Even this great book was as insufficient to stop the criticism of the action of the Congregations, as it was to stop the spread of the doctrine. So once again the father took up the cudgels in defense of the Church. The full title of his _Apologia_ runs: "An Apologia in behalf of an argument from physical mathematics against the Copernican system, directed against that system by a new argument from the reflex motion of falling weights." (Venice, 1669). He states in this that his _Almagestum Novum_ had received the approbation of professors of mathematics at Bologna, of one at Pisa, and of another at Padua, and he quotes the conclusion from _Nicetas Orthodoxus_ ("a diatribe by Julius Turrinus, doctor of mathematics, philosophy, medicine, law, and Greek letters"): "That the sun is revolved by diurnal and by annual motion, and that the earth is at rest I firmly hold, infallibly believe, and openly confess, not because of mathematical reasons, but solely at the command of faith, by the authority of the Scriptures, and the nod of approval (_nutu_) of the Roman See, whose rules laid down at the dictation of the spirit of truth, may I, as befits everyone, uphold as law."[344] [Footnote 344: Riccioli: _Apologia_: 4.] Riccioli further on proceeds to answer his objecters, declaring that "the Church did not decide _ex cathedra_ that the Scripture concerning movement should be interpreted literally; that the censure was laid by qualified theologians and approved by eminent cardinals, and was not merely provisional, nor for the time being absolute, since the contrary could never be demonstrated; and that while it was the primary intent of the Inquisitors to condemn the opinion as heretical and directly contrary to the Scriptures ... they added that it was absurd and false also in philosophy, in order, not to avert any objections which could be on the side of philosophy or astronomy, but only lest any one should say that Scripture is opposed to philosophy."[345] These answers are indicative of the type of criticism with which the Church had to cope even at that time.[346] [Footnote 345: Ibid: 103.] [Footnote 346: One bit of contemporary opinion on Riccioli and his work has come down to us. A canon at Liège, Réné-François Sluse, wrote asking a friend (about 1670) to sound Wallis, the English mathematician, as to his opinion of the _Almagestum Novum_, and of this argument based on the acceleration of movement in falling bodies. Wallis himself replied that he thought the argument devoid of all value. The canon at once wrote, "I do not understand how a man as intelligent as Riccioli should think he could bring to a close a matter so difficult [the refutation] by a proof as futile as this." Monchamp: 165-166. For a full, annotated list of books published against the Copernican system between 1631-1688, see Martin: _Galilée_: 386-388.] CHAPTER IV. THE GRADUAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM.