which, I doubt not, you all have met in your casual reading, is this ; that, firstly, tlic astronomer Galileo was himself subjected to barbarous cliastisement for attempt- ing to prove the diurnal revolution of the earth on its axis; and, secondly, that this scientitic opinioti was condemned l)y the Church of Homo as false, if not, heretical, doctrine. T shall examine the one and the other of these two aescrti ^ns, and, if T mistake not, I shall demonstrate their l/istorical untruth. To do this, 1 shall necessarily have to trnvel over a great deal of ground, refer very often to the accounts given by wr'te. , and touch more or less at length on various (piestions of iiunor importance in themselves, but bearin^'; directly on the general issue. You sliall pardon me if : j remarks shall be couched in laiiguago devoid of every cle- ment that goes to constitute that which is called oratory; for, my aim shall bo to arrive at historical truth, caring little indeed for the language in which it may be expressed. I claim the privilege of substantiating what I assert, of proving facts on irrefragable evidence. Let others, if they will, sacrifice truth to felicity of diction; I shall sacrifice rhetoric to truth, and feel little concern for the sufferings of the victim. To sustain my latter assertion — it is usually considered first in the order of chronolo_;y — that, namely, the Church of Kome never condemned the scientific hypothesis of the earth's revolution on its own axis, I must call up some uni- versally admitted facts for consideration. Galileo was boru LECTURB. M in Pisa in the year 1564, and inventcti the telescope in 1609 ; tbat 18, in th^ forty-fiftii year of his age. This invention ena- bling him to obtain a more correct view of the heavenly bodies, induced bira to turn his mind to the study of astronomy, a study, 1 need not remark, at tbat time, not so well understood, or reduced to such exactness of detail as it is in our day. Of the various systems excogitated to account for ibe several eftccts manifested in the physical world, and bearing refer- ence to astronomy, be embraced tbat of Coperni(!, or Coper- nicus, as be is more usually called; tbat is, in opposition to the general opinion of the age he lived in, be expressed bis adhesion to a system whicb be did not invent, but which be found developed in the published works of Copernicus. Now Kichoias Copernic, a Catholic Clergyman and a Canon too of Fraueuburg Cathedral, was born at Thorn \n Prussia, in the year 1473, and died at Frauenburg in 1543 ; tbat is, Copernicus died just twenty-one years before Galileo was born, and sixty-six years before be became an astronomer. Therefore the system said to have been condemned by the Church of Rome in the time of Galileo, was aotually pub- lished, and in a book, too, dedicated to the Pope by Coper- nicus at least sixty-six years before the name of Gali'eo appears in the catalogue of astronomers. The person then who in /ented this hypothesis reputed to bo condemned was a Catholic ciergyman, tilling an exalted dignity in the Cathedral Church of Frauenburg, and actu- ally dedicating a defense of the system to the Pope. We can go still farther back to the times of tiiat virtuous and learned man. Cardinal Nicholas de Cusa, who also publicly held the same opi.iion in regard to the diurnal revolution of the earth on its own axis, and this too, while be is highly honored in Rome, entrusted with the most important affairs, one of the council of tlie Pontiff, and eligible to the tiara. The Italian author, Libri, who has done more perhaps than any other man to perpetuate a false intelligence of Galileo's oase; whose sympathy for Galileo was ardent aln\ost to enthusiasm ; whose enmity to Rome aud everything Roman is manifested in almost every page he writes ; who neglects no opportunity of accusation ; who admits nothing in favor of LECTURE. 9 I the Roman (vourt which cau by any show of decent possibi- lity be denied, admits this much. He says : " Eragia concesso al Cardinale di Cusa di sostenere il moto delta terra, et al Coper- nico di pubblicarne la teorica,in un' opera dedicata al Papa." "It had aiveady been allowed to Cardinal de Cusa to sustain the motion o^thc earth, and to Copernicus to publish that theory in a work dedicated to the Pope." We know on the same authority, that the literary society of the Lincei, in Rome, and Prince Cesi, an ardent Catholic, had adopted the Coper- nican system, and defended it with considerable warmth, after the publication of the works of Copernicus, it is true, but before the name of Galileo was heard of. And what is of more importance, the same Libri tells us that Cardinal Bellarmin shortly before the first appearance of Galileo in the Eternal City, referred the theory to the four most learned Jesuits in Rome, the astronomer Clavius bein^^ in the num- ber, and that they did not reject it as contrary' to faith. The words of Libri are : " La loro risposta che vcnne puhblieata