It seems probable from the position taken by Father Searle that in the cases in which the utterances of the Papacy have by later events been shown to be based upon error or have even directly been recalled or corrected by later papal utterances, the Catholic of to-day would take the ground that these erroneous utterances did not belong to the class for which infallibility was claimed. Under this class of exceptions would doubtless be placed the condemnation of Galileo, and also the condemnation of certain Catholic books maintaining doctrines not accepted at the time as dogmas of the Church but which later secured official acceptance. =3. The Index and the Liberal Catholics, in 1897. “Romanus” and “The Tablet.”=--In October, 1897, after the promulgation of the first Index of Leo XIII and at the time when announcements concerning the scheme of the second Index were being made, a writer in the _Contemporary Review_ undertook to present views in regard to the literary policy of the Church of Rome and its responsibilities towards the intellectual development of the century. The writer subscribes himself “Romanus” and writes as a faithful and conscientious member of the Catholic Church. He claims to be expressing the apprehensions of a large body of educated Catholics in England and on the Continent as to the probable loss of influence on the part of the Church and of the weakening of its hold on men possessing both education and conscience, in case its present rulers should persist in maintaining a mediaeval policy in regard to intellectual matters. “Romanus” insists that the Church must accept and abide by all of the conclusions of modern science the foundations of which are shown to be thoroughly assured, and that unless the Church may make science its own, it must of necessity lose influence with conscientious students throughout the world. I cite below some of the more noteworthy utterances in this article. “Leo XIII,” says “Romanus,” “has inspired respect and sympathy even among men who are strongly opposed to Catholicism.” He goes on to speak of Leo as that “gentle, cultured, conciliatory pontiff, the promoter of historical research, the friend of the French Republic.” The main purpose of his article is to show that “liberal Catholicism,” so far from having ceased to exist, has only been transformed into a much more “formidable movement.”