To the Most Serene Grand Duchess Mother:
Some years ago, as Your Serene Highness well knows, I discovered in the heavens many
things that had not been seen before our own age. The novelty of these things, as well as
some consequences which followed from them in contradiction to the physical notions
commonly held among academic philosophers, stirred up against me no small number of
professors-as if I had placed these things in the sky with my own hands in order to upset
nature and overturn the sciences. They seemed to forget that the increase of known truths
stimulates the investigation, establishment, and growth of the arts; not their diminution
or destruction.
Showing a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth they sought to deny
and disprove the new things which, if they had cared to look for themselves, their own
senses would have demonstrated to them. To this end they hurled various charges and
published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of
sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to
understand properly, and which were ill-suited to their purposes.
These men would perhaps not have fallen into such error had they but paid attention to
a most useful doctrine of St. Augustine's, relative to our making positive statements
about things which are obscure and hard to understand by means of reason alone. Speaking
of a certain physical conclusion about the heavenly bodies, he wrote: "Now keeping
always our respect for moderation in grave piety, we ought not to believe anything
inadvisedly on a dubious point, lest in favor to our error we conceive a prejudice against
something that truth hereafter may reveal to be not contrary in any way to the sacred
books of either the Old or the New Testament."
Well, the passage of time has revealed to everyone the truths that I previously set
forth; and, together with the truth of the facts, there has come to light the great
difference in attitude between those who simply and dispassionately refused to admit the
discoveries to be true, and those who combined with their incredulity some reckless
passion of their own. Men who were well grounded in astronomical and physical science were
persuaded as soon as they received my first message. There were others who denied them or
remained in doubt only because of their novel and unexpected character, and because they
had not yet had the opportunity to see for themselves. These men have by degrees come to
be satisfied. But some, besides allegiance to their original error, possess I know not
what fanciful interest in remaining hostile not so much toward the things in question as
toward their discoverer. No longer being able to deny them, these men now take refuge in
obstinate silence, but being more than ever exasperated by that which has pacified and
quieted other men, they divert their thoughts to other fancies and seek new ways to damage
me.
I should pay no more attention to them than to those who previously contradicted me-at
whom I always laugh, being assured of the eventual outcome-were it not that in their new
calumnies and persecutions I perceive that they do not stop at proving themselves more
learned than I am (a claim which I scarcely contest), but go so far as to cast against me
the imputations of crimes which must be, and are, more abhorrent to me than death itself.
I cannot remain satisfied merely to know that the injustice of this is recognized by those
who are acquainted with these men and with me, as perhaps it is not known to others.
Persisting in their original resolve to destroy me and everything mine by any means
they can think of, these men are aware of my views in astronomy and philosophy. They know
that as to the arrangement of the parts of the universe, I hold the sun to be situated
motionless in the center of the revolution of the celestial orbs while the earth revolves
about the sun. They know also that I support this position not only by refuting the
arguments of Ptolemy and Aristotle, but by producing many counter-arguments; in
particular, some which relate to physical effects whose causes can perhaps be assigned in
no other way. In addition there are astronomical arguments derived from many things in my
new celestial discoveries that plainly confute the Ptolemaic system while admirably
agreeing with and confirming the contrary hypothesis. Possibly because they are disturbed
by the known truth of other propositions of mine which differ from those commonly held,
and therefore mistrusting their defense so long as they confine themselves to the field of
philosophy, these men have resolved to fabricate a shield for their fallacies out of the
mantle of pretended religion and the authority of the Bible. These they apply with little
judgement to the refutation of arguments that they do not understand and have not even
listened to.
First they have endeavored to spread the opinion that such propositions in general are
contrary to the Bible and are consequently damnable and heretical. They know that it is
human nature to take up causes whereby a man may oppress his neighbor, no matter how
unjustly, rather than those from which a man may receive some just encouragement. Hence
they have had no trouble in finding men who would preach the damnability and heresy of the
new doctrine from their very pulpits with unwonted confidence, thus doing impious and
inconsiderate injury not only to that doctrine and its followers but to all mathematics
and mathematicians in general. Next, becoming bolder, and hoping (though vainly) that this
seed which first took root in their hypocritical minds would send out branches and ascend
to heaven, they began scattering rumors among the people that before long this doctrine
would be condemned by the supreme authority. They know, too, that official condemnation
would not only sup press the two propositions which I have mentioned, but would render
damnable all other astronomical and physical statements and observations that have any
necessary relation or connection with these.