fa conoscere che allora non si rispi'^jevano le niiove scopcrte." " Their reply which was published informs us that they did not reject the new discoveries." Now Nicholas de Cusa was born in 1401, promoted to the cardinalate In 1448, and died in 1454. In other words. Cardinal de Cusa died just one hundred and ten years before the birth of Galileo, aid one hundred and fifty-five years before the invention of the telescope by the latter, and his consequent adhesioii to the Copernican system. I have a right to lay great stress on these facts. The Church of Rome is eminently watchful over the doc- trines professed and promulgated by her fold, and especially by such of thom as she selects for positions of hoi>or and distinction. Take up her history from Pelagius to La Mennuis, and you will find that the moment a new religious opinion is broached by any of her children, a general or provincial council is immediately held, the new opinion is examined, and formally condemned if not in accordance with her tenets. Above all, you will find that the vciy suspicion of heresy or infidelity in any postulant for office or rank h an insuperable bar to promotion. The case is the same in all societies, religious or otherwise. Men of susjiccted loyalty — :- -ms- 10 LtlCTURE. II l| arc never culled on to guide the councils, or lead the armies, of the nation. The Episcopiilians of England never nominate a Quaker to the Archbishopric of Canterbury, nor the Kirkmen of Scotland a Baptist or Roman Catholic to the Provostship of Aberdeen. The instinct of solf preservation will prevent men and communitios from committing their fate into the hands of persons whose fidelity they suspect. To suppose, therefore, that an opinion deemed false by the authorities of the Church of Rome, should be publicly held for over one liundred and lifty-five years by men distinguished in her service ; that she would confer her choicest honors on these men ; that she would single them out even in other coun- tries, as De Cusa was singled out for the purple from among a thousand foreign bishops ; that she would never make the least remonstrance against their sentiments, never ask the least exjilanation of their doctrines ; that she would quietly permit them to use the influence and position, which they owed to herself alone, to propagate opinions she condemned, to undermine her own faith, and consequently loosen the hold she had on the public, is simply impossible. Yet she permitted all this; she performed all this, to tlie promoters of the Copernican system ; therefore, she did not condemn that system. The argument is, in my opinion, conclusive ; and the facts on whici? it is based are indisputable. I quoted Libri alone to su-ip(5rt them, because he was an open, avowed enemy. I ccnild, if necessary, quote just as many more as there were contemporary authors, and they are perhaps two score. I tlid not do so simply because no wr"ter ever denied these facts. One hundred and fifty j-ears, besides, is a long period. Even sixty-six years is a long period in the history of scientific or religious opinion. 8ixty-six years ago, no steamship had crossed the Atlantic; half *hat time, or thirty- three years, ago, no Mormon had appeared in the world, and to-day, like the slain of David, they are numbered by tens of thousands. Tt 'n true that Cardinal de Cusa had few disciples, it is true that the publication of his ideas excited very little discussion ; but such was not the case with Coper- nicus. No sooner does his work, the work dedicated to the Pope, appear, than the minds of astronomers, some favor- LECTURE. %i able, more unfavorable, to bia system, arc engaged in study- ing bis bypotbeais. For sixty-six years tbe discussion gooH on in tbe Eternal City itself. Cbnrcb dignitaries range tbemselves, some oti one side, some on tbe otber ; and yet, tbere is no interference on tbe part of tlic Cburcb. And what is more remarkable is, tbat Copernicus found more disciples in Rome tban in any other city, and more support- ers among tbe priests and religious orders, tban among tbe members of any other class. Still, no friar is passed over in the election to tbe abbacy, no priest in tbat to the episco- pacy, because be is a Copernican. Hence, to suppose tbat tbe Church bad condemned tbe Copernican system, would be no more reasonable tban to suppose tbat tbe sovereigns of Britain and the two Houses of Parliament, for the long space of half a century, would quietly and openly jiermit the first minister of tbe Crown to initiate unmolested a line of public policy directly and r.vowedly tending to subvert the throne and abolish tbe Parliament ; or, tbat they would permit him to endeavor to prove by public discussion tbe illegality of tbe 80vereign'iititle,or the nullity of constitutional laws. From the fact, therefore, that no remonstrance was ever made agiiinst Cardinal de Cusa; from the fac*; tbat Prince Ccsi, tbe astro- uomer Clavius, and tbe members of the Lincci institute, were