Storia do Mogor 303: ANSWER TO THE SECOND ARTICLE.
Storia do Mogor (Irvine) 303
- Language
- English
ANSWER TO THE SECOND ARTICLE.
303.1
[129] As regards the image of the most Holy Trinity, let them read Peruyuer, Tostatus, et cetera, and it will be seen that I need not reply to this article. With respect to the English clergyman the prosecution accuses me falsely, for I never said he was a true priest; but to make the matter more of a crime he has imagined that detail. It is quite true that I once said that, assuming that the clergyman had been consecrated by a bishop with the ceremonial followed in the Church, then in my belief he possessed the quality of priesthood; that I had read in certain books that the English had preserved those ceremonies when consecrating their bishops and priests. That consequently it could not be said of one of their clergy that he was a mere layman, for he might have the attributes of a priest. This is what I said, and not what the prosecution avers. Upon this head the reader will notice that Father Francis de Fonseca, a famous and very learned preacher in India, and the inquisitor himself, contradicted me; that is, they said, heretic bishops consecrated according to the requisite ceremonial cannot confer any attributes, for they have not been thereto authorized by the Sovereign Pontiff. My reply to that can be consulted in the writings that I have forwarded to the Sorbonne.
303.2
In respect to the adoration of the Cross, I replied that the prosecutor need only read the decree of the Council of Nicaea, recognised by him in his third article of charge as a universal Council. There he will see who is the best Catholic of us two. With respect to graven images, it is untrue that I condemn or reject them as asserted by the prosecution. Let my letter be read, and if what I say means [130] the rejection of images, I shall say that by the same reasoning the Portuguese fathers reject the Holy Communion, since they refuse to administer it to the greater number of Indians as being unworthy; while Jesus Christ our Lord says, 'Nolite santum dare canibus' ['Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,' Matt. vii. 6], which might be construed by saying that he rejected holy things. In regard to what it is alleged that I said upon the customs of our convents, the prosecution does not repeat it in the sense used by me, for I said nothing more than that our altar [at Madras], being arranged like those of our convents in France, I was not obliged to conform to the fancies of certain Indians. They wished me to place the image of St. Anthony in the manner stated at the end of my letter. Were it true that I had rejected graven images, why should I have always worn the image of a crucifix in bronze?
303.3
As far as regards the letter written by me to the governor, my motives are detailed in the letter itself. In the interrogatories put to me on this subject, no error or rash expression has been pointed out to me. If this be done, I am ready to retract and renounce it. In respect of forbidden books, everybody knows that I am a missionary, and that we are privileged to have printed books. The inquisitor once said to me that such privileges did not extend to India. To this I replied that, even granting that point to him, I had not transgressed in what I had done. For in 1640 his lordship the Primate of Goa had inspected them, and given permission to use them within his archbishopric. In 1642 the reverend father, Maitre Francois de la Croix, Dominican, commissary of the Holy Office, read them through twice, and made a minute examination of them [131] without discovering anything worthy of censure. Again, in 1646, the priest administering the diocese of San Thome, my accuser, gave me a writing under his hand, whereby he permitted me to make use of the privileges referred to within his bishopric. Hence I draw this inference (arguing thus to prove he was acting from passion) : either he had seen my privileges or he had not seen them. If he saw and approved them, why at the present day does he accuse me because I used them ? If he has not seen the books, how came he to give me a writing under his hand by which he certifies that he had seen and approved them ?
303.4
As for the Bible in Portuguese, this is again a falsehood. It is true I have confessed to having translated the New Testament into Portuguese, but not the whole Bible, as asserted. The reasons that impelled me to do it were submitted by me to the persons to whom I was under an obligation to report my acts.