In order to facilitate their designs, they seek so far as possible (at least among the
common people) to make this opinion seem new and to belong to me alone. They pretend not
to know that its author, or rather its restorer and confirmer, was Nicholas Copernicus;
and that he was not only a Catholic, but a priest and a canon. He was in fact so esteemed
by the church that when the Lateran Council under Leo X took up the correction of the
church calendar, Copernicus was called to Rome from the most remote parts of Germany to
undertake its reform. At that time the calendar was defective because the true measures of
the year and the lunar month were not exactly known. The Bishop of Culm, then
superintendent of this matter, assigned Copernicus to seek more light and greater
certainty concerning the celestial motions by means of constant study and labor. With
Herculean toil he set his admirable mind to this task, and he made such great progress in
this science and brought our knowledge of the heavenly motions to such precision that he
became celebrated as an astronomer. Since that time not only has the calendar been
regulated by his teachings, but tables of all the motions of the planets have been
calculated as well.
Having reduced his system into six books, he published these at the instance of the
Cardinal of Capua and the Bishop of Culm. And since he had assumed his laborious
enterprise by order of the supreme pontiff, he dedicated this book On the celestial
revolutions to Pope Paul III. When printed, the book was accepted by the holy Church,
and it has been read and studied by everyone without the faintest hint of any objection
ever being conceived against its doctrines. Yet now that manifest experiences and
necessary proofs have shown them to be well grounded, persons exist who would strip the
author of his reward without so much as looking at his book, and add the shame of having
him pronounced a heretic. All this they would do merely to satisfy their personal
displeasure conceived without any cause against another man, who has no interest in
Copernicus beyond approving his teachings.
Now as to the false aspersions which they so unjustly seek to cast upon me, I have
thought it necessary to justify myself in the eyes of all men, whose judgment in matters
of` religion and of reputation I must hold in great esteem. I shall therefore discourse of
the particulars which these men produce to make this opinion detested and to have it
condemned not merely as false but as heretical. To this end they make a shield of their
hypocritical zeal for religion. They go about invoking the Bible, which they would have
minister to their deceitful purposes. Contrary to the sense of the Bible and the intention
of the holy Fathers, if I am not mistaken, they would extend such authorities until even m
purely physical matters - where faith is not involved - they would have us altogether
abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage, though
under the surface meaning of its words this passage may contain a different sense.
I hope to show that I proceed with much greater piety than they do, when I argue not
against condemning this book, but against condemning it in the way they suggest-that is,
without under standing it, weighing it, or so much as reading it. For Copernicus never
discusses matters of religion or faith, nor does he use argument that depend in any way
upon the authority of sacred writings which he might have interpreted erroneously. He
stands always upon physical conclusions pertaining to the celestial motions, and deals
with them by astronomical and geometrical demonstrations, founded primarily upon sense
experiences and very exact observations. He did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very
well that if` his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scriptures when
they were rightly understood and thus at the end of his letter of` dedication. addressing
the pope, he said:
"If there should chance to be any exegetes ignorant of` mathematics who pretend to
skill in that discipline, and dare to condemn and censure this hypothesis of mine upon the
authority of some scriptural passage twisted to their purpose, I value them not, but
disdain their unconsidered judgment. For it is known that Lactantius - a poor
mathematician though in other respects a worthy author - writes very childishly about the
shape of the earth when he scoffs at those who affirm it to be a globe. Hence it should
not seem strange to the ingenious if people of that sort should in turn deride me. But
mathematics is written for mathematicians, by whom, if I am not deceived, these labors of
mine will be recognized as contributing something to their domain, as also to that of the
Church over which Your Holiness now reigns."
Such are the people who labor to persuade us that an author like Copernicus may be
condemned without being read, and who produce various authorities from the Bible, from
theologians, and from Church Councils to make us believe that this is not only lawful but
commendable. Since I hold these to be of supreme authority I consider it rank temerity for
anyone to contradict them-when employed according to the usage of the holy Church. Yet I
do not believe it is wrong to speak out when there is reason to suspect that other men
wish, for some personal motive, to produce and employ such authorities for purposes quite
different from the sacred intention of the holy Church.
