After a rather weak recapitulation of the declaration so unedifying to posterity, made by Galileo at his second hearing, the sentence proceeds to the discussion of an authentic document which formed the chief defence of the accused: the certificate given him in 1616 by Cardinal Bellarmine. The authors of the sentence had at this point a delicate and difficult task to perform. The object was to uphold the inviolability of the "note" of 26th February, 1616—this main support of the whole indictment—and by no means to make this attestation appear at variance with the actual circumstances, or it would have become an important argument in favour of the accused. Nay, to avoid this rock, material for the accusation had to be found in the words of the certificate itself And thus we find this document, which, as Wohlwill pertinently remarks,[1] by the words "but only" directly denies the assumed stringent prohibition of 1616, singularly enough, thanks to the sophistry of the Roman lawyers, forming a weighty argument in the sentence for the Inquisitors: "But this certificate," it says, "produced by you in your defence, has only aggravated your delinquency; since although it is there stated that the said opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture, you have nevertheless dared to discuss and defend it, and to argue its probability."
But as here they again had to refer to the protecting imprimatur of the ecclesiastical censors, they hasten to add: "nor does the licence, artfully and cunningly extorted by you, avail you anything, since you did not notify the command imposed upon you."
One cannot help drawing the conclusion, that if the attestation of Cardinal Bellarmine is accepted as true, "the command imposed" did not exist, and of course could not be communicated by Galileo to the censors.
In the clause of the sentence referring to the attestation, a passage is dexterously interwoven, which ascribes the decree of 5th March, 1616, to the Pope; while, as we know,
- ↑ Page 60.
