[Margin: The authors of the Responses to the Sacred authorities.]
[I.] The form and beauty of the Copernican hypothesis has fascinated the innovators and its followers, by some enticement or other, to such a degree that they have not hesitated both to twist the words of Sacred Scripture to an alien sense, and to despise the judgment of the holy Fathers and of Churchmen. Of whom, namely, Copernicus himself lifted up [their] spirits and went before [them] by [his] example, in the preface of [his] work to Paul III, as we shall soon see. And in Responses to the sacred authorities — to be contrived — there followed him: John Kepler (in the Introduction to the Commentaries on the motion of Mars, and in the notes to chapter 1 of his Mysterium Cosmographicum, and in the Epitome of Copernican Astronomy, book 1, from p. 138); Christopher Rothmann (in the Tychonic epistles, p. 130); Paul Anton Foscarini (in the epistle to Sebastian Fantonus, General of the Carmelite order, published in Italian at Naples in the year 1615, and afterward rendered into Latin by Davide Loteo, and published at Lyon in the year 1641, together with the dialogues of Galileo, at the expense of Jo. Antonius Huguetan) — in which epistle the Author professes a reconciliation of the Authorities of Sacred Scripture and of Theological propositions with Copernicus’s opinion concerning the mobility of the Earth and the stability of the Sun. From whom [these authors], for the same [reconciling] conventicle, took some [arguments]: Redemptus Baranzanus (part 1 of the Uranoscopia, doubt 10, member 3), and Pierre Herigone (vol. 5 of the Mathematical Course, in the Theory of the Planets, at the end of book 2, or from p. 626), and Jacob Lansberg the Physician (in the Apology for the commentaries of Philip Lansberg on the diurnal and annual motion of the Earth, against Libertus Fromondus, theologian of Louvain, and Jean-Baptiste Morin, the Parisian Mathematician, published at Middelburg in the year 1633).
[Margin: The 5 chief heads of the Responses.]
Moreover the Responses of these [authors] are reduced to 5 heads. The first is the unskilledness in Astronomy or in the whole of Mathematics in some Ecclesiastical Persons — so that they call the judgment and censure of those [persons] concerning these matters into contempt or suspicion. The second is, that the skill of Physical and Astronomical matters was neither handed down by the Holy Spirit in the divine letters, nor is to be the concern of Churchmen. The third (which is next to the second) is, that if any things concerning the Sun’s motion or the Earth’s stability are found said in passing in the Scriptures, those do not pertain to the dogmas of Faith — especially if they be said by someone not bearing the person of God. The fourth is, that the passages usually heaped up from sacred Scripture against the Earth’s motion and the Sun’s stability ought to be taken not in the proper literal sense, nor in the rigor of truth, but in the popular sense — either as to appearance, or figuratively. The fifth is a confirmation of the fourth, from many other passages of Scripture in which Physical or Astronomical matters are touched, which nevertheless it is agreed are to be taken not according to the rigor of the letter, but by a kindlier interpretation. Let us begin from the first head; Questions being set up for each one, to be resolved in this and the following chapter.
Question 1. Whether skill in Physics and Astronomy is necessary for Ecclesiastical Persons, to pass a valid and obligatory censure concerning physical and astronomical matters: from the rules of the Faith and of the sacred Canons.
[Margin: Authors for the affirmative part.]
[II.] [There is] no doubt that Copernicus would respond to us affirmatively: since, when he recognized with how great a hazard he was exposing the novelty of his hypothesis, and had said, in the preface to Paul III, Supreme Pontiff:
[Margin: Copernicus dedicates his work to Paul III.]
“Although I know that the thoughts of a philosopher-man are remote from the judgment of the crowd — because his study is to seek the truth in all things, insofar as it is permitted by God to human reason — yet I judge that opinions utterly alien from rectitude are to be fled. And so, when I myself considered with myself how absurd an akroama [ἀκρόαμα, a thing-heard, a doctrine] those would reckon [it], who know this opinion confirmed by the judgments of many ages — that the earth is placed immovable in the middle of the heaven, as its center — if I should on the contrary assert that the earth is moved; long did I hesitate with myself whether I should bring into the light my commentaries written for the demonstration of its motion, etc.”
These things, I say, being recognized, he nevertheless adds that he therefore consecrated his work On the Revolutions to that Supreme Pontiff — as [to one] most cultivated in these arts, and lest he seem to dread the judgment of anyone fit to adjudicate concerning these [matters]. His words are:
“But that the learned and unlearned alike might see that I do not at all flee the judgment of anyone, I preferred to dedicate these my lucubrations to your Holiness rather than to any other; because, even in this most remote corner of the earth in which I act, by the dignity of [your] rank, and of all letters, and even by [your] love of Mathematics, you are held most eminent, so that you can easily by your authority and judgment repress the bites of [those] calumniating [me] — although it be in the proverb that there is no remedy against the bite of a sycophant.”
But what wilt thou do, Copernicus, if some — imbued with nothing of Mathematics, or very lightly — should speak against thee, on account of the authority of sacred Scripture resisting thy hypothesis? He responds without hesitation:
[Margin: Copernicus’s arrogant saying.]
