thing decreed. This Mr. Mivart has not done, and the result is that any one whose information on Galileo's case is taken solely from his essay must of necessity fall into egregious errors' with regard to that case. There are two, and only two, official documents bearing directly on the case-the decree of the Index, dated the 5th of March, 1616, and that of the Inquisition, dated the 22nd of June, 1633. Mr. Mivart says that, by order of Urban the Eighth, the Inquisition formally promulgated certain statements for the express purpose that Catholic men of science might be informed what they were to hold on this subject.' These statements are two propositions censured, long before Urban became Pope, by the qualifiers of the Inquisition, whose express purpose' was not to decide (for they had no authority to do so) 'what Catholic men of science were to hold,' but to arrange and systematise the matter on which the cardinals were to pass judgment. These propositions formed the basis of the decree of A.D. 1616, and are recited as part of the history of the case in the preamble of the decree of A.D. 1633, but they were not 'formally promulgated' for 'Catholic men of science' by Index, or Inquisition, or Pope. The decree of A.D. 1616, as far as it bears on Galileo's case, is as follows:

Decree of the Holy Congregation of most illustrious Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church specially deputed by our Holy Father, Pope Paul the Fifth, and the Holy Apostolic See, for the Index of Prohibited Books; and for the permission, prohibition, expurgation, and printing of them in the whole Christian world, to be published everywhere.

After referring to, and condemning, certain books in no way connected with Galileo's case, the decree proceeds as follows:

And whereas it has come to the knowledge of the aforesaid Holy Congregation that that false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether opposed to Holy Scripture, on the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun, taught by Nicholas Copernicus in his book on the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies, and by Didacus Astunica in his Commentary on Job, is being now promulgated and accepted by many, as may be seen from a printed letter of a certain Carmelite father, entitled 'Lettera del B. Padre Maestro Paolo Antonio Foscarini,' . . . wherein the aforesaid Father has endeavoured to show that the aforesaid doctrine of the immobility of the sun in the centre of the universe, and of the mobility of the earth, is consonant with truth, and is not opposed to Holy Scripture; therefore, lest such an opinion should grow on further to the destruction of Catholic truth (this Congregation) has decreed that the said (books) Nicholas Copernicus de Revolutionibus and Didacus Astunica on Job be suspended until they are corrected; and that the book of F. Paul Antony Foscarini should be altogether prohibited and condemned, and that all other books that teach the same thing should be prohibited, as by this present decree (the Congregation) prohibits, condemns, and suspends all respectively. In witness whereof this decree was signed and sealed with the hand and seal of the most illustrious and most reverend Lord Cardinal of Saint Cecilia, Bishop of Albano, on the 5th day of March, 1616.

Now on the face of this decree we read the character, the extent of the authority from which it emanated. It comes to us as the act of a number of cardinals, deputed by the Pope certainly, but deputed

for a fixed and well-defined purpose, beyond which their authority did not extend. They are deputed for the 'permission, prohibition, expurgation, and printing of books,' and for the forming of an 'index of such books to be published everywhere.' They are not deputed, and they could not be, by the Pope, to make for us articles of faith, or to tell us with infallible certainty what is, or is not, heresy. Their prohibition of books, I admit, presupposes a judgment on the part of the cardinals that the books prohibited are unsound in doctrine or dangerous to morality. This judgment ought to be prudent, and generally is so, but no Catholic regards it as infallible. It is the judgment of a fallible tribunal. But the fallibility of that judgment is no reason for refusing obedience to the decree founded on it. Just as the judges in our law courts may be in error as to law in a given case and are not infallible expounders of law in any case, but no sane person would think of setting aside all their decisions on that account. And yet what no one would say of the judges is precisely what Mr. Mivart says of the theologians. A certain number of them happened to express an erroneous opinion on a subject on which they are confessedly fallible, and he says, never mind the ecclesiastical authorities-the theologians henceforward: Men of science should in no wise allow their efforts after truth to be checked by the declarations of ecclesiastical obstructives.' But it is said that this decree has been officially confirmed by the Pope, and that consequently the supreme teaching authority of the Catholic Church has declared Copernicanism to be heresy. Now is this so? Nothing need be clearer or more explicit than the language in which the Catholic doctrine on Papal infallibility is defined. The Vatican Council defined

that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when, in the discharge of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians, he, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church-is, by the divine assistance promised to him in the blessed Peter, endowed with that infallibility wherewith our Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrines of faith or morals.

