Rome; and not merely of her unchangeable spirit, but of her ceaseless vigilance and of her scrutinizing jealousy, a vigilance and a jealousy exercised alike upon all subjects, sacred and profane, in respect to which any freedom of inquiry has been or can be indulged '.

Among those subjects, (to return to the proof of my charge) the House could scarcely have supposed that the most abstract of the sciences could have been included: but the evidence is before you. Nothing can be more impartial than the prohibition even of the mathematics of astronomy. The Church of Rome has proscribed Copernicus, both in his own work and in Kepler's Epitome 3; but to make all things even, she has proscribed Descartes also, and more than one of his commentators 5. Will the House believe it possible that the celebrated sen

2

3

1 In Aug. 1826, I saw in the library of a convent the Paris reprint of this Index, with an extra title-page implying that it was a volume of a series published by the Congregation.

2

COPERNICUS (Nicolaus) De Revolutionibus orbium cœlestium libri vi. nisi fuerint correcti juxta emendationem editam anno 1620. Decr. 15 Maii 1620. Ind. p. 77.

3 KEPPLERUS Joannes. Epitome Astronomia Copernicanæ, Decr. 10 Maii 1619. Ind. p. 163.

DES CARTES, Renatus. Opera Philosophica. Donec corrigantur. Decr. 20 Novemb. 1663. Ind. p. 52.

5 LA GRAND Antonius. Institutio Philosophiæ secundum principia Renati Descartes. Decr. 15 Jan. 1714.

LA GRAND. Apologia pro Renato Descartes contra Samuelem Parkerum. Decr. 21 Jan. 1721. SCHWELINGIUS Joannes Ebarhardus Exercitationes Cathedrariæ in Petri

1

tence against Galileo', a sentence immortalised by the execration of science in every country where

Danielis Huetii censuram Philosophiæ Cartesianæ, Decr. 15. Jan. 1714. Ind. p. 286. It is probable that these refer to the metaphysical works only of Descartes.

1

GALILEI GALILEO. Dialogo sopra i due massimi Sistemi del Mondo, Tolemaico e Copernicano. Decret. 23 Augusti, 1634. Ind. p. 124. In reference to the Newspaper Reports of this Speech, my attention was called by a controversialist in "The Catholic Miscellany" for 1825, to "Bergier, Dict. Theol. art. Galilée: Feller's Dict. Biograph. Art. Copernic: where it is shewn that the Roman Inquisition condemned Galileo, not for maintaining the system of the earth's rotation, but for founding that system on the divine authority of Scripture."-Even if this were accurate in the case of Galileo, it cannot apply to the case of Copernicus: it cannot apply to the famous apology of the Jesuit Editors of Newton cited in the next note; but it does not apply even to the case immediately quoted: the act of the late Pope including the works of Galileo among the prohibited books is unqualified, and leaves no reason to believe that the original censure was less extensive. If nothing more, indeed, were known of the mind of Galileo than the celebrated exclamation “E pur si move," which burst from him the moment after he had made his recantation, it would be sufficient to prove that it was the doctrine and not the authority for it, which he had been required to retract; that it was the theory of the earth's motion, and not the foundation of that theory, the fact and not the quotation, which the Inquisition compelled him to renounce; and which the Church of Rome by her highest authority (such is the curse on herself of her own claim of infallibility) at this day continues to reject and proscribe.-(The authorities which I have consulted are Morery. the Diction. Biograph. Paris.-Chalmers. Biogr. Dict.-Brucker. Hist. Phil.v.634.--Enfield. Hist. Philos. ii. 605.)

-We are sometimes taunted with an ungenerous and needless severity, in requiring the Church of Rome specifically and formally

B

the mind is free, should be renewed and republished in 1819? Yet of this fact I hold the proof in my hand in the Volume of the Index which I have quoted. The work of Algarotti on the Newtonian system', and Fontenelle's plurality of

to renounce positions which, though once held, she has long since practically, though silently, abandoned; we are told "that we ought not to expect, certainly not to require, that any great body of men will publicly retract an error, the inheritance of centuries, and thereby condemn themselves and all their predecessors; it is sufficient, that, in fact and in truth, the existing generation have abandoned the obnoxious doctrines: the last sacrifice which men will make is that of their self-love, which this humiliating and compulsory, this useless and almost mischievous declaration will wound publicly. It is too much to require the Pope formally to renounce the deposing power, for instance, or to retract the censures of his Church against the great names of science and literature. It is enough that he no longer attempts to exercise that deposing power, or to burn in Paris or in London the works of Montesquieu or Locke."-Admitting for the sake of argument that it is so ;-we may still ask, why does the Pope republish and renew the censures of his predecessors against all those who limit the Papal power? Why does he collect and reprint all their decrees against the learning of every past age? Why, at least, if he cannot retract those decrees, openly and authoritatively, does he not suffer the names of Galileo and Bacon to drop quietly out of the list of books, which, at this day, he himself consigns to the Inquisition?