“If perhaps there shall be mataiologoi [ματαιόλογοι, vain-babblers], who — although ignorant of all Mathematics — yet take judgment upon themselves concerning them, on account of some passage of scripture, badly twisted to their purpose, [and] dare to reprehend and assail this my undertaking: them I heed not at all, so that I even despise their judgment as rash.”
And lest this arrogant saying should seem harsher than is just, he strives to soften [it] by an example, saying:
“For it is not unknown that Lactantius — otherwise a celebrated writer, but little of a Mathematician — speaks quite childishly about the form of the earth, when he derides those who handed down that the earth has the form of a globe. And so it ought not to seem wonderful, if any such [persons] will also laugh at us. Mathematics are written for Mathematicians.”
[III.] This [banner] being as it were raised, and the cap of liberty once thrown [into the air], nothing prevented but that wits similar to this one flew together to the same [side]. Wherefore Kepler, at the very beginning of chapter 1 of his Mysterium Cosmographicum, with a truly laudable exordium, thus professes:
“Although it is pious, immediately from the beginning of this disputation concerning Nature, to see whether anything contrary to the sacred letters be said, yet I judge [it] untimely to stir up that controversy here, beforehand and anxiously. This in general I promise: that I shall say nothing which is injurious to the Sacred Letters; and if [anything] of Copernicus’s be convicted [of that] along with me, I shall hold it for nothing. And that has always been my mind, from [the time] when I began to know Copernicus’s books of the Revolutions.”
[Margin: Kepler requires skill in Astronomy in Religious men who are to judge of this matter.]
But in the notes to this chapter, expounding that little word “Untimely,” he has thus: “Copernicus meets this scruple, in the preface to Paul III, Supreme Pontiff, but a little too rigidly” — of which speech he at last paid the penalty, more than 70 years after the publication of the book, and his death having elapsed: “FOR IT HAS BEEN SUSPENDED,” says the decree, “UNTIL IT BE CORRECTED” (but I think this too is to be understood: “UNTIL IT BE EXPLAINED”). “For how it is not contrary to Scripture — namely, in a [matter] very far different in its purpose — I have tried to show by reasons and examples, in the Introduction to the Commentaries on the motion of Mars. The words of Copernicus himself too I have explained more lucidly at the end of book 1 of the Epitome of Astronomy: in which places I hope satisfaction will be given to the religious; provided that they bring both [enough] talent and such knowledge of Astronomy to this judgment, that the glory of the divine visible works may be safely believed under their patronage.”
But how much he grieved over the censures passed against Copernicus, he signifies not long after, saying even of the most religious [men]:
“Let him deliberate with himself whether the causes sought of a reconciliation between the tongue and the finger of God were just enough, pregnant [weighty] enough; or whether it be expedient — that reconciliation being repudiated — to oppress this fame of the immense beauty of the divine works by censures.”
Afterward he concludes that censures are in vain, and that their invalidity, once discovered, brings it about that they have no force even in the matter in which they ought to have force; for that is what that allegorical clause of Kepler’s signifies: “But the edge [Acies]…”
[…continues on p. 488 (PDF 523) with the catchword “verò” (Acies verò) — the rest of Kepler’s allegorical clause, and Riccioli’s reply.]
(printed p. 488 — Chapter XXXVIII, Question 1 continues: the rest of Kepler’s polemic against the censures (his ranking of philosophical reason above authority, the charge of “superstition,” the false Virgil of Salzburg history) is rehearsed and retorted. Riccioli then begins his negative answer: the question is formally one of Faith, so the Inquisitors needed only to know — themselves or through experts — that the hypothesis is undemonstrated and against the plain literal sense and the Fathers’ unanimous consent.)
[Header: BOOK IX. SECTION IV. — 488]
…”But the edge of an axe, dashed against iron, afterward avails no more even against wood.” Let him whom it concerns take this [to heart]. But in the Introduction to the Commentary on Mars, in a freer style, he sets forth this counsel to the simple:
“But he who is too dull to be able to grasp Astronomical science, or too weak to believe Copernicus with unoffended piety: him I advise that — the Astronomical school being dismissed, and even (if it please) the opinions of the Philosophers, whatever they be, being condemned — he mind his own affairs, and, desisting from this mundane peregrination, betake himself home to cultivate his little field; and, with those eyes by which alone he sees lifted up to this visible heaven, let him pour himself out with [his] whole breast into thanksgiving and the praises of God the Creator — certain that he renders no lesser worship to God than the Astronomer, to whom God has given this, that he see more keenly with the eye of the mind, etc.”
[Margin: Kepler stabs at the Office of the Sacred Inquisition.]
Nor content with these [things], with how great obstinacy he prefers his own judgment to the judgment of the Fathers and the Church, he manifests a little after, when he subjoins:
“But to the opinions of the Saints concerning these natural [matters] I respond in one word — that in Theology indeed the weights of authorities, but in Philosophy the weights of reasons, are to be pondered. St. Lactantius therefore, who denied the Earth to be round; St. Augustine, who, roundness being conceded, nevertheless denied the Antipodes; the holy Office of the men of today, who, the smallness of the Earth being conceded, nevertheless deny its motion. But to me holy truth [is] more [weighty] — [I] who demonstrate from Philosophy, saving the respect [due] to the learned, that the Earth is both round, and inhabited all around by Antipodes, and of the most contemptible smallness, and finally is borne through the stars.”