admitted to the fullest communion in church privi- leges; from tbe fact tbat tbe disciples of Copernicus were equally eligible as others to offices and rank in church and state, it is allowable to infer that, down to the time of Galileo, the Copernican system was properly regarded as having no connection whatever with the faith of tbe Catholic Church. I have now disposed of tbe time preceding tbe era of tbe Florentine astronomer. So far, at least, there has been no condemnation ; and, from tbe fact alone, that a discussion was carried on in books, in pamphlets, in colleges, in Rome itself, for so long a period, without eliciting a whisper of approval the one way or the other, I might legitimately infer tbat the brand of heresy or falsehood was never stamped by the Roman authorities on tbe positive one of the two con- tradictory propositions discussed. Rome docs not wait for lustres of years to express disapprobation when the faith of 12 LECTURE. her children is being weighed in the balance. Not in this inert way did she act towards Berengarins, or Abelard, or Scipio Riccio, or towards Qioberti and Passaglia, in our own day. She is more energetic than that, and the least suspicion of adulterated doctrines arouses all her energies on the instant. With her in matters of faith it is yea, yea, or nay, nay, and that, too, without the delay of a moment. She knows no middle course in revelation. She exists by the principle of authority, and, however wide the latitude, how- ever extensive the arena, she allow^s to scientific combatants, she promptly represses the least attempt to overstep the bounds. The province of determining what is and what is not, faith, is reserved exclusively for her head and her coun- cils, and she never hesitates to unsheathe the spiritual sword of censure and excommunication against the trespasser on the sacred domain. This is the principle, the theory, the hidden spring of her action ; and we will find that the case of Galileo does not afibrd an exception in fact to a canon in in theory. But I am digressing from the point at issue. From what I said it will be evident that, at the time I speak of, the Copernicau system was discussed as any other scientific hypothesis, not yet a certainty, might be discussed by scien- tific men. It was discussed in the same manner as Dr. Gall's system of phrenology is now being discussed. It was not yet proved as a truth, nor rejected as a fallacy. The restless ambition of one celebrated man changed the aspect of the question, just as we may imagine some celebrated phrenolo- gist to arise now in the world, and push the opinions of phrenologists to an unwarrantable extent. Suppose that some distinguished believer in Gall and Spurziicim were in oar day to maintain that the truth of phrenology was revealed in Scripture, or, that the passions as defined by the protuberances of the cranium were so powerful in their influence as to conquer the resistance of the free will, or to eliminate it entirely ; — suppose this, I say, and is it not evident that the status of phrenology would instantly ^»e changed? that the question, now properly regarded as purely scientific, would assume a religious aspect, and pass from "■>" LECTtJRB. 18 tins or own c'lon the nay, She ■ the how- ants, 5 the 3 at is conn- Bword ler on y, the le case [ion in 11 what of, the iicntific y Bcien- r. Gall's vas not restless t of the hrenolo- [lions of ose that were in ogy was :d by the ill their vill, or to is it not tantly ^'C as purely pass from the domain of natural belief to the province of revealed religion ? Wore such really to happen, is it not certain that any person maintaining the principles of phrenology thua metamorphosed would be of necessity excluded from spirit- ual communion with tlic members of any denomination that asserts the free will of man as an article of religious belief? "What I here suppose as occurring to the system of Gall, under the auspices of an imaginary individual of our day, is precisely what occurred to the system of Copernicus two hundred and fifty years ago ; and the person who eflfected the change Was no other than Galileo the astronomer. It may seem strange that a man of his mighty genius and capacious intellect should busy himself in a matter so unworthy his reputation and his attainments ; but, it is true as strange. Extraordinary, indeed, would it have been if Newton were to assert that the theory of fluxions is con- tained in the revelations of holj writ ; but this is exactly similar to what Galileo asserted, and seriously insisted that mankind should believe. Let us hear what Guicciardini, the historian, the friend and contemporary of Galileo, and, at that time, the Tuscan ambassador in Pome, says ; and, be it remembered, that he was the avowed defender and disciple of the astronomer, and the unscrupulous enemy of the Papal Court, as his history in nearly every page testifies. In an official despatch dated 6th March, 1819, he asserts that