Therefore I declare (and my sincerity will make itself manifest) not only that I mean
to submit myself freely and renounce any errors into which I may fall in this discourse
through ignorance of` matters pertaining to religion, but that I do not desire in these
matters to engage in disputes with anyone, even on points that are disputable. My goal is
this alone; that if, among errors that may abound in these considerations of a subject
remote from my profession, there is anything that may be serviceable to the holy Church in
making a decision concerning the Copernican system, it may be taken and utilized as seems
best to the superiors. And if not, let my book be torn and burnt, as I neither intend nor
pretend to gain from it any fruit that is not pious and Catholic. And though many of the
things I shall reprove have been heard by my own ears, I shall freely grant to those who
have spoken them that they never said them, if that is what they wish, and I shall confess
myself to have been mistaken. Hence let whatever I reply be addressed not to them, but to
whoever may have held such opinions.
The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands
still in many places in the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands
still. Since the Bible cannot err; it follows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes
a erroneous and heretical position who maintains that the sun is inherently motionless and
the earth movable.
With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say
and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true
meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and
may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in
expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical
meaning, one might; fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from
true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus
it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands ans eyes, as well as corporeal and
human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of`
things past and ignorance of those to come. These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost
were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the
capacities, Of the common people, who are rude and unlearned. For the sake of those who
deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise expositors should produce
the true senses of such passages, together with the special reasons for which they were
set down in these words. This doctrine is so widespread and so definite with all
theologians that it would be superfluous to adduce evidence for it.
Hence I think that I may reasonably conclude that whenever the Bible has occasion to
speak of any physical conclusion (especially those which are very abstruse and hard to
understand), the rule has been observed of avoiding confusion in the minds of the common
people which would render them contumacious toward the higher mysteries. Now the Bible,
merely to condescend to popular capacity, has not hesitated to obscure some very important
pronouncements, attributing to God himself some qualities extremely remote from (and even
contrary to) His essence. Who, then, would positively declare that this principle has been
set aside, and the Bible has confined itself rigorously to the bare and restricted sense
of its words, when speaking but casually of the earth, of water, of the sun, or of any
other created thing? Especially in view of the fact that these things in no way concern
the primary purpose of the sacred writings, which is the service of God and the salvation
of souls - matters infinitely beyond the comprehension of the common people.
This being granted, I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin
not from the authority of scriptural passages but from senseexperiences and necessary
demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the
divine Word the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant
executrix of God's commands. It is necessary for the Bible, in order to be accommodated to
the understanding of every man, to speak many things which appear to differ from the
absolute truth so far as the bare meaning of the words is concerned. But Nature, on the
other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her,
or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable
to men. For that reason it appears that nothing physical which senseexperience sets
before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in
question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some
different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every expression to
conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less
excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible.
Perhaps this is what Tertullian meant by these words:
"We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more
particularly, by doctrine, by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed
word."
From this I do not mean to infer that we need not have an extraordinary esteem for the
passages of holy Scripture. On the contrary, having arrived at any certainties in physics,
we ought to utilize these as the most appropriate aids in the true exposition of the Bible
and in the investigation of those meanings which are necessarily contained therein, for
these must be concordant with demonstrated truths. I should judge that the authority of
the Bible was designed to persuade men of those articles and propositions which,
surpassing all human reasoning could not be made credible by science, or by any other
means than through the very mouth of the Holy Spirit.
Yet even in those propositions which are not matters of faith, this authority ought to
be preferred over that of all human writings which are supported only by bare assertions
or probable arguments, and not set forth in a demonstrative way. This I hold to be
necessary and proper to the same extent that divine wisdom surpasses all human judgment
and conjecture.
But I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses,
reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give
us knowledge which we can attain by them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason
in physical matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or
necessary demonstrations. This must be especially true in those sciences of which but the
faintest trace (and that consisting of conclusions) is to be found in the Bible. Of
astronomy; for instance, so little is found that none of the planets except Venus are so
much as mentioned, and this only once or twice under the name of "Lucifer." If
the sacred scribes had had any intention of teaching people certain arrangements and
motions of the heavenly bodies, or had they wished us to derive such knowledge from the
Bible, then in my opinion they would not have spoken of these matters so sparingly in
comparison with the infinite number of admirable conclusions which are demonstrated in
that science. Far from pretending to teach us the constitution and motions of the heavens
and other stars, with their shapes, magnitudes, and distances, the authors of the Bible
intentionally forbore to speak of these things, though all were quite well known to them.