As though, forsooth, Lactantius were held in the Catholic Church [to be] a saint or a Doctor of infallible authority — [Lactantius] whom all Catholics confess to have erred in many things; or as though the smallness of the Earth necessarily drew with it its motion, since he [Kepler], with Copernicus, moves not the Earth alone through the annual orb, but the elementary sphere together with the Lunar heaven — which machine is much greater than the Sun. And how is the respect of the Doctors of the Church saved, if, in the question how the divine letters are to be understood, you obstinately set your [own] judgment before theirs? Or with what face do you dare to say that the motion of the Earth has been demonstrated by you? — since you have adduced none but probable arguments, or [arguments] necessary indeed, but [only] from the hypothesis of the Earth’s motion, showing that, if it were moved, the celestial phenomena could be conveniently saved.
Nor content with these [things], Kepler (at the end of book 1 of the Epitome of Astronomy, p. 140) does not hesitate to sprinkle with the mark of Superstition those who do not subscribe to Copernicus; for he says:
“In the present time, all the most excellent of the Philosophers and Astronomers agree with Copernicus: this sect is [like breaking through] ice; we conquer by the votes of the better [men]; against the rest almost superstition alone stands in the way, or fear of the Cleantheses.”
By “Cleantheses” he calls either the accusers, or the judges, of the Sacred Inquisition — for on the same page he had said that Aristarchus of Samos was accused of sacrilege by Cleanthes before the Areopagites, because, asserting the Earth to be moved, he had “moved the sacred things of Vesta.” The same [Kepler], in the Hyperaspistes (p. 195), calls it a depraved servitude to serve Ecclesiastical decrees — if, understand, they have been wrongly made; and he seems tacitly to censure the sacred censors, [as] punishing themselves while they punish others, or not daring to defend the marks of the sacred censures. For what else does that gibe mean? “But let Perillus teach his own ox to bellow. And unless all conjecture deceives me, he dreads the brow of the Silenus, which inept Aegle herself painted with vermilion.” Finally, in the preface to book 4 of the same Epitome, from his apologetic epistle he recites this fragment:
“How gravely were all the Astronomers rebuked by the first Christians? Did not Eusebius write of one, that he preferred to desert Christianity (I think because excommunicated) rather than [his] profession? Did not Tertullian and Augustine seem to know too much, who taught that there are Antipodes? And indeed Virgil, Bishop of Salzburg, was cast down from [his] office, because he had dared to assert this.”
Where, however, he either lies or is deceived in [his] history; for neither was Virgil cast down from [his] office, nor accused for the bare assertion of the Antipodes, as we shall see below.
[Margin: The danger of erring in censures, through unskilledness of Astronomy.]
Lastly, to strengthen the opinion of these [men], there could be adduced the danger of passing — through unskilledness — censures against some truth demonstrable by natural reason; as the Athenian judges once, through unskilledness of the matters from which the Eclipses of the Moon happen, did not tolerate Anaxagoras, nor those who taught that the Moon is deprived of light by the shadow of the earth, as we have narrated from Plutarch [in the Life] of Nicias (book 5 of the Astronomy, ch. 1, no. 1). Accordingly, how solicitous St. Augustine was, lest his brethren through unskilledness should seek from the divine letters a patronage for errors manifest in Philosophy, is now clear from the things said in ch. 36, no. 2 — whose words it is strange that they have been ignored by the Copernicans, since at first appearance they marvelously favor them.
[Margin: The Negative Response, and the reasons for it. — 1. Reason, for the Sacred Inquisitors.]
[IV.] But these [things] notwithstanding, to the Question proposed at the beginning of number 3, I respond negatively. First: when some Physical or Mathematical question has devolved into a question concerning the Catholic Faith, directly or indirectly — of which kind is this, in which it is treated whether the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun be against Sacred Scripture — [then] in order that those who preside over the Holy Office of the Inquisition may pass a sufficient judgment (that is, not only licit and prudent, but also valid and obligatory), it suffices that they indeed, either by themselves or through other learned men, have come to know that some proposition, on the one part, is not evidently true by Physical or Mathematical evidence, and on the other part is against the plain and literal sense of Sacred Scripture in that part in which it is Sacred Scripture, or against some proposition of a Canonical Writer. For this very thing of itself is enough, that they can reasonably pass a censure against the aforesaid proposition — on account of that universal necessity by which all we Catholics are bound, that, so long as no evident and manifest inconvenience follows from Sacred Scripture understood to the letter, we understand it to the letter, and do not follow another sense repugnant to the literal. How much more, therefore, does it suffice, if some proposition is not only not evidently true, but is against Physical evidence, and commonly hissed off in the Academies — and by some Professors of Astronomy even — as absurd; while on the other part it is established that the Holy Fathers and Interpreters of the divine letters, and the Doctors of the Church, taught the contrary from Sacred Scripture? But thus the matter stood, and stands, in our case. For the Sacred Congregation deputed by the Supreme Pontiff Paul V, and afterward by Urban VIII — most learned in Astronomical matters — besides many Cardinals, very expert by themselves in Philosophy, Theology, or Canon Law, and not lightly imbued with knowledge of the sacred letters, embraced also many others assigned to this Inquisition; and a most diligent inquisition had already been made beforehand through the Qualifiers. And it was now certain that the Copernican hypothesis was, not only demonstrated by no one (since the Copernicans themselves confess that all the celestial appearances can, saving the rigor of Astronomical truth, be explained by either hypothesis — namely of the Earth either moved or resting), but also that it is against the evidence of common sense, and against that plain, obvious, and literal sense of Sacred Scripture which the unanimous consent of the Fathers and of the Sacred Interpreters had followed for a thousand and six hundred years. Nothing therefore could hinder them from being able to pass a censure against Copernicus’s hypothesis. Nor indeed was it required that the aforesaid persons be Professors and Masters of Astronomy; since it was already widely known in the Schools that the Copernicans’ hypothesis was not demonstrated to be in reality so, but only to be possible, and that by it the celestial Phenomena are explained elegantly enough and readily — on account of which elegance and usefulness, in compiling and employing Astronomical tables, that hypothesis was permitted, under [the status of] a mere hypothesis, that is, provided one does not assert it to be in reality so.
