The first point, from the standpoint of the Inquisition, which treated the note of 26th February, 1616, as an authentic document, is certainly correct; the second, even according to the maxims of Rome, is not to the purpose. According to these maxims a proposition can only be made into a dogma by “infallible” authority, namely, by the Pope speaking _ex cathedra_, or by an Œcumenical Council; and on the other hand, it is only by the same method that an obligation can be laid upon the faithful to consider an opinion heretical. But a decree of the Congregation of the Index does not entail the obligation; for, although by virtue of the authority conferred on it, it can enforce obedience and inflict punishment, its decrees are not “infallible.” They can, however, be made so, according to ecclesiastical views, either by the subsequent express confirmation of the Pope by a brief in his name, as supreme head of the Christian Catholic Church; or by the decree of the Congregation being originally provided with the clause: “_Sanctissimus confirmavit et publicari mandavit._” But the decree of 5th March, 1616, is neither confirmed by a subsequent brief, nor does it contain that special formula; and, therefore, in spite of this decree, which declared the opinion of Copernicus to be “false and contrary to Holy and Divine Scripture,” it might still be considered as undecided, and even probable, because the decree might be fallible, and did not entail the obligation to adopt its sentence as an article of faith.[397] This must also have been the view of the ecclesiastical authorities of the censorship, who had given Galileo’s book the _imprimatur_, and thereby, as H. Martin justly remarks,[398] relieved the author of responsibility, not in anything relating to the assumed special prohibition, but concerning the accordance of the work with the published decree. Point 2, therefore, seems as unjustifiable as it is untenable. The sentence now gives a brief _résumé_ of the confessions made by Galileo during the examination, which are employed to confirm his guilt. The twofold reproach is urged against him, as of special weight, that he began to write his “Dialogues” after the issue of the assumed prohibition, and that he said nothing about it in obtaining the _imprimatur_ of the censors; thus the special prohibition was treated as an established fact—on the one hand, his disobedience to an injunction of the ecclesiastical authorities was proved, and on the other, the _imprimatur_ was obtained on false pretences, and was null and void.