Such is the opinion of the holiest and most learned Fathers, and in St. Augustine we find
the following words :
"It is likewise commonly asked what we may believe about the form and shape of the
heavens according to the Scriptures, for many contend much about these matters. But with
superior prudence our authors have forborne to speak of this, as in no way furthering the
student with respect to a blessed life-and, more important still, as taking up much of
that time which should be spent in holy exercises. What is it to me whether heaven, like a
sphere surrounds the earth on all sides as a mass balanced in the center of the universe,
or whether like a dish it merely covers and overcasts the earth? Belief in Scripture is
urged rather for the reason we have often mentioned; that is, in order that no one,
through ignorance of divine passages, finding anything in our Bibles or hearing anything
cited from them of such a nature as may seem to oppose manifest conclusions, should be
induced to suspect their truth when they teach, relate, and deliver more profitable
matters. Hence let it be said briefly, touching the form of heaven, that our authors knew
the truth but the Holy Spirit did not desire that men should learn things that are useful
to no one for salvation."
The same disregard of these sacred authors toward beliefs about the phenomena of the
celestial bodies is repeated to us by St. Augustine in his next chapter. On the question
whether we are to believe that the heaven moves or stands still, he writes thus:
"Some of the brethren raise a question concerning the motion of heaven, whether it
is fixed or moved. If it is moved, they say, how is it a firmament? If it stands still,
how do these stars which are held fixed in it go round from east to west, the more
northerly performing shorter circuits near the pole, so that the heaven (if there is
another pole unknown to us) may seem to revolve upon some axis, or (if there is no other
pole) may be thought to move as a discus? To these men I reply that it would require many
subtle and profound reasonings to find out which of these things is actually so; but to
undertake this and discuss it is consistent neither with my leisure nor with the duty of
those whom I desire to instruct in essential matters more directly conducing to their
salvation and to the benefit of the holy Church."
From these things it follows as a necessary consequence that, since the Holy Ghost did
not intend to teach us whether heaven moves or stands still, whether its shape is
spherical or like a discus or extended in a plane, nor whether the earth is located at its
center or off to one side, then so much the less was it intended to settle for us any
other conclusion of the same kind. And the motion or rest of the earth and the sun is so
closely linked with the things just named, that without a determination of the one,
neither side can be taken in the other matters. Now if the Holy Spirit has purposely
neglected to teach us propositions of this sort as irrelevant to the highest goal (that
is, to our salvation), how can anyone affirm that it is obligatory to take sides on them,
that one belief is required by faith, while the other side is erroneous? Can an opinion be
heretical and yet have no concern with the salvation of souls? Can the Holy Ghost be
asserted not to have intended teaching us something that does concern our salvation? I
would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree:
"That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how
heaven goes."
But let us again consider the degree to which necessary demonstrations and sense
experiences ought to be respected in physical conclusions, and the authority they have
enjoyed at the hands of holy and learned theologians. From among a hundred attestations I
have selected the following:
"We must also take heed, in handling the doctrine of Moses. that we altogether
avoid saying positively and confidently anything which contradicts manifest experiences
and the reasoning of philosophy or the other sciences. For since every truth is in
agreement with all other truth, the truth of Holy Writ cannot be contrary to the solid
reasons and experiences of human knowledge."
And in St. Augustine we read:
"If' anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest
reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not
the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own
interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to
be there."
This granted, and it being true that two truths cannot contradict one another, it is
the function of expositors to seek out the true senses of scriptural texts. These will
unquestionably accord with the physical conclusions which manifest sense and necessary
demonstrations have previously made certain to us. Now the Bible, as has been remarked,
admits in many places expositions that are remote from the signification of the words for
reasons we have already given. Moreover, we are unable to affirm that all interpreters of
the Bible speak by Divine inspiration for if that were so there would exist no differences
among them about the sense of a given passage. Hence I should think it would be the part
of prudence not to permit anyone to usurp scriptural texts and force them in some way to
maintain any physical conclusion to be true, when at some future time the senses and
demonstrative or necessary reasons may show the contrary. Who indeed will set bounds to
human ingenuity? Who will assert that everything in the universe capable of being
perceived is already discovered and known? Let us rather confess quite truly that
"Those truths which we know are very few in comparison with those which we do not
know."