[Margin: 2. Reason.]
[V.] Secondly: just as Kepler, for judging of Astronomical matters, requires no common skill in Astronomy, and appeals to the forum of Urania, so in matters of Faith and Religion Catholics ought to require no common skill in the Divine letters, and to appeal to the Ecclesiastical forum. And indeed this controversy, although materially (as is said in the Schools) it be Astronomical and Physical, yet formally is a controversy concerning a matter pertaining to Faith and Religion, as I shall teach below; and even from this it is clear, that it is not now controverted whether Copernicus’s hypothesis be possible, or apt for saving the celestial phenomena, but whether it be against Sacred Scripture, according to the received unanimous interpretation of the Fathers. But this skill is had much more richly and clearly from the sacred codices themselves and the Holy Fathers, and from the Theological rules and [those] of the sacred Canons, than from Mathematicians and Astronomers as such.
[Margin: 3. Reason.]
Thirdly, even if the Sacred Inquisitors, or…
[…continues on p. 489 (PDF 524) with the catchword “aut” — the third reason for the Negative response.]
(printed p. 489 — Chapter XXXVIII, Question 1 continues Riccioli’s reasons: a censure by lawful authority in a doubtful matter must be obeyed at least in the external forum; many most expert astronomers (Tycho, Clavius, Mulerius, and the prudently submissive Gassendi) themselves judged Copernicanism against Scripture; Lactantius’s denial of the Antipodes is no parallel, since there was no unanimous patristic consent on the Earth’s shape as there is on its stability; and Kepler’s Virgil of Salzburg history is refuted — Virgil was never deposed.)
[Header: DE SYSTEMATE TERRÆ MOTÆ — 489]
…or any Judge having authority in a cause of Faith from the Supreme Pontiff, in a doubtful matter — and one not hitherto demonstrated to either part, or demonstrated indeed but not held for such — should yet, on account of the suspicion of novelty and of some danger in matters of Faith, pronounce some censure against any proposition: it would have to be presumed in their favor, and that censure would have to be observed, at least in the external forum — provided it could be observed without grave inconvenience, and without fear falling upon a steadfast man; yet it would be lawful to procure that the aforesaid Judges, recognizing the demonstration of the truth by themselves or through others, should remove the censure. Which doctrine I here suppose as most certain — partly from the common doctrine concerning laws and Presumptions, partly from the peculiar doctrine of Canon Law concerning Ecclesiastical censures.
[Margin: 4. Reason.]
[VI.] Fourthly: not only the Sacred Inquisitors — whom Kepler seems to mark with unskilledness in Astronomical matters — but many [men] most expert in Astronomy have judged the Copernican hypothesis both absurd in itself and against the authority of the Divine letters.
[Margin: Tycho’s judgment on the vain opinion of Copernicus, and on the sense of Sacred Scripture in this matter.]
For Tycho, in the Epistle to Rothmann of the year 1589, February 21, thus admonishes him:
“There is no reason for you to persuade yourself that the Physical absurdities which accompany the Copernican hypothesis have been sufficiently refuted by him. Much less will the [things] which are pretended by you for excusing those [passages] against which Sacred Scripture asserts the contrary, be able to merit a jest. For the authority and reverence of the divine letters is, and ought to be, greater than that it should be fitting thus to drag them about, after the manner of a buskin.”
[Margin: And Clavius’s. And Nicolaus Mulerus’s.]
Our [Father] Clavius too — assuredly no common Astronomer — in chapter 1 of [his] Sphere, where by reasons he taught the Earth to be immovable (p. 196), added: “The sacred letters also favor this opinion, which in very many places affirm the earth to be immovable, and testify that the Sun and the other stars are moved; for we read in Psalm 103, etc.” With equal reverence Nicolaus Mulerius [Mulerus] conducted himself, in the Introduction to the Frisian Tables, p. 318, where, when he had recounted the opinion of the Pythagoreans concerning the Sun’s place in the center of the world and the Earth’s motion, he subjoined:
“But since this question is not of this place, we do not wish to discuss it here, testifying only this — that so great is the authority of Sacred Scripture with us, and our mind is so moved by reverence of it, that we dare not descend, against its open sentence, into the opinion of the Pythagoreans.”
[Margin: Pierre Gassendi’s prudence and piety.]