The Pope thus speaks ex cathedra, or infallibly, when (1) he speaks as universal teacher, (2) when in virtue of his apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals, (3) when he intends his teaching for all the members of the Church and means it to be binding on them all. In these circumstances Catholics believe the Pope to be infallible, and they accept his teaching unhesitatingly with the assent of faith. What the Pope's opinions may be on matters not revealed or not connected in any way with revelation, what his private opinions may be even with reference to things that are revealed, need be of no concern to Catholics. It is his ex-cathedra, that is his public solemn and official teaching, that claims from them the assent of faith. Now, even though I were to admit (which I do not for a moment) that the decree of 1616 was officially confirmed by the

Pope, I ask, does that decree rank as ex-cathedra teaching in the sense defined by the Vatican Council-the only sense that is binding on Catholics? The Pope does not speak in it as universal doctor and teacher; he does not speak in it at all. There is no doctrine of faith or morals promulgated in it; the thing decreed in it is the prohibiting of certain books, and the suspension of certain others. That is, it is a purely disciplinary decree which may be altered according to circumstances, and such a decree is not rendered dogmatic by the approbation of the Pope. By such approbation the decree would acquire a more stringent binding force, but its nature is not changed. And it is the thing decreed, and not the preamble or the reasons for it, that is affected by the approbation. So true is this that even though there were question of a dogmatic definition issued by the Pope himself speaking ex cathedra, it is the definition itself, not the preamble to it or the arguments given in support of it, that is infallibly true. Bishop Fessler (True and False Infallibility) says: Even in dogmatic decrees, bulls, &c., not all that therein occurs in any one place, not all which occurs or is mentioned incidentally, not a preface nor what is laid down as the basis of the decree, is to be looked upon as a dogmatic definition, and so as matter of infallibility' (p. 46). And at page 65 he adds: Moreover, if we ' have before us a real and true dogmatic definition of the Pope, still only that portion of it is to be looked upon and accepted as an excathedra utterance which is expressly designated in the definition, and nothing whatever is to be so regarded which is only mentioned as accessory matter.' I may remark that Dr. Fessler was the secretary of the Vatican Council, a sufficient guarantee for the complete orthodoxy of his theological views. Dr. Murray (De Ecclesia, Disp. XI. No. 25) says: Infallibility does not extend to the motives of the definition, nor to the arguments in favour of that definition.' Cardinal Hergenröther (Church and State) says: 'And we must, in every doctrinal decision of Pope or General Council, distinguish between the definition itself and the grounds or reasons alleged for it. Only the definition itself is infallible. This is no new distinction, but one that has ever been well known to theologians and canonists, and also to the Roman Court' (p. 31). And in favour of this view he quotes, and quotes correctly, Cano, Bellarmine, Suarez, and Veron. Father Knox (Infallibility) says: "In the case of an infallible decree, it is only the doctrine ruled, and not the grounds alleged in support of that ruling, that is exempt from the possibility of error' (p. 92). Here, then, are Catholic theologians, ultramontanes of the most pronounced type, the very last men to minimise Papal prerogatives, and yet they so limit the doctrine of infallibility as completely to exclude such decrees as Galileo's condemnation from the list of ex-cathedra pronouncements. Now, as we are to take the interpretation of legal documents from lawyers, so too must we take

6

6

the interpretation of the decrees against Galileo from theologians and canonists, experts in the interpretation of such documents. And they tell us that even the most solemn and authoritative approbation of such decrees is not an authoritative pronouncement on the motive of the decrees-that a Papal prohibition and condemnation of Copernican books is not an ex-cathedra judgment that the doctrine contained in these books is false and contrary to Scripture.' Therefore, were I to admit that the Pope solemnly approved and confirmed the decree of 1616, the assertion contained in the preamble of that decree, namely, that the doctrine was false and contrary to Scripture,' comes to us as the opinion of the cardinals and qualifiers, and as nothing more. And as such Mr. Mivart will not find it a very valuable prop for his thesis.