We have it from the very mouth of the Holy Ghost that God delivered up the world to
disputations, so that man cannot find out the work that God hath done from the beginning
even to the end. In my opinion no one, m contradiction to that dictum, should close the
road to free philosophizing about mundane and physical things, as if everything had
already been discovered and revealed with certainty. Nor should it be considered rash not
to be satisfied with those opinions which have become common. No one should be scorned in
physical disputes for not holding to the opinions which happen to please other people
best, especially concerning problems which have been debated among the greatest
philosophers for thousands of years. One of these is the stability of the sun mobility of
the earth, a doctrine believed by Pythagoras and all his followers, by Heracleides of
Pontus (who was one of them), by Philolaus, the teacher of Plato, and by Plato himself
according to Aristotle. Plutarch writes in his Life of Numa that Plato, when he had grown
old, said it was absurd to believe otherwise. The same doctrine was held by Aristarchus of
Samos, as Archimedes tells us; by Seleucus the mathematician, by Nicetas the philosopher
(on the testimony of Cicero), and by many others. Finally this opinion has been amplified
and confirmed with many observations and demonstrations by Nicholas Copernicus. And
Seneca, a most eminent philosopher, advises us in his book on comets that we should more
diligently seek to ascertain whether it is in the sky or in the earth that the diurnal
rotation resides.
Hence it would probably be wise and useful counsel if, beyond articles which concern
salvation and the establishment of our Faith, against the stability of which there is no
danger whatever that any valid and effective doctrine can ever arise, men would not
aggregate further articles unnecessarily. And it would certainly be preposterous to
introduce them at the request of persons, who, besides not being known to speak by
inspiration of divine grace, are clearly seen to lack that understanding which is
necessary in order to comprehend, let alone discuss, the demonstrations by which such
conclusions are supported in the subtler sciences. If I may speak my opinion freely, I
should say further that it would perhaps fit in better with the decorum and majesty of the
sacred writings to take measures for preventing every shallow and vulgar writer from
giving to his compositions (often grounded upon foolish fancies) an air of authority by
inserting in them passages from the Bible, interpreted (or rather distorted) into senses
as far from the right meaning of Scripture as those authors are near to absurdity who thus
ostentatiously adorn their writings. Of such abuses many examples might be produced, but
for the present I shall confine myself to two which are germane to these astronomical
matters. The first concerns those writings which were published against the existence of
the Medicean planets recently discovered by me, in which many passages of holy Scripture
were cited. Now that everyone has seen these planets, I should like to know what new
interpretations those same antagonists employ in expounding the Scripture and excusing
their own simplicity. My other example is that of a man who has lately published, in
defiance of astronomers and philosophers, the opinion that the moon does not receive its
light from the sun but is brilliant by its own nature. He supports this fancy (or rather
thinks he does) by sundry texts of Scripture which he believes cannot be explained unless
his theory is true; yet that the moon is inherently dark is surely as plain as daylight.
It is obvious that such authors, not having penetrated the true senses of Scripture,
would impose upon others an obligation to subscribe to conclusions that are repugnant to
manifest reason and sense, if they had any authority to do so. God forbid that this sort
of abuse should gain countenance and authority, for then in a short time it would be
necessary to proscribe all the contemplative sciences. People who are unable to understand
perfectly both the Bible and the science far outnumber those who do understand them. The
former, glancing superficially through the Bible, would arrogate to themselves the
authority to decree upon every question of physics on the strength of some word which they
have misunderstood, and which was employed by the sacred authors for some different
purpose. And the smaller number of understanding men could not dam up the furious torrent
of such people, who would gain the majority of followers simply because it is much more
pleasant to gain a reputation for wisdom without effort or study than to consume oneself
tirelessly in the most laborious disciplines. Let us therefore render thanks to Almighty
God, who in His beneficence protects us from this danger by depriving such persons of all
authority, reposing the power of consultation, decision, and decree on such important
matters in the high wisdom and benevolence of most prudent Fathers, and in the supreme
authority of those who cannot fail to order matters properly under the guidance of the
Holy Ghost. Hence we need not concern ourselves with the shallowness of those men whom
grave and holy authors rightly reproach, and of whom in particular St. Jerome said, in
reference to the Bible:
"This is ventured upon, lacerated, and taught by the garrulous old woman, the
doting old man, and the prattling sophist before they have learned it. Others, led on by
pride, weigh heavy words and philosophize amongst women concerning holy Scripture. Others-
oh shame!-learn from women what they teach to men, and (as if that were not enough) glibly
expound to others that which they themselves do not understand. I forebear to speak of
those of my own profession who, attaining a knowledge of the holy Scriptures after mundane
learning, tickle the ears of the people with affected and studied expressions, and declare
that everything they say is to be taken as the law of God. Not bothering to learn what the
prophets and the apostles have maintained, they wrest incongruous testimonies into their
own senses-as if distorting passages and twisting the Bible to their individual and
contradictory whims were the genuine way of teaching, and not a corrupt one."