But we have also a notable example of prudence and moderation in Pierre Gassendi, who — after he had (in the second Epistle On motion impressed by a transferred mover) explained many arguments for the motion of the Earth, and had resolved not a few arguments usually made against it — first contained himself within the limits of a mere hypothesis, then, in the doubtful [matter], subscribed to the decrees of the sacred Congregation; for thus he concludes that Epistle, written in the year 1640, on the Ides of December [Dec. 13], to Pierre Dupuy [Puteanus]:
“You do not demand that I repeat that I did this, not that I might assert motion to the Earth, but that, out of love of truth, I might hint that its rest is to be established by a firmer reason.”
And a little after:
“I am accordingly of [the mind] that I revere that decree by which some Cardinals are said to have approved the rest of the Earth. For although the Copernicans might maintain that the passages of sacred Scripture which attribute to the Earth its state or rest, and to the Sun motion, are to be explained of its [the Sun’s] apparent [motion], as they say, etc. — nevertheless, because those passages are explained otherwise by men whose authority in the Church is, as is agreed, so great, on that account I myself stand with them, and on this occasion I do not blush to make my intellect captive. Not that I therefore think it [to be] an article of faith; for neither (so far as I know) has it been asserted by them, or promulgated and received throughout the universal Church: but because their judgment is to be held [as] a presumption which cannot be of small moment among the Faithful.”
[Margin: The Author’s concurrence.]
Nor indeed will our testimony, whatever it be, be able to be repudiated on the ground that we have by no means weighed or understood the arguments of the Copernicans — if the things we have taught in this whole Section be read through; wherefore let no one reckon us among those whom Copernicus and Kepler despise as unfit to judge concerning these matters.
[Margin: 5. Reason. Why Lactantius denied the Antipodes.]
[VII.] Fifthly, as regards the Antipodes denied by Lactantius — neither is he to be numbered among the Holy Fathers, nor did he deny the Antipodes for any other cause than because he thought the heaven to be hemispherical, and the Earth not to be round but itself also hemispherical, as is clear to one reading him (book 3 of the Divine Institutions, ch. 24).
[Margin: Fathers to whom heaven was hemispherical.]
Nor is it to be denied that some other Fathers thought the heaven [to be] like a vault, and hemispherical — among whom Ascanius Martinengus, in the Great Gloss on Genesis ch. 1, numbers St. Chrysostom (On the incomprehensible nature of God, ch. 2), Procopius, Acacius, and Severianus (on book 1 of Genesis), Theophylact (on the Epistle to the Hebrews), Theodoret (On matter and the world), and Euthymius (on Psalm 103). But this in no way stands against us, because far more are the Fathers who acknowledged the roundness of heaven and Earth; and therefore there was not a unanimous consent of the Fathers concerning this figure — but concerning the stability of the Earth there was a unanimous [one].
[Margin: Why St. Augustine denied the Antipodes.]
As regards St. Augustine — he indeed (book 16 of the City of God, ch. 9) denied the Antipodes, although the roundness of the Earth being conceded; because in the preceding chapters he had taught that all men who inhabit the Earth were propagated from Adam, but the lower hemisphere of the Earth, which is set opposite to the Holy Land, he thought either covered with waters, or [that] men could not migrate to those lands through so great a vastness of seas as he thought lay between, since no history was extant of such a migration; and in this he followed not so much Lactantius (as Ludovicus Vives says there) as Cicero (book 6 of the Republic), who reckoned an immense Ocean to be poured between us and those antipodal lands — lest he should admit that there were any men not propagated from Adam, and accordingly neither Redeemed by Christ, nor pertaining to the City of God. I do not transcribe all the words of the holy Doctor, because they are readily found. Moreover, neither does it help the adversaries, because this was not the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, nor deduced from any positive passage of scripture taken to the letter; for what moved St. Augustine was only a negative authority — because Scripture, when it describes the propagation of the sons of Noah over the earth by families and heads, makes no mention of an Antipodal Land to which they migrated; for he says:
“Wherefore among those peoples of men then — who are gathered to have been divided by seventy nations and as many languages — let us seek, if we can find [it], that City of God wandering [as a pilgrim] on the earth, etc.”
There was therefore, as Vives says, no light cause for St. Augustine to deny the Antipodes.
[Margin: Whether and why Bishop Virgil was deposed for the assertion of the Antipodes.]
[VIII.] Finally, as regards Virgil, Bishop of Salzburg — he was, as Baronius narrates (vol. 9, on the Year of Christ 744), from Ireland, a man very religious, who, by zeal for propagating the Faith, came together with Sidonius into Bavaria, and was known to Boniface, who as bishop presided over that Church. But when a certain minister of his [Boniface’s], with corrupted Latinity, had baptized someone with this formula — “I baptize thee in the name of the Fatherland and of the Daughter, and of the Holy Spirit” — and Boniface, the Bishop of Mainz, judged that he ought to be [re]baptized, Virgil and Sidonius, for modesty’s sake, thought that he [Boniface] ought not to be reprehended before others, but that recourse should be had to the Roman Pontiff Zacharias by letters; who wrote back to Boniface that that man was not to be rebaptized, and Boniface acquiesced in the sentence of the Supreme Pontiff, as Baronius reports in the same place. But [under] the year 748 he narrates a threefold calumny brought against Virgil before Boniface: namely, that he was sowing hatreds between him [Boniface] and Odilo, duke of Bavaria; and that he boasted that he had obtained the vacant Bishopric from the Apostolic see; and finally, that he asserted “that a New world is found, which is illumined by another Sun and another Moon.”
