GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES. 99 



when writing on some totally different point, and by 

 urging that if these things are true, then Galileo's 

 condemnation was tantamount to a definition de fide. 



I do not feel called upon to answer arguments of 

 this kind. But there is another which is more 

 relevant, drawn from the Brief addressed by Pope 

 Pius IX. to the Archbishop of Munich, about twenty- 

 five years ago, when the congress of philosophers, of 

 whom Dr. Dollinger was the leading spirit, had been 

 held in that city. In that Brief, the Pope states that 

 it is requisite for good Christians to subject themselves 

 in conscience to decisions pertaining to doctrine that 

 are put forth by the Pontifical Congregations ; and 

 also to such heads of doctrine as are held to be 

 theological truths by the common consent of Catholics, 

 even when the denial of these does not involve heresy, 

 but deserves some other censure. 



Theologians, I believe, are not agreed as to whether 

 this Brief is strictly ex cathedra, and therefore to be 

 treated as infallible. But let us assume that it 

 is so. Does the expression, " subject themselves in 

 conscience," mean necessarily anything more than a 

 respectful acquiescence, as distinguished from a full 

 interior assent ? And, allowing that it does even 

 mean this latter, it is for doctrinal decisions that such 

 authority is claimed ; and what I am maintaining is, 

 that the decrees in the case of Galileo were purely 

 disciplinary. 



I do not of course deny that the line of demarcation 

 between doctrinal and disciplinary is sometimes hard 



H 2 



