GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES. 31 



ratified the decision and ordered its publication. This 

 was in 1857. Gunther and many of his followers 

 submitted, but others contended that a merely disci- 

 plinary decree was not conclusive. On this Pope 

 Pius IX. addressed a brief to the Archbishop of 

 Cologne, in which he intimated that a decree sanc- 

 tioned by his authority and published by his order 

 should have been sufficient to close the question, that 

 the doctrine taught by Gunther could not be held to 

 be true, and that it was not permitted to any one to 

 defend it from that time forward. 



I extract the words as given by Mr. Eoberts : 



Quod quidem Decretum [that of the Index] Nostra Auctoritate 

 sancitum Nostroque jussu vulgatum, sufficere plane debebat, ut 

 questio omnis penitus dirempta censeretur, et omnes qui Catholico 

 gloriantur nomine clare aperteque intelligerent sibi esse omnino 

 obtemperandum, et sinceram haberi non posse doctrinam Gtintha- 

 rianis libris contentam, ac nemini deinceps fas esse doctrinam iis 

 libris traditam tueri ac propugnare, et illos libros sine debita 

 facultate legere ac retinere. 



Mr. Eoberts, it must be remembered, is not simply 

 investigating the history of Galileo, but is contending, 

 for other reasons, against certain opinions on the sub- 

 ject of Papal infallibility held by an able foreign theo- 

 logian, M. Bouix, and by Dr. Ward, and he uses 

 Galileo as a weapon (and, in his estimation, a most for- 

 midable weapon) in the controversy. Now, in the 

 capacity I have assumed of a lay theologian, I do not 

 feel bound to discuss whether the decree in Giinther's 

 case was merely disciplinary, or whether it was dog- 



