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 that the opinion that the earth moves is a heresy, and if afterwards, demonstration, observation, and necessary concatenation should prove that it does move, into what embarrassment he would have brought himself and the holy Church. But if, on the contrary, the works are indisputably proved to vary from the literal meaning of the words, and we give the Scriptures the second place, no detriment to Scripture results from this. Since, in order to accommodate themselves they often ascribe, even to God Himself, entirely false conditions, why should we suppose that in speaking of the earth or the sun they should keep to such strict laws, as not to attribute conditions to these creations, out of regard for the ignorance of the masses, which are opposed to fact? If it be true that the earth moves and the sun stands still, it is no detriment to Holy Scripture, since it speaks of things as they appear to the people. “Many years ago, when the stir about Copernicus was beginning, I wrote a letter[326] of some length, in which, supported by the authorities of numerous fathers of the Church, I showed what an abuse it was to appeal so much to Holy Scripture in questions of natural science, and I proposed that in future it should not be brought into them. As soon as I am in less trouble, I will send you a copy. I say, in less trouble, because I am just now going to Rome, whither I have been summoned by the Holy Office, which has already prohibited the circulation of my ‘Dialogues.’ I hear from well-informed parties that the Jesuit fathers have insinuated in the highest quarters that my book is more execrable and injurious to the Church than the writings of Luther and Calvin. And all this although, in order to obtain the _imprimatur_, I went in person to Rome, and submitted the manuscript to the Master of the Palace, who looked through it most carefully, altering, adding, and omitting, and even after he had given it the _imprimatur_, ordered that it should be examined again at Florence. The reviser here, finding nothing else to alter, in order to show that he had gone through it carefully, contented himself with substituting some words for others, as, for instance, in several places, ‘Universum’ for ‘Nature,’ ‘quality’ for ‘attribute,’ ‘sublime spirit’ for ‘divine spirit,’ excusing himself to me for it by saying that he foresaw that I should have to do with fierce foes and bitter persecutors, as has _indeed come to pass_.”[327] CHAPTER VI. _GALILEO’S ARRIVAL AT ROME._