I do not wish to place in the number of such lay writers some theologians whom I
consider men of profound learning and devout behavior, and who are therefore held by me in
great esteem and veneration Yet I cannot deny that I feel some discomfort which I should
like to have removed, when I hear them pretend to the power of constraining others by
scriptural authority to follow in a physical dispute that opinion which they think best
agrees with the Bible, and then believe themselves not bound to answer the opposing
reasons and experiences. In explanation and support of this opinion they say that since
theology is queen of all the sciences, she need not bend in any way to accommodate herself
to the teachings of less worthy sciences which are subordinate to her; these others must
rather be referred to her as their supreme empress, changing and altering their
conclusions according to her statutes and decrees. They add further that if in the
inferior sciences any conclusion should be taken as certain in virtue of demonstrations or
experiences, while in the Bible another conclusion is found repugnant to this, then the
professors of that science should themselves undertake to undo their proofs and discover
the fallacies in their own experiences, without bothering the theologians and exegetes.
For, they say, it does not become the dignity of theology to stoop to the investigation of
fallacies in the subordinate sciences; it is sufficient for her merely to determine the
truth of a given conclusion with absolute authority, secure in her inability to err.
Now the physical conclusions in which they say we ought to be satisfied by Scripture,
without glossing or expounding it in senses different from the literal, are those
concerning which the Bible always speaks in the same manner and which the holy Fathers all
receive and expound in the same way. But with regard to these judgments I have had
occasion to consider several things, and I shall set them forth in order that I may be
corrected by those who understand more than I do in these matters-for to their decisions I
submit at all times.
First I question whether there is not some equivocation in failing to specify the
virtues which entitle sacred theology to the title of "queen." It might deserve
that name by reason of including everything that is included from all the other sciences
and establishing everything by better methods and with profounder learning. It is thus,
for example, that the rules for measuring fields and keeping accounts are much more
excellently contained in arithmetic and in the geometry of Euclid than in the practices of
surveyors and accountants. Or theology might be queen because of being occupied with a
subject which excels in dignity all the subjects which compose the other sciences, and
because her teachings are divulged in more sublime ways.
That the title and authority of queen belongs to theology in the first sense, I think,
will not be affirmed by theologians who have any skill in the other sciences. None of
these, I think, will say that geometry, astronomy, music, and medicine are much more
excellently contained in the Bible than they are in the books of Archimedes, Ptolemy,
Boethius, and Galen. Hence it seems likely that regal preeminence is given to theology in
the second sense; that is, by reason of its subject and the miraculous communication of
divine revelation of conclusions which could not be conceived by men in any other way,
concerning chiefly the attainment of eternal blessedness.
Let us grant then that theology is conversant with the loftiest divine contemplation,
and occupies the regal throne among sciences by dignity But acquiring the highest
authority in this way, lf she does not descend to the lower and humbler speculations of
the subordinate sciences and has no regard for them because they are not concerned with
blessedness, then her professors should not arrogate to them-selves the authority to
decide on controversies in professions which they have neither studied nor practiced. Why,
this would be as if an absolute despot, being neither a physician nor an architect but
knowing himself free to command, should undertake to administer medicines and erect
buildings according to his whim-at grave peril of his poor patients' lives, and the speedy
collapse of his edifices.
Again, to command that the very professors of astronomy themselves see to the
refutation of their own observations and proofs as mere fallacies and sophisms is to
enjoin something that lies beyond any possibility of accomplishment. For this would amount
to commanding that they must not see what they see and must not understand what they know,
and that in searching they must find the opposite of what they actually encounter. Before
this could be done they would have to be taught how to make one mental faculty command
another, and the inferior powers the superior, so that the imagination and the will might
be forced to believe the opposite of what the intellect understands. I am referring at all
times to merely physical propositions, and not to supernatural things which are matters of
faith.
