these points require many subtil and profound Reasons, for the making out whether they be really so, or no; the undertakeing and discussing of which is neither consistent with my leasure, nor their duty, whom I desire to instruct in the necessary matters more directly conducing to their salvation, and to the benefit of The Holy Church.
From which (that we may come nearer to our particular case) it necessarily followeth, that the Holy Ghost not having intended to teach us, whether Heaven moveth or standeth still; nor whether its Figure be in Form of a Sphere, or of a Discus, or distended in Planum: Nor whether the Earth be contained in the Centre of it, or on one side; he hath much less had an intention to assure us of other Conclusions of the same kinde, and in such a manner, connected to these already named, that without the dedermination of them, one can neither affirm one or the other part; which are, The determining of the Motion and Rest of the said Earth, and of the Sun. And if the same Holy Spirit hath purposely pretermitted to teach us those Propositions, as nothing concerning his intention, that is, our salvation; how can it be affirmed, that the holding of one part rather than the other, should be so necessary, as that it is de Fide, and the other erronious? Can an Opinion be Heretical, and yet nothing concerning the salvation of souls? Or can it be said that the Holy Ghost purposed not to teach us a thing that concerned our salvation? I might here insert the Opinion of an Ecclesiastical * Card. Baronius.* Person, raised to the degree of Eminentissimo, to wit, Spiritus sancto mentem fuisse, nos docere, quomodo ad Cælum eatur: non autem, quomodo Cælum gradiatur.That the intention of the Holy Ghost, is to teach us how we shall go to Heaven, and not how Heaven goeth.
But let us return to consider how much necessary Demonstrations, and sensible Experiments ought to be esteemed in Natural Conclusions; and of what Authority Holy and Learned Divines have accounted them, from whom amongst an hundred other attestations, we have these that follow: (e) Illud etiam diligenter cavendum, & omnino fugiendum est, ne in tractanda Mosis Doctrina, quicquam affirmate & asseveranter sentiamus & dicamus, quod repugnet manifestis experimentis & rationibus Philosophiæ, vel aliarum Disciplinarum. Namque cum Verum omne semper cum Vero congruat, non potest Veritas Sacrarum Litterarum, Veris Rationibus & Experimentis Humanarum Doctrinarum esse contraria. Peter. in Gen. circa Principium.(e) We must also carefully heed and altogether avoid in handling the Doctrine of Moses, to avouch or speak any thing affirmatively and confidently which contradicteth the manifest Experiments and Reasons of Philosophy, or other Sciences. For since all Truth is agreeable to Truth, the Truth of Holy Writ cannot be contrary to the solid Reasons and Experiments of Humane Learning.
And in St. Augustine we read: (f) Si manifestæ certæque Rationi, velut sanctarum Litterarum objicitur autoriritas, non intelligit, qui hoc facit; & non Scriptura sensum (ad quem penetrare non potuit) sed suum potius objecit veritati: nec id quod in ea, sed quod in seipso velut pro ea invenit, opponit. Epist. 7. ad Marcellinum.(f) If any one shall object the Authority of Sacred Writ, against clear and manifest Reason, he that doth so, knows not what he undertakes: For he objectsagainst
