This page has been validated.
THE SUMMONS TO ROME.
189
me till six months after the publication of my 'Dialogues,' because otherwise I should have had an opportunity of saying much in praise of both, and of giving some consideration to a few particular points, especially to one in Morin and to another in Fromond. I am quite astonished that Morin should attach so great a value to astrology, and that he should pretend to be able, with his conjectures (which seem to me very uncertain) to establish its truth. It will really be a wonderful thing, if, as he promises, he raises astrology by his acuteness to the first rank among human sciences, and I await such a startling novelty with great curiosity. As to Fromond, who proves himself to be a man of much mind, I could have wished not to see him fall into, in my opinion, a grave though wide-spread error; namely, in order to refute the opinions of Copernicus, he first hurls scornful jests at his followers, and then (which seems to me still more unsuitable), fortifies himself by the authority of Holy Scripture, and at length goes so far as to call those views on these grounds nothing less than heretical. That such a proceeding is not praiseworthy seems to me to admit of very easy proof. For if I were to ask Fromond, who made the sun, the moon, the earth, and the stars, and ordained their order and motions, I believe he would answer, they are the creations of God. If asked who inspired Holy Scripture, I know he would answer, the Holy Spirit, which means God likewise. The world is therefore the work and the Scriptures are the word of the same God. If asked further, whether the Holy Spirit never uses words which appear to be contrary to things as they really are, and are only so used to accommodate them to the understandings of rude, uncultivated people, I am convinced that he would reply, in agreement with the holy fathers, that such is the usage of Scripture, which, in a hundred passages, says things for the above reason, that if taken literally, are not only heresies, but blasphemies, since they impute to God, anger, repentance, forgetfulness, etc. But if I were to ask Fromond, whether God, in order to accommodate Himself to the understanding of the multitude, ever alters His creations, or whether nature, which is God’s handmaid, and is not changeable at man’s desire, has not always observed, and does not still maintain, her usual course in respect to motion, form, and relative positions of the various parts of the universe—I am certain that he would answer, the moon has always been spherical, although for a long period the people thought she was flat; he would say, in fine, that nothing ever changes in nature to accommodate itself to the comprehension or notions of men. But if it be so, why, in our search for knowledge of the various parts of the universe, should we begin rather with the words than with the works of God? Is the work less noble or less excellent than the word? If Fromond, or any one else, had settled
fessoris ordinarii. Ant.-Aristarchus, sive orbis terræ immobilis. Liber unicus, in quo decretum S. Congreg. S. R. E. Cardinalium anno 1616, adversus Pythagorico-Copernicanos editum defenditur. Anverpiæ ex officina Plantiniana 1631, in 40."