1

Decr. 13 Apr. 1739. Ind. p. 216. It is very true, that the best edition of the works of Newton was published by two Ex-Jesuits;—but what prostration of mind does the Church of Rome require, when it can obtain from two such men, as Le Seur and Jacquier, such an apology for their Newtonianism, as the following:-"P. P. Le Seur et Jacquier Declaratio. Newtonus in hoc tertio Libro telluris motæ hypothesim assumit.

worlds, suffer the same condemnation; so that every modification of science, in other words, every effort of free inquiry, every attempt to disengage the

Autoris propositiones aliter explicari non poterant, nisi eâdem quoque factâ hypothesi. Hinc alienam coacti sumus gerere personam. Cæterum latis à summis Pontificibus contrà telluris motum Decretis nos obsequi profitemur."-Tom. iii. Genev. 1742.

Decr. 1 Dec. 1687. Ind. p. 101. Another of the books prohibited is the following-Le Monde dans la Lune, divisé en deux livres, le premier prouvant que la Lune peut etre un Monde la seconde que la terre peut etre un Planette, de la traduction du Sr. de la Montagne. Decr. 12 Martii, 1703. Ind. p. 119. Another is the following: "Foscarini, Paolo Antonio. Lettera sopra l'opinione de Pittagorici e del Copernico della mobilita della Terra, è stabilita del Sole." Decr. 5 Martii, 1616. Ind. p. 120.

2 This opposition to inquiry becomes ludicrous when applied to a subject of such apparent indifference as that which appears to be the question at issue between the two following works, (on the real Rubicon) each of which is impartially prohibited, "donec corrigatur." VINCENTIUS Civis Cæsenas. De Rubicone antiquo, Dissertatio adversus Ariminenses Scriptores.Ind. p. 325.-VILLANIUS. Jacobus. Ariminensis Rubicon in Cæsenam Claramontii. Ind. p. 324.-That the Contrat social of ROUSSEAU should be consigned by the Pope to the Inquisition is not so surprising as that two answers to it should be condemned along with it. The entries are as follows:-1. RousSEAU (J. J.) Du contrat social, ou principes du droit politique. Decr. 16 Junii, 1766. Ind. p. 272.-2. BAUCLAIR (P. L.) Citoyen du monde. Anti-contrat social, dans lequel on refute d'une maniere claire, utile, et agreable les principes posés dans le contrat social de J. J. Rousseau, Citoyen de Geneve. Decr. 16 Junii, 1766. Ind. p. 27.-3. Offrande aux autels et à la Patrie, contenant Defense du Christianisme, ou refutation du

mind from the trammels of authority, is alike and universally consigned to the Inquisition.

I venture to think that a good library in almost every class of literature might be formed out of the books, which the Church of Rome in this "Index" prohibits. Let me not be misunderstood; I am very far from defending all the works which are prohibited by the Church of Rome: upon this question it is not necessary to enter here. I admit that there are tares which she by her Index roots out. I complain only that she plucks up the wheat still more vigorously, and far more extensively; and that the spirit of her interference is hostile alike to freedom, to knowledge, and to religion. Have I not already produced sufficient proofs of my charge? am I not already justified in saying, when I look back upon her control of general literature and of science, (a control claimed and maintained at this very day), that the Church of Rome remains unchanged, the unchangeable enemy to the progress of the human mind? Every other institution is advancing with sails set and banners streaming, on the high yet still rising tide of improvement: the Church of Rome alone remains fixed, and bound to the bottom of the stream by a chain which can neither be lengthened nor removed.

After this, the House will not be surprised to find that the Church of Rome is singularly jealous of ecclesiastical history. It is, indeed, a subject

Chapitre viii. du contrat social, &c. par M. Anton. Jaq. KOUSTAN. Decr. 14 Maii, 1779. Ind. p. 223.