[Margin: Pope Zacharias’s rescript to Boniface concerning Virgil.]
But that these were calumnies, Baronius teaches: because, when Boniface had written to the Pontiff about these [matters], and the Pontiff had given him the faculty that — a provincial Council being convened — he should (if [Virgil] were proved guilty) expel Virgil from the Church and deprive [him] of [his] priesthood, [Virgil] was not only not deprived, but, even augmented with a Bishopric, persevered in the Apostolic function together with Boniface, and propagated the Gospel far and wide among the neighboring nations, and was afterward by Gregory IX, with solemn rite, enrolled among the Saints. But lest anyone think that Pope Zacharias erred in a question of law — nay, that it may be established that he did not err even in a question of fact, since he ordered Virgil to be punished not absolutely, but only on a supposition — behold a part of the Epistle of Zacharias to Boniface, which Baronius cites entire under the Year 748:
“It has also been intimated by your Holiness that that Virgil (we know not if he is to be called a presbyter), bearing malice against thee — because he was being accused by thee of being erroneous from Catholic doctrine — was sowing hatred between thee and Odilo, Duke of the Bavarians, saying that he had received from us a license, that of one…”
[…continues on p. 490 (PDF 525) with the catchword “vnius” — the rest of Zacharias’s letter on the Virgil affair.]
(printed p. 490 — Chapter XXXVIII closes the Virgil of Salzburg affair (the charges were calumny; doubting the Antipodes is not heresy, positing several worlds is). Question 2 then asks whether Scripture teaches physical or astronomical matters: Riccioli answers with a distinction — its primary end is salvation, but it does teach natural things in passing, and it can neither deceive nor say the false. Question 3 begins: the Sun-motion and Earth-rest assertions pertain to Faith indirectly and per accidens, since were they untrue all Scripture could be doubted.)
[Header: BOOK IX. SECTION IV. — 490]
…[saying that he had received from us a license, that] he should obtain the diocese of one of those four Bishops who are now deceased, whom thy fraternity ordained there. Which is by no means true, because iniquity has lied to itself. But concerning the perverse doctrine which he has spoken against the Lord and his own soul — namely, that there is another World, and other men under the earth, and another Sun and Moon — if he be convicted of confessing thus, then, a Council being summoned, expel him from the Church, deprived of the honor of the priesthood, etc.
But [Virgil] was neither expelled from the Church by Boniface, and so far is he from having been deprived of the priesthood, that rather he was made Bishop of Salzburg; therefore he had been accused of the aforesaid crimes through calumny — for, because he was acceptable to God, it was necessary that temptation should prove him. Unskillfully, therefore, did Kepler above, and Jacob Lansberg (in the Apology, treatise 3), affirm [that he was] cast down from the Bishopric; and much more imprudently do they say this was done on account of the Antipodes asserted [by him]; for, as Baronius adds in the margin to the Epistle of Zacharias: “To have doubted about the Antipodes is not a heresy; but to have posited several worlds is repugnant to divine Scripture, and accordingly is convicted of being a heresy.” See also, concerning this history, Marcus Velserus (book 5 of the Bavarian Affairs), Aventinus (in the Boian Annals), and Mazzoni (in the Defense of Dante, book 3, ch. 33).
Question 2. Whether Scripture Teaches Physical or Astronomical matters.
[Margin: What the Sacred Scriptures teach.]
[IX.] Neither of Sacred Scripture, say the Copernicans, nor of the Holy Spirit, is it the purpose to instruct men in Physical or Mathematical matters, but in those which pertain to morals and to eternal salvation; to which that [saying] of the Apostle (Romans 15) seems to favor: “For whatever things were written, were written for our instruction, that through patience and the consolation of the Scriptures we might have hope.” And 2 Timothy [3]: “All scripture divinely inspired is useful for teaching, for reproving, for instructing in history [so Riccioli’s text; the Vulgate reads “in justice”], that the man of God may be perfect, furnished unto every good work.” Finally, the pronouncement of CHRIST the Lord Himself is about the love of God and neighbor: “On these two commandments hang the whole law and the Prophets”; and that [saying] of Isaiah 48: “I am the Lord God teaching thee useful things,” where the gloss adds, “not subtle things.” Accordingly St. Augustine (book 2 of On Genesis to the Letter, ch. 8) said:
“It is also wont to be asked, of what form and figure the heaven is to be believed [to be] according to our Scriptures. For many dispute much about those things which our forefathers with greater prudence omitted — [things] not going to profit the learners toward the blessed life, and occupying (what is worse) much of [their] precious [time], and the spaces of time [which ought] to be spent on salutary things: for what does it pertain to me, whether the heaven, like a sphere, encloses the earth on every side, poised in the middle mass of the world, or covers it from above on one side like a disk? But because it is a question of the faith of the Scriptures, etc.”
Nor much after:
“Briefly it is to be said, that our authors knew, concerning the figure of the heaven, that which the truth holds; but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these things, [as being] going to profit no one’s salvation.”