Galileo " demanded that the Pope and the Holy Oflice should declare the system of Copernicus to be founded in the Bible." " Domando Galileo che il Papa ed it Sant' Officio dichiarassero it sistema di Copcrnico fondata sulla Biblia." Mallet du Pan, an impartial Protestant writer, astonished and incredulous when he first read this request, went all the way to Florence, searched the archives of the Foreign Office there, and pub- lished to the world that he found the words in the original document in the handwriting of Guicciaraini. Libri, too, another of the apologists of Galileo, tells us the same thing in other words. He tells us that Galileo "wished above all things to prove that heretofore the Scriptures were falsely interpreted." " Voleva sopratuUo provare che sino allora si erano mal interpretate le Sante Scritture." He tells us, further, 8 14 LECTURE. tliat Galileo publiBhed this strange opinion in letters and paniphleta, which he caused to circulate among a vast num- ber of readers. It is not for mo to remark that two very incongruous assertions are combined in this opinion of the great astronomer. Who does not know that an opinion may be scientiiically true, and yet to assert that it is contained in the Bible may be false ? Scientific truth, I admit, can never come in collision with scriptural or revealed truth ; but, at the same time, there are truths in natural science not to be discovered in the sacred pages, just as there are truths in the sacred pages not to be discovered in natural science. The error of Galileo was, not that he affirr-ed the Copernican system as trutli, but that he affirmed it as revealed truth, and carried his assertion to the very verge of heresy. This mode of procedure on his part, naturally enough, provoked much criticism. Some men there were, more fanatical than judicious, wiio turned his weapons against himself. Arrayed with a vast number of texts, in which it is asserted that the sun rises and sets, performs a daily course, &c., &c., they mamtaiued that the Copernican system was condemned by holy writ. In this, I am free to admit, they erred ; but Galileo, by maintaining that the same system is actually inculcated in the Scriptures, and, particularly in the books of Joshua and Job, erred just as grossly, though in the other extreme. Others, again, like the Jesuits in Rome, and the illustrious Bellarmin, maintained, as Copernicus himself maintained sixty years before, that neither one system nor the other was revealed in the Bible ; and that, consequently, the question must be left to be decided by scientific arguments- Others again, particularly Florentines, attracted by the great fame of Galileo, avowed a full belief in the ipse dixit of their celebrated countryman. A violent controversy was soon excited: Italy was flooded with pamphlets; France, Spain, Holland and Germany shortly after were drawn into the contest ; the scientific hypothesis was little thought of, when men got wrangling about a dogma. No dispute is so bitter as a religious one, none so long protracted, none calculated to arouse more angry and vindictive feelings. Why, it is only now, after three hundred years of continual quarrelling. LECTURE. 15 anil um- vcry the may ;d in , can L'utli ; e not ;ruth8 icuce. uicau truth, This I voiced \\ than rrayed hat the they ned by jd; but actually looks of le other and the himself i nor the ntly, the Tiiments' the great i of their ivaa soon ;e, Spain, iuto the b of, when 8 80 hitter calculated Why, it is uarrelling. ! that men will be found to clasp the warm hand of fellowship in furtherance of a social or scientific cause, without asking their associates whether they believe in falling -from grace, or the doctrine of foreordinatiou. These feelings,- which always underlie weak human nature, were lashed into mad- ness at that time by the unaccountable bearing of Galileo. The inquisition then, but not till then, interfered, not, as I shall show you, to condemn or to affirm a scientific truth, but to terminate a religious dispute, which was really striking at the veracity of the Bible. Silence was imposed on Galileo, in a celebrated decree, in the year 1616. Now, as it is this decree of the Inquisition, or the Holy Office, which has given origin to the impression that the Catholic Church condemned the Copernican system, or, rather, as some modern English writers confidently appeal to it to confirm tl.at impression, I shall examine it carefully, and determine precisely what its object was, and its meaning. Libri, Mullet du Pan, Bartoli, and a host of other writers, testif}' that this decree was everything ever done in the way of condemning the Copernican system. Now, what is its value as against the action of the Church? Put it at its worst and suppose that the Holy Office really wished to condemn, not Galileo's method of argumentation, but the scientific hypothesis he sustained, the Copernican system itself. Will it follow, from this, the worst possible view of