GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES. 29 



indirecte prommtiatum reperitur pertinebat omnino ad 



auctoritatem providentice ecdesiasticce cavere, ne quid detriment! 

 caperet interpretatio Scripturse per conjecturas et hypotheses pie- 

 risque tum temporis visas minime verisimiles. 



We are not, however, I think, obliged to endorse 

 the opinion conveyed in the last sentence that I have 

 quoted, though certain theologians of great weight 

 have held that the ecclesiastical authorities of Galileo's 

 day were only acting with proper prudence in the 

 then existing state of astronomical knowledge. I 

 shall hereafter state why I feel it difficult to follow 

 their judgment. 



But the words I have quoted from Cardinal 

 Franzelin show plainly that the decrees he had in his 

 mind, when he wrote that they were infallibly safe, 

 were of a nature quite different from anything that 

 took place in the processes connected with Galileo ; 

 and although he alludes principally to that which 

 passed in 1633 before the Inquisition, he appears to 

 include the whole affair in the judgment he passes 

 upon it ; indeed, the sentence of the tribunal in 1633, 

 and the abjuration enjoined upon Galileo at that time, 

 were made to depend on the decree of the Index in 

 1*616, and the admonition then given to Galileo by 

 Cardinal Bellarmine. Cardinal Franzelin's opinion, 

 then, whatever weight we may give to it, is clear 

 enough. 



I give one more extract from the work of this 

 learned author on the subject of the Pope's infalli- 

 bility, showing that he was of opinion that doctrinal 