[Margin: Response to Question 2.]
[X.] To the question proposed, however, the response must be made with a distinction; and it must be conceded that the end of Sacred Scripture, of itself and primarily, is not to instruct men in matters pertaining to mere Physics or Mathematics, or to natural or civil history and the other natural arts and faculties — [that is what it] aims at there.
[Margin: To what end Sacred Scripture teaches natural things.]
Yet it must be denied that it does not, again and again, teach some things in passing pertaining to these natural sciences and faculties — so as to use them as means, either for establishing some doctrine about motions, or about things conducing to eternal salvation, or for showing the divine Omnipotence, Wisdom, Providence, etc. “For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the World, are clearly seen, being understood by those things which are made — His eternal power also and divinity,” as the Apostle declares (Romans 1). Wherefore, if from the Sacred Scriptures it is established who, and in what order, founded the heaven and the Earth with the rest of the elements and the mixed [bodies], and how great a wisdom and power shines forth in the founding, conservation, and administration of these things, in [their] motions and other effects, and how much all creatures depend on His nod — the exposition of these [matters] is referred to that end at which all Scripture Divinely inspired aims, as the Apostle prudently added: “For instructing in history,” that the man of God may be perfect, furnished unto every good work. By which words it embraces not only civil history mixed with ecclesiastical [history], such as is had in the books of Judges, Kings, Paralipomenon, Tobit, Esther, etc., but also natural history, which is delivered in the beginning of sacred Genesis, and in some chapters of Job and Ecclesiasticus, and also in some Psalms — for that end which I have said.
And so, to our purpose: when the velocity of the Sun and [its] most constant course, or the stability of the Earth hanging in the middle of the air, is asserted in the Scriptures, the Fathers and every pious Reader of the divine codices rise up from this no less to the admiration and praise of God, than when from the same Sacred letters he learns that the Earth was uncovered from the waters, and in some places made higher than they, prepared with so many plants and animals for the service of men; and that the excursions of the boiling and raging sea are restrained within certain spaces of the shores; and that the rivers not only so enter the sea that it does not overflow, but return to the place whence they go out, that they may flow again; and that the winds and snows are brought forth from the treasuries of God; and that the waters are bound in the clouds — and many other things like these, which pertain to natural history and Physical science: but these, if they are subtle, are not so subtle but that they are also useful.
[Margin: Sacred Scripture does not teach the false.]
Secondly, even if Sacred Scripture did not order the knowledge of such things to this end which I have said, far be it nevertheless that it should be conceded that it is deceived or deceives in propositions of this kind, or says the false; but it would say the false if, the Sun standing still and the Earth going around, it nevertheless said absolutely, as it [does] say, that the Sun is moved, and the Earth is stable, and is in no wise inclined. Wherefore aptly Tycho, in the epistle already named above (p. 147), added:
[Margin: Tycho’s opinion on the truth of Sacred Scripture in physical matters.]
“For although they [the divine letters], in Physical matters and certain others, accommodate themselves for the most part to the grasp of the common people, far be it nevertheless that on that account we should determine that they so speak in a vulgar manner — nay, we believe that they propose [things] true even in Physical matters. Thus Moses, although in the first chapter of Genesis, treating of the creation of the World, does not relate the inmost things of Astronomy — inasmuch as he writes for a rude people — yet he brings forward nothing which could not also be conceded by the Astronomers themselves.”
Moreover, how great a knowledge of natural matters Sacred Scripture has handed down to us, and from how many errors and false opinions of the Philosophers it has freed [us], is clear from Saints Basil and Ambrose (in the books of the Hexaemeron), Junilius, Bede, Molina, Suarez, and others who wrote on the work of the six days; [from] Philo (On the Creation of the World); and also from the books of Francisco Valles On Sacred Philosophy.
Question 3. Whether the Assertions concerning the Sun’s Motion and the Stability of the Earth, which are had in the Sacred Scriptures, pertain to questions of Faith and Religion.
[Margin: Which [things are] of Faith per se and directly, which per accidens and indirectly. — Response to the 3rd Question.]
[XI.] For the Copernicans deny [it] indeed; but they ought, with St. Thomas (Prima Secundæ, q. 1, art. 6) and the rest of the Theologians, to use a distinction. For some [things] are of Faith per se and directly, and of this kind are those which are commonly called Articles of Faith — of which kind is, that God is one in nature and Threefold in Persons; that CHRIST is God and man; the future Resurrection of the dead, etc. But some [are of Faith] indirectly and per accidens, inasmuch as they are ordered as means, or dispositions, to those things which are per se of Faith — an example of which St. Thomas gives in Abraham, of whom we are bound to believe that he had two sons, one of the handmaid, the other of the free woman. In this second way, therefore, the propositions of Sacred Scripture concerning the state [rest] of the Earth and the motion of the Sun pertain to Faith. Moreover, those assertions pertain to a question of Faith, not only inasmuch as they are ordered to the knowledge and praise of God, but also because, unless they were true, the truth of the whole of Sacred Scripture could be called into doubt and suspicion of falsity, and thus not even the remaining propositions — [those] per se pertaining to Faith and Morals necessary for eternal salvation — could be solidly proved and confirmed by the testimony of the divine letters. Hence it is that St. Augustine, in that very book 2 of On Genesis to the Letter, ch. 8 — in which he had raised the question “Of what form and figure the heaven is to be believed [to be] according to our Scriptures,” and had said that the knowledge of this matter does not per se pertain to salvation and the blessed life — nevertheless subjoined: “But because it is a question of the Faith of the Scriptures, on account of that…”
[…continues on p. 491 (PDF 526) with the catchword “lam” (il-lam) — the rest of Augustine’s sentence, and the close of Question 3.]