the case, and a false one too, as I will shew you just now, will it follow, I ask, that the Church condemned the system itself, independent of the relation to the scriptures which Galileo's insane argumentation fastened thereto? I answer NO, decidedly not. It would indeed follow, if this view of the question were correct, that the council of the Inquisition was in error; but the inquisition is not the Church. It is simply an inferior tribunal in the Church instituted for a specific purpose, the preparatory examen of opinions; but it is not clothed with the power of giving a definitive sentence. It is analagous to a county court in Britain, whence an appeal lies to a higher tribunal, and thence to the general Parliament. "What would be thought of a writer who would accuse her Majesty and the high constitutional 16 LECTURE. m authorities of the realm of murder, merely because a grand jury brought in a true bill, or even because a judge at the assizes, through ignorance or malice, if you will, condemned an innocent man to the gallows? Yet equally reasonable would it be as to hold ihe Church of Rome responsible for a decision made by the inquisition, made by subordinate offi- cials in the interests of that Church, in an inferior judicial capacity. Catholics indeed maintain that the solemn verdict of a general council ratified by the Pope, or even the autho- ritative decision of the Pope alone in his capacity as univer- sal teacher, defines faith and admits no appeal to any power on earth, but they never dreamed of asserting that the action of any minor council or «ongregation, devoid of that august and supreme sanction, is infallible. Were I to assert that the Episcopalian Church of England condemned the theory of the circulation of the blood, merely because Dr. Clarkson, Archdeacon of Canterbury, attacked this theory when first published by Casalpino, as leading to infidelity, I would act precisely as those act who attribute a decree of the inquisi- tion to the Church at large. The Inquisitors are not even Bishops, much less are they the entire EccUsia docens. Had Harvey not demonstrated what Casalpino previously pub- lished as an hypothesis, it is natural to infer that those who now sympathise so much with Galileo, would be accusing the Church of infidelity for not condemning Casalpino'a opinion. I do not, however, admit that the decision of the inquisition was unjust, or tyrannical, or false, or inexpedient, or even unnecessary, in any sense whatever. I believe that their action admits of a solid defense. Either they condemned the system itself, or they condemned the mode of sustaining it, inaugurated by Galileo. If the latter, I ask what course oi procedure could be more just and more dignified than to terminate a controversy which engendered a vast amount o; ill-feeling without tending to any good purpose imaginable, and virtually aiming, not at the denial of any Roman Catho- lic doctrine, but at the veracity of scripture itself? If Galileo were content that his system should be left to the arbitra- ment of the scientific world ; content with the perfect tole- m LECTURE. 17 and the iicd able or a offi- icial rdict Litbo- iver- )Ovver iction UgUBt that :heory rkson, first lid act nquisi- t even . Had ^y pub- isc who ccusiug alpino'a [uisition or even at tbeir aned the ining it, ourse oi than to BOUUt 01 agin able, 111 Catho- [f Galileo e arbitra- •fect tole- I ratiou heretofore shown it and ita supportera ; content to leave the arguments heretofore adduced, and those which chance or more extended investigation in the future would adduce to carry their own weight in its favor; content to leave the matter where it ought to be in the arena of science; if he did not endeavor to elevate it to the dignity of a dogma, the career of Cusa, Copernicus, and others, abundantly show that he would never have been interfered with except to be honored. But he chose to act otherwise. lie chose to mix it up with revelation, and his action was productive of a bitter and uncharitable paper war, which degenerated from the legitimate discussion o^ a scientific question to a deplorable interchange of unwarrantable personalities and scurrikua epithets. The decision so much complained of actually pre. vented the temporary introduction of a new religious sect. That, as a matter of fact, only the method and not the sys- tem was condemned we know from the testimony of Libri, and the very tenor of the injunction communicated to Galileo by Cardinal Bellarmin, the president of the Inquisition. Libri tells ua, it is true, that Bellarmin and the inquisi- tors believed the Copernican system to be false, but after- wards, unwittingly, no doubt, he assures us, that Galileo applied to Bellarmin for a certificate that the system itself was not condemned, and that he received it. Contemporary authors support Libri in this, and nobody ever denied it. l^ow, if the inquisition condemned the system pur ei simple, no one could naturally be