that of trying to frame a science of Faith by the same means wherewith chemistry or natural philosophy are to be studied. And now let us briefly review the condemnations that follow.
The eighth and ninth condemn the ridiculous system I have just referred to.
The tenth strikes at the error of implying that a man of science may outwardly accept and inwardly reject the dogmas of Faith, as if the philosopher indeed were subject to God, but human science were independent of the divine intellect.
The eleventh is aimed at the error of those who would fain take from the Church her power of defending the revealed deposit from the dangers that beset it through the abuse of reason.
The twelfth contradicts the insulting assertion that Papal decrees impede the progress of science. It does not touch the question whether, in any particular case, the act or decree of any Pope not speaking ex cathedrâ may have impeded the development of some particular scientific theory, true or otherwise; but condemns, as scores of learned Protestants have done ere now, the sweeping calumny of the enemies of the Holy See.
The thirteenth condemnation displays, even in a human sense, the most consummate wisdom. The author of the censured opinion means to treat faith and reason on the same level; but the full pith of the condemnation can only be felt by those who have fathomed the almost godlike intellectual strength of mediæval divines.
The fourteenth, after what I have said, needs no comment.