(printed p. 491 — Chapter XXXVIII finishes Question 3: defending Scripture’s authority pertains to Faith (it is even of faith that Tobit’s dog wagged its tail), and the Tridentine decree binds interpretation to the Church and the Fathers’ unanimous consent; Augustine’s and Aquinas’s seeming concessions do not help the Copernicans. Chapter XXXIX then opens Question 4 — the chief controversy — whether the Sun-motion and Earth-rest texts are literal or merely popular/apparent; Riccioli’s principle: the proper literal sense must be followed whenever it does not manifestly repugn a more certain truth.)
[Header: DE SYSTEMATE TERRÆ MOTÆ — 491]
…[but because it is a question of the Faith of the Scriptures,] on account of that cause which I have more than once mentioned: “lest anyone, not understanding the divine eloquences, when he has either found in our books, or heard from them, some such thing about these matters which seems to be adverse to the reasons perceived by himself, should in no way believe them when they advise, or narrate, or pronounce the other useful things — briefly it is to be said about the figure of the heaven, etc.” It pertains, therefore, to a question of Faith, that we know by what reasoning that is true which Sacred Scripture says about these matters — whether in the plain and obvious or literal sense, or in some figurative [sense] — and that we may defend its truth and authority, which is so great that it is even of faith that the dog of Tobit ran ahead as a messenger, by the wagging of [its] tail, for joy at the younger Tobit returning, because Sacred Scripture narrates this (Tobit 11) — even though the motion of that [dog’s] tail pertains much less to Faith than the motion of the Sun and the standing-still of the Earth.
[Margin: The Tridentine Decree on the true interpretation of Sacred Scripture.]
[XII.] From the things said it is now clear how the Decree of the sacred Council of Trent (session 4, on the edition and use of the sacred books) is to be understood, in which it is said:
“Moreover, to curb petulant wits, it decrees that no one, relying on his own prudence, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, twisting Sacred Scripture to his own senses, should dare to interpret the Sacred Scripture itself against that sense which Holy Mother Church has held and holds — whose [office] it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures — or even against the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even if such interpretations were never at any time to be brought into the light.”
For it must be judged that the Sacred Council comprehended under these [words] all the things which are referred to Faith, both per se and directly, and those which [are referred to it] per accidens and indirectly — according to the doctrine of St. Augustine and St. Thomas handed down above; especially since a similar decree was confirmed, in a more universal formula and without restriction, by Pius IV in the Bull (which is had at the end of the Council of Trent), where is had the formula of the profession of Faith, by which we are bound not to interpret Sacred Scripture except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers — as I have already said in ch. 36, no. 1.
And in the same way St. Augustine is to be understood, when (book 2 of On Genesis to the Letter, ch. 10) he denies that Churchmen ought to be occupied in these questions; for he speaks of those to whom other ministries more necessary for the salvation of souls have been enjoined — not of the Doctors of the Church in that case in which the authority of the divine letters is to be defended even as to one iota or one tittle; nor of those who, for unfolding these questions, have been assigned by their Prelates for the common utility of the Church, that they may help others by the abridgment of their labors. Moreover the words of the holy Doctor are:
“Concerning the motion of the heaven also, some brethren raise a question — whether it stands still, or is moved: because if it is moved, they say, how is it a Firmament? but if it stands still, how do the stars, which are believed to be fixed in it, go round from East to West, the [stars near the] North accomplishing shorter gyres near the poles?, etc. To which I respond, that these things are sought out by very subtle and laborious reasonings, that it may be truly perceived whether it is so or not so: for entering upon and treating which there is now neither time for me, nor ought there to be for those whom we desire to be informed for their own salvation and the necessary utility of holy Church.”
But to defend the truth of Sacred Scripture, he subjoins that the name “Firmament” does not necessarily signify immobility, since it can signify firmness and the intransgressible boundary of the upper and lower waters; and he adds:
“Nor, if truth should persuade [us] that the heaven stands still, are we hindered by the circuit of the stars, so that we cannot understand this: for even by those very [men] who have inquired into this most curiously and most idly, it has been found that, even with the heaven not moved, if the stars alone were turned, all the things could have happened which have been observed and comprehended in those very revolutions of the stars.”
But what St. Thomas says (opuscule 10) —
“That those things which the Philosophers have commonly held, and do not repugn our faith, seem safer neither so to be asserted as dogmas of faith, nor so to be denied as contrary, lest an occasion of despising the doctrine of faith be afforded to the wise of this world” —
does not make for the Copernicans, who do not even teach the things which the Philosophers commonly held, but [things] which are so against the common Philosophy that they seem even to repugn the faith, by this very [fact] that they repugn the divine letters. Wherefore I wonder that Jacob Lansberg, in his Apology (treatise 3), used — or rather abused — this authority of St. Thomas for Copernicus.