better aware of the interdict, than Cardinal Bellarmin, its president, and Galileo the astrono- mer, whose action was the occasion of eliciting a decision at all. Yet both these illustrious personages, so much inter- ested in the matter, are evidently in ignorance of any such condemnation ; or else, they despise it if it really exists. Neither hypothesis is consistent with the fact of a contrary verdict in the Holy Office. Cardinal Bellarmin would not ignore his own action ; Galileo could not ask him to assert a falsehood in anybody's favor, much less in favor of a hated heretic, as he himself on this supposition would be. We have other means, however, of arriving at the true intelligence of this decision. Bellarmin, in his official 18 LECTURE. I •I ;. I 1 M iii s capacity as president, communicates the will of the council to Galileo. He does so, too, by the express command of the Pope, as he himself assures us. And what are the words of the injunction as rejL,'istered in the records of the Holy OtRco ? "Di 7ion jyarlarc piu di qiicsll accordi seolastici fra ilibri Sanii e Copernico ;" that is, that Galileo should "not speak any more of these casuistic points of agreement (he finds) between the Holy Books and Copernicus." lie fur- ther explains the injunction by saying expressly that Galileo "has not been punished," I quote his very words, " that he is not even obliged to make a retraction of the system, but that the Inquisition exacts that he desist from any further inculcation of his mode of sustaining it." But what puts the matter beyond all doubt is the action of the same inquisition in the year 1620. In view of the fact that Galileo's method of defending the system was already censured, an explicit declaration was required by interested parties of the Holy Office as to the religious bear- ings of the system itself. The Inquisition again deliberates on the matter, and formally declares that everybody who chooses may sustain it as an hypothesis, but forbids anew the presumption that it is an hypothesis that can be deduced trom scripture. Therefore, from what I have said, it is in- ferible; from the tactics pursued before and after the event by Galileo : from the testimony of Libri ; from the very registered words of the injunction; and from the subsequent action of the Inquisition itself, that there never was the least intention to condemn the system independent of the doctri- nal errors which Galileo contrived to engraft thereon. I may add as a concluding proof, that Galileo promised com- pliance, returned to Florence, continued unmolested to teach the system as an hypothesis on scientific grounds for seven- teen years, but that on again renewing in 1632 and 1633 his attempt at scriptural proof, he is then, but not till then, again summoned to appear at the Holy Office. Is not the chain of evidence here complete? Let us now again revert to the other hypothesis. Let us suppose against the evidence of history that the Inquisition, not the church, though — the distinction is of the last import- LBCTURB. 19 noil dof the the i fra " not t (he fur- alileo lat he ,but urther n fiCtion of the n was red by 8 bear- berates ly who 19 anew leduced it 19 in- le event he very jsequent the least e doctri- 'eon. I sed com- to teach 3r seven- 1633 his till then, 8 not the . Let us iquisition, st import- anco — let U8 suppose, I say — as I supposed for nr^dmcnt'a sake a moment ago, — that the inquisitors really believed the Copornican system to bo false. Must they on tliat account be traduced for exceptional ignorance, and held up to tho scoffs and jeers of every petty scribbler who chooses to rush into jirint in this nineteenth century ? Far is it from my mind to utter an aiHrmation. To form a correct opinion of bygone times, it i9 necessary to cull bygone circumstances to recollection. No one represents Julius Ccpar or Napoleon Bonaparte as a novice in tho art of war, because the former knew notliing of tire arms, and the latter was ignorant of tho destructive efhcacy of the needle-gun. They were still resplendent geniuses in military science. Human knowledge fluctuates with times and with seasons. One century produces men eminent in one lino of scholar- ship ; another, in another. Astronomy and mathematics, as well as language and literature, or poetry and music, have their golden and their iron age. Shakespeare appeared three hundred years ago and never has had a successor. St. Thomas of Aquin appeared five hundred years earlier, and the profoundest of philosophers since scarcely ever acquired knowledge enough to interpret him. Schools and colleges do a great deal, I admit; but God alone can furnish mankind with a prodigy. Science, it is true, has its eras of progress, but it has its dark eras also, and will have them in spite of men and their labors. Millions of men with better opportu- nities than either Leibnitz or Fenelon have appeared since their time; they were as industrious as they ; they had ad- vantages