I entreat those wise and prudent Fathers to consider with great care the difference
that exists between doctrines subject to proof and those subject to opinion. Considering
the force exerted by logical deductions, they may ascertain that it is not in the power
of` the professors of demonstrative sciences to change their opinions at will and apply
themselves first to one side and then to the other. There is a great difference between
commanding a mathematician or a philosopher and influencing a lawyer or a merchant, for
demonstrated conclusions about things in nature or in the heavens cannot be changed with
the same facility as opinions about what is or is not lawful in a contract, bargain, or
bill of exchange. This difference was well understood by the learned and holy Fathers, as
proven by their having taken great pains in refuting philosophical fallacies. This may be
found expressly in some of them; in particular, we find the following words of St.
Augustine:
"It is to be held as an unquestionable truth that whatever the sages of this world
have demonstrated concerning physical matters is in no way contrary to our Bibles, hence
whatever the sages teach in their books that is contrary to the holy Scriptures may be
concluded without any hesitation to be quite false. And according to our ability let us
make this evident, and let us keep the faith of our Lord, in whom are hidden all the
treasures of wisdom so that we neither become seduced by the verbiage of false philosophy
nor frightened by the superstition of counterfeit religion."
From the above words I conceive that I may deduce this doctrine That in the books of
the sages of this world there are contained some physical truths which are soundly
demonstrated, and others that are merely stated; as to the former, it i the office of wise
divines to show that they do not contradict the holy Scriptures And as to the propositions
which are stated but not rigorously demonstrated, anything contrary to the Bible involved
by them must be held undoubtedly false and should be proved so by every possible means.
Now if truly demonstrated physical conclusions need not be subordinated to biblical
passages, but the latter must rather be shown not to interfere with the former, then
before a physical proposition is condemned it must be shown to be not rigorously
demonstrated-and this is to be done not by those who hold the proposition to be true, but
by those who judge it to be false. This seems very reasonable and natural, for those who
believe an argument to be false may much more easily find the fallacies in it than men who
consider it to be true and conclusive. Indeed, in the latter case it will happen that the
more the adherents of an opinion turn over their pages, examine the arguments, repeat the
observations, and compare the experiences, the more they will be confirmed in that belief.
And Your Highness knows what happened to the late mathematician of the University of Pisa
who undertook in his old age to look into the Copernican doctrine in the hope of` shaking
its foundations and refuting it, since he considered it false only because he had never
studied it. As it fell out, no sooner had he understood its grounds, procedures, and
demonstrations than he found himself persuaded, and from an opponent he became a very
staunch defender of it. I might also name other mathematicians who, moved by my latest
discoveries, have confessed it necessary to alter the previously accepted system of the
world, as this is simply unable to subsist any longer.
If in order to banish the opinion in question from the world it were sufficient to stop
the mouth of a single man-as perhaps those men persuade themselves who, measuring the
minds of others by their own, think it impossible that this doctrine should be able to
continue to find adherents-then that would be very easily done. But things stand
otherwise. To carry out such a decision it would be necessary not only to prohibit the
book of Copernicus and the writings of other authors who follow the same opinion, but to
ban the whole science of astronomy. Furthermore, it would be necessary to forbid men to
look at the heavens, in order that they might not see Mars and Venus sometimes quite near
the earth and sometimes very distant, the variation being so great that Venus is forty
times and Mars sixty times as large at one time as at another. And it would be necessary
to prevent Venus being seen round at one time and forked at another, with very thin horns;
as well as many other sensory observations which can never be reconciled with the
Ptolemaic system in any way, but are very strong arguments for the Copernican. And to ban
Copernicus now that his doctrine is daily reinforced by many new observations and by the
learned applying themselves to the reading of his book, after this opinion has been
allowed and tolerated for these many years during which it was less followed and less
confirmed, would seem in my judgment to be a contravention of truth, and an attempt to
hide and suppress her the more as she revealed herself the more clearly and plainly. Not
to abolish and censure his whole book, but only to condemn as erroneous this particular
proposition, would (if I am not mistaken) be a still greater detriment to the minds of
men, since it would afford them occasion to see a proposition proved that it was heresy to
believe. And to prohibit the whole science would be to censure a hundred passages of holy
Scripture which teach us that the glory and greatness of Almighty God are marvelously
discerned in all his works and divinely read in the open book of heaven. For let no one
believe that reading the lofty concepts written in that book leads to nothing further than
the mere seeing of the splendor of the sun and the stars and their rising and setting,
which is as far as the eyes of brutes and of the vulgar can penetrate. Within its pages
are couched mysteries so profound and concepts so sublime that the vigils, labors, and
studies of hundreds upon hundreds of the most acute minds have still not pierced them,
even after the continual investigations for thousands of years. The eyes of an idiot
perceive little by beholding the external appearance of a human body, as compared with the
wonderful contrivances which a careful and practiced anatomist or philosopher discovers in
that same body when he seeks out the use of all those muscles, tendons, nerves, and bones;
or when examining the functions of the heart and the other principal organs, he seeks the
seat of the vital faculties, notes and observes the admirable structure of the sense
organs, and (without ever ceasing in his amazement and delight) contemplates the
receptacles of the imagination, the memory, and the understanding. Likewise, that which
presents itself to mere sight is as nothing in comparison with the high marvels that the
ingenuity of learned men discovers in the heavens by long and accurate observation....
