rendered to the doctrine
of papal infallibility to claim that a decision so immense in its
consequences could be influenced by the personal resentment of the
reigning pontiff.

Again, as to the first point, the very language of the various sentences
shows the folly of this assertion; for these sentences speak always of
"heresy" and never of "contumacy." As to the last point, the display
of the original documents settled that forever. They show Galileo from
first to last as most submissive toward the Pope, and patient under the
papal arguments and exactions. He had, indeed, expressed his anger at
times against his traducers; but to hold this the cause of the judgment
against him is to degrade the whole proceedings, and to convict Paul V,
Urban VIII, Bellarmin, the other theologians, and the Inquisition, of
direct falsehood, since they assigned entirely different reasons
for their conduct. From this position, therefore, the assailants
retreated.(78)

(78) The invention of the "contumacy" quibble seems due to Monsignor
Marini, who appears also to have manipulated the original documents to
prove it. Even Whewell was evidently somewhat misled by him, but Whewell
wrote before L'Epinois had shown all the documents, and under the
supposition that Marini was an honest man.

The next rally was made about the statement that the persecution of
Galileo was the result of a quarrel between Aristotelian professors on
one side and professors favouring the experimental method on the other.
But this position was attacked and carried by a very simple statement.
If the divine guidance of the Church is such that it can be dragged
into a professorial squabble, and made the tool of a faction in bringing
about a most disastrous condemnation of a proved truth, how did the
Church at that time differ from any human organization sunk into
decrepitude, managed nominally by simpletons, but really by schemers? If
that argument be true, the condition of the Church was even worse than
its enemies have declared it; and amid the jeers of an unfeeling world
the apologists sought new shelter.

The next point at which a stand was made was the assertion that
the condemnation of Galileo was "provisory"; but this proved a more
treacherous shelter than the others. The wording of the decree of
condemnation itself is a sufficient answer to this claim. When doctrines
have been solemnly declared, as those of Galileo were solemnly declared
under sanctio