not then dreamed of; but, though they had lived and studied generations after their contemporaries were borne to the grave, they could not write the " Systema Philo- sophicum," or give to the world the inimitable Wanderings of Telemachus. That one century is more advanced in science, another more restricted, is not the fault of man, but the necessity of nature. Great scholars, like great warriors, have usually appeared in contemporaneous groups. Hence, then, if we wish to judge correctly of the scientific action of any man, or of any body of men, we must first view tho circumstances in which they were placed ; we must measure 20 LEOTURB. ill f *! their attalnmcntH by a relative, not by an abfloliitc, Rtandard; wo niuBt judge them according to the mcanfl at their dinpo- Bal, and the opportunities permitted tliom to embrace. On this principle let us judge the much abuHcd decision, mip- poBing, but not conceding, for the moment, tiiat it involved the condemnation of the Copernican Hystcm. Cardinal do Gusa, it is admitted, suBtaincd it as an opinion one hundred and fifty years before; Copernicus eighty years later published it to the world; but how was it received by the learned gen- erally? Some Jesuits in Rome, the niom])er« of the Lineei, and Prince Cosi, rather warmly defended it; others accepted it as an hypothesis, pretty much as HerBchell or IJull in our days may be imagined to believe that the planets are in- habited. Tyco Brahe, the famous Hwedish astronomer, pro- nounced it false, and made calculations independent of it — correct ones, too — which, having been developed by Kepler, are well known to every astronomer as Kepler's laws ; Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam, of England's sages " the glory and the shame," laughed it to scorn, as subversive of . natural philosophy altogether; Gassendi did not feel suffi- ciently assured of its solidity to adopt it ; Des Cartes admit- ted only a portion ; and yet who would traduce Tyco Brahe, or Kepler, or Bacon, or Gassendi, or Cartcsius, as ignorant ? Are they not celebrated as the great lights of science in their day and generation ? Add to this, that Galileo intro- duced no uewargumenf in its favor otiier than the pretended scriptural warrant, and the ebbing and flowing of the tide ; neither of wliich, in the opinion of all the philosophers since, has the most remote connexion with the point to bo proved. Add to this, that the salient arguments, on which later astronomers chiefly rely, were then unheard of. Nothing was known of the varying oscillation of the pendulum according to the variation of the latitude ; nothing was known of either the depression of the earth at the poles, or of the tumid enlargement of the waters at the equator. It was not even hinted at, that the surrounding atmosphere revolved with the globe of the earth. The orbits of tho planets round the sun were considered perfectly circular, and not eliptical ; the inclination and elipticity of the earth's axis LECTURE. 9Li lf\rd ; iHpo- On fi\ip- olvcd al do ulred liflhod 1 gcn- iiiicfti, ficptcd n our ^ro in- M-, pro- of it— Kopler, laws ; " the rsive of • el fliiffi- j admit- Brahe, rnorant ? icnce in ec intro- irctcnded the tide ; losophers int to bo on which Nothing pendulum :hing was 1 poles, or [uator. It tmosphere (its of tho rcular, and earth's axis was yet to bo (liscovcrcd ; and oven Copcruiciia was obliged to flijpposo a vague and indefiuito third motion of tho earth to explain the vicissitudes of tho seasons. Add to tiiis, that eclipses wci'O calcuhitcd, navigation exorcised, and all the practical uses of astronomy i>erloctly understood, without any recourse to it. Add to this, that the words of Scripture taken in their literal sense would militate against it ; and that it was a time-honored hernicncutical canon, dating from the days and authority of St. Angustino, always to understand Scriptures in their plain literal signification, except where proof exists that they must be understood figuratively ; or, in other words, where a literal meaning would involve a palpable absurdity. Therefore, at tho time of tho decision, the data larnishcd were not such as would necessitate the concurrence of learned and judicious men. More extraordinary still, there is yet extant in the archives of Rinuncini, in Florence, an autograph document of Galileo's, in which, in his old ago and in the perfect enjoyment of complete freedom, ho deliberately asserts his own di«beliof in tho system ho so long sustained. Cesarc Cantu, the living Piednontcso historian, and a member of the Pied- montose Parliament, an avowed liberal in opinion, and recognized as a patriot by the Italian party now opposed to the Holy Sec, describes this document in these words: — " Jlo Ictto ncl richiisfiimo archici Jiinuncini a Fircnzc un autO' grafo di Galileo dcrjli ultimi anni di sua i,ila, dove qual ehe nc sia la raghnc si ricrcde e disdice della ieoria CoiJernicana, e tnette in evidcnza (jli ar