Your Highness may thus see how irregularly those persons proceed who in physical
disputes arrange scriptural passages (and often those illunderstood by them) in the
front rank of their arguments. If these men really believe themselves to have the true
sense of a given passage, it necessarily follows that they believe they have in hand the
absolute truth of the conclusion they intend to debate. Hence they must know that they
enjoy a great advantage over their opponents, whose lot it is to defend the false
position; and he who maintains the truth will have many senseexperiences and rigorous
proofs on his side, whereas his antagonist cannot make use of anything but illusory
appearances, quibbles, and fallacies. Now if these men know they have such advantages over
the enemy even when they stay within proper bounds and produce no weapons other than those
proper to philosophy, why do they, in the thick of the battle, betake themselves to a
dreadful weapon which cannot be turned aside, and seek to vanquish the opponent by merely
exhibiting it? If I may speak frankly, I believe they have themselves been vanquished,
and, feeling unable to stand up against the assaults of the adversary, they seek ways of
holding him off. To that end they would forbid him the use of reason, divine gift of
Providence, and would abuse the just authority of holy Scripture- which, in the general
opinion of theologians, can never oppose manifest experiences and necessary demonstrations
when rightly understood and applied. If I am correct, it will stand them in no stead to go
running to the Bible to cover up their inability to understand (let alone resolve) their
opponents' arguments, for the opinion which they fight has never been condemned by the
holy Church. If they wish to proceed in sincerity, they should by silence confess
themselves unable to deal with such matters. Let them freely admit that although they may
argue that a position is false, it is not in their power to censure a position as
erroneous - or in the power of anyone except the Supreme Pontiff, or the Church
Councils. Reflecting upon this, and knowing that a proposition cannot be both true and
heretical, let them employ themselves in the business which is proper to them; namely,
demonstrating its falsity. And when that is revealed, either there will no longer be any
necessity to prohibit it (since it will have no followers), or else it may safely be
prohibited without the risk of any scandal.
Therefore let these men begin to apply themselves to an examination of the arguments of
Copernicus and others, leaving condemnation of the doctrine as erroneous and heretical '
to the proper authorities. Among the circumspect and most wise Fathers, and in the
absolute wisdom of one who cannot err, they may never hope to find the rash decisions into
which they allow them selves to be hurried by some particular passion or personal
interest. With regard to this opinion, and others which are not directly matters of faith,
certainly no one doubts that the Supreme Pontiff has always an absolute power to approve
or condemn; but it is not in the power: of any created being to make things true or false,
for this belongs to their own nature and to the fact. Therefore in my judgment one should
first be assured of the necessary and immutable truth of the fact, over which no man has
power. This is wiser counsel than to condemn either side in the absence of such certainty,
thus depriving oneself of continued authority and ability to choose by determining things
which are now undetermined and open and still lodged in the will of supreme authority. And
in brief, if it is impossible for a conclusion to be declared heretical while we remain in
doubt as to its truth, then these men are wasting their time clamoring for condemnation of
the motion of the earth and stability of the sun, which they have not yet demonstrated to
be impossible or false ….