But the decree was not confirmed by the Pope or approved by him in any sense that could entitle it to be regarded as an ex-cathedra act. The decree itself bears no intrinsic evidence of such confirmation. It is published in the name not of the Pope, but of the Cardinal Bishop of Albano. The only extrinsic evidence of Papal confirmation is, first, the certificate given by Bellarmine to Galileo, in which the decree is spoken of as a 'declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Congregation of the Index;' and secondly, the alleged confirmation by the bull Speculatores' of Alexander the Seventh. Bellarmine's certificate,was given to Galileo to meet a calumny circulated by his enemies, to the effect that he was forced to recant and abjure his errors. The recantation was supposed to have been made at an interview between Galileo and Bellarmine on the 26th of February, 1616. At a meeting of the Holy Office on the 3rd of March, at which the Pope was present, Bellarmine gave an account of the above interview. A minute of that meeting has been published by Gherardi. It is as follows:·--

March 3, 1616.—The Lord Cardinal Bellarmine having reported that Galileo Galilei, mathematician, had in terms of the order of the Holy Congregation been admonished to abandon the opinions he has hitherto held that the sun is the centre of the spheres, and immovable, and that the earth moves, and had acquiesced therein; and the decree of the Congregation of the Index having been presented, prohibiting and suspending respectively the writings of Nicholas Copernicus (De Rev.), of Diego de Zuniga on Job, and of Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite friar; His Holiness ordered the edict of prohibition and suspension respectively to be published by the Master of the Sacred Palace.

Now, if the falsehood of the doctrine was one of the cardinal points discussed at this meeting, how strange that the minutes make no reference to it! They do not tell all that was said, but the decision that the doctrine was heretical was surely the most important part of the proceedings, and yet there is no reference to any such decision.. And it is merely the prohibition and suspension of certain books that is sanctioned by the Pope; and this surely has none of the

conditions of an ex-cathedra act. There is no truth of faith announced as necessary to be believed by all the faithful, no principle of morality enjoined as obligatory on all. A mere disciplinary edict is issued by a Congregation with the sanction of the Pope. I admit freely that Paul the Fifth, and after him Urban the Eighth, and the cardinals believed Galileo's speculations to be opposed to Scripture, at least in its prima facie meaning, and that this belief probably inspired their treatment of Galileo; but this belief does not come to us with the official stamp of papal ex-cathedra teaching upon it. It comes to us as their private opinion, and as such is in no sense binding upon us. Then there was no retractation, as there certainly would have been if Galileo's doctrine had been condemned as heretical by an ex-cathedra decree. No one at the time regarded the decree of 1616 as defining that Galileo's doctrines were heretical. In a letter to Picchena on the 6th of March (the day after the issue of the decree), he writes with evident satisfaction of the disappointment of his enemies because his doctrines were not defined to be heretical. Five days later (11th of March), he had a most friendly interview (benignissima udienza, his own words) with the Pope, when Paul the Fifth assured him that he and the cardinals were well aware of the malice of Galileo's enemies, and assured him also that during his pontificate he (Galileo) would have nothing to fear from them. Here, then, we have a man whose doctrine is said to have been defined heretical on the 5th of March, having on the 11th a most friendly audience with the pontiff who condemned him, and receiving from that author of his troubles assurances of sympathy and protectionand all this without being asked to retract one iota of his heretical tenets. Just fancy some political offender of a very pronounced type having, on the sixth day after his condemnation for high treason, a most friendly audience with Queen Victoria, and receiving from her Majesty solemn assurances of esteem and protection-such, in fact, as would during her reign render him quite independent of the lynxeyed gentlemen of Scotland Yard! This picture is just as real as that one which is presupposed by Mr. Mivart's version of Galileo's condemnation. No one at the time believed that his opinions were defined to be heretical. Many of the cardinals were his best friends; among them were Del Monte, Orsini, and Barberini, afterwards Urban the Eighth. And Cardinal del Monte wrote to the Grand Duke on Galileo's departure from Rome, stating that, with the full knowledge of all that had taken place, he could assure his Highness that there was not the least imputation attaching to the philosopher' (Von Gebler, p. 96). And in the interval between 1616 and 1633 many ecclesiastics of high character and position were known to have held Galileo's opinions. On the other hand, during that period he was attacked by many able and determined opponents, and not one of them quoted against him an ex-cathedra condemnation of his