GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES. 27 



As an argumentum ad hominem against certain 

 writers who have suggested that such an omission in 

 the Galileo case was a remarkable instance of Divine 

 Providence, Mr. Eoberts' answer may stand ; but it 

 has nothing to do with the main argument. It only 

 shows that whereas the Popes of more modern times 

 have employed the Eoman Congregations as instru- 

 ments for conveying to the world their own decrees 

 on certain doctrinal subjects, the Popes of the early 

 part of the seventeenth century had no such custom. 

 They used the Congregations for various disciplinary 

 purposes, founded sometimes, no doubt, on reasons of 

 doctrine, and they sanctioned the proceedings so 

 taken ; but they did not give them the explicit im- 

 press of their own name and authority. Even when 

 this latter has taken place, it is not every theologian 

 who holds that such decree is infallible. Cardinal 

 Franzelin, a writer of the highest authority, whose 

 words I give in a note,* held that it was not in- 



* " Principium 7 m . Sancta Sedes Apostolica cui divinitus com- 

 missa est custodia deposit!, ^>otestas pascendi universam Ecclesiam 

 ad salutem animarum, potest sententias theologicas vel quatenus cum 

 theologicis nectuntur proscribere ut sequendas vel proscribere ut 

 non sequendas, non unice ex intentioiie definitiva sententia in- 

 fallibiliter decidendi veritatem, sed etiam absque ilia ex necessitate 

 et intentione vel simpliciter vel pro determinatis adjunctis prospi- 

 ciendi securitati 1 doctrinse Catholicae. In hujusmodi declara- 

 tionibus licet non sit doctrinae veritas mfallibilis, quia hanc 

 decidendi ex hypothesi non est intentio; est tamen infalliUlis 



1 "J^on coincidere hsec duo, infallibilem veritatem et securitatem, 

 manifestum est vel ab eo, quod secus nulla doctrina probabilis aut 

 probabilior posset dici sana et secura." 



