Storia do Mogor 330.1
Storia do Mogor (Irvine) 330.1
- Language
- English
330.1.1
[136] I demand the admission of these Articles, that the Court be fully constituted, and that the defendant, Father Ephraim of Nevers, as a heretic and an apostate from our holy Faith, a forger, a hypocrite, et cetera, be punished, as his faults deserve, with all the rigour of the law, in accordance with the regular procedure and the formulas of the Holy Office. ' Cum protestatione juris et expensis ' [With protestation of (my) legal rights, and claiming costs]. Here you have, then, the charitable and merciful conclusions of these gentlemen. To them the father's procurator replied orally ; and these replies having been signed by both parties, they were made over to the gaoler for delivery to the inquisitor. In the following January [1651] the accused was sent for to hear the public reading of the witnesses' depositions about all the impertinent things they imputed to him. To these statements the procurator replied by an absolute denial of everything that was said against the defendant. He repelled the said depositions as the testimony of persons incapable in law of giving evidence in a court of justice.
330.1.2
On May 25, 1651, Father Ephraim was once more sent for, and he was asked what books he required for the preparation of his defence, and they gave him Tostatus ' In Deu.'; Baronius ' An.,' 9 ; Bellarmino, ' Con.', tom. i. ; ' O Catechismo de Pio Quinto ' in Portuguese ; Joseph Angles; Durandus, ' In Senten.' On June 27 and 28 he was again sent for, and they enquired [137] if he had found references for what he had advanced. In edition of 1832 in four volumes. Vol. i. contains the tract 'Appendix Tractatum de Cultu Imaginum,' and the passage on p. 986 quotes the finding of the Council of Nicaea: 'Neque eos cultu latriae qui Deo est proprius, adorandos.' Or the edition Venetiis, apud Societatem Minimam, 1599, may be consulted. In tomus secundus, cols. 841-856, in the second book of the 'Quarta Controversia Generalis, De Ecclesia Triumphante,' there are the following chapters on the Adoration of the Cross: XXVI., De Adoratione Crucis; XXVII., De Cruce vera Domini; XXVIII., De Imagine Crucis; XXIX., De Signo Crucis; XXX., Solvuntur Obiectiones Haereticorum. The reference 'Con. I.' must be intended for this work, 'De Controversiis . . .'
330.1.3
4. 'O Catechismo,' the Catechism of the Council of Trent, first published in Latin by Pius V., and since translated into various languages. The Council decreed that such a book should be prepared. There are English editions by T. A. Buckley, B.A., 1852, and Jeremiah Donovan, D.D., 1854. I quote from the latter version : 'Question XX. This precept [Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven image] they do not violate who represent the Persons of the Trinity . . . for no one is so ignorant as to believe that by that image is expressed the Divinity' (p. 36). 'Question XXIV. But the pastor will show that it is not only lawful to have images in a church, and to pay them honour and respect, as the honour which is paid them is referred to their prototypes.' The Portuguese version referred to in the text is probably that by Dom Barth. dos Martyrs (Lisboa, 1610, small 4to.), quoted by Migne in 'Dictionnaire de Bibliographic Catholique' (Paris, 1867), vol. ii., col. 883 ('Encyclopedic Theologique,' serie iii., vol. xl.). 5. Josephus Angles Valentinus, of the Minor Order of Observantists, died circa 1587 (H. Hurter, 'Nomenclator,' i. 44), 'Flores Theologicarum Questionum in Quartum Librum "Sententiarum" [of Petrus Lombardus] Collecti,' 8vo.; Lugduni, 1587. I have not succeeded in identifying any passage bearing on Father Ephraim's case.
330.1.4
6. Since further on the Durandus referred to is said to have been condemned, it must be Gulielmus Durandus a S. Porciano, Dominican, died 1334; author of 'In Sententias Theologicas Petri Lombardi Commentariorum libri quatuor,' of which there were several editions in the sixteenth century (see H. Hurter, 'Nomenclator,' iv. 431-435). On p. 433 Hurter says : 'Non solum recessit [Durandus] a doctrina S. Thomae sed a pluribus placitis communis scholae consensu defensis opinionum singularium patronus : unde controversiis et oppugnationibus praebent occasionem.' The passages on Images (quoted by G. Vazquez, p. 987) are in the Leyden edition of 1556, to be found on p. 198, ninth 'Distinctio,' second 'Quaestio,' 'Utrum latria sit soli Deo exhibenda' (para. 4), and the third 'Quaestio,' 'Utrum dulia distinguatur a latria' — 'whether SovXtia is to be distinguished from Xarpda' — i.e. the enforced from the free service of God. There is another Gulielmus Durandus, Bishop of Mende, died 1333, the author of 'Rationale Divinorum Officiorum.' The first edition was of 1459, and there were twenty-eight editions in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (see the end the whole case was reduced to three articles. Firstly, about the image of the most holy Trinity; secondly, touching the priests' orders in the English Church; thirdly, about the adoration of Latria to be paid to the Cross.
330.1.5
The inquisitor read to him the adverse opinion of the three learned men, who held him up as a Calvinist because he refused to give to the blessed Cross the adoration of Latria; as over-bold in condemning the display of the most Holy Trinity; and as sapiens heresim (savouring of heresy) in saying that the English clergyman might perhaps possess the character of priesthood. The writers that he adduced in his defence were described as rash and untrustworthy persons. The inquisitor said to him that Durandus had been condemned in a certain book called 'Expurgatorium.' He replied that they could hardly charge him with rashness, for he followed Catholic authors and men of great authority, such as are those named above. But to that remark he (the inquisitor) retorted that there were fourteen Jesuits who approved the representation of the most Holy Trinity. To that he (Father Ephraim) answered that the matter was not an article of faith, and that he would willingly follow the doctrine laid down by the authors now appealed to, but he had not been rash in following the contrary opinion.
330.1.6
As regards the qualification of the English clergyman, he had said from the first that if they pointed out to him a Catholic doctor who says that the English do not observe the required ceremonies, he would follow that doctor's opinion. They produced to him Suarez, who, while allowing that they (the English Church) observe the ceremonial, affirms at the same time that they have not the intention of consecration when they admit a man to their orders. The father (Ephraim) replied that he would follow that opinion with all his heart. In regard to the adoration of Latria he said he would never retract, because his opinion was a matter of faith, and in this matter he followed Baronius and Bellarmino. He begged that the doctors be produced, so that he might discuss this article with them. On July 3 [1651] they brought to him a Jesuit named Gregoire de Mayeu, and at once he was invited to send for the ninth volume of Baronius, and for Bellarmino. But this father was in such a rage that he said to the defendant, although actually reading Baronius at the time, that this author said nothing in his favour. 'Let your reverence read well,' was the reply, 'the passage quoted and the decree of the second Council of Nicaea.' Subsequently on reading Bellarmino he (the Jesuit) said to him (Ephraim) that he was right, and that the dispute between them was only one of names. Thereupon he went away.
330.1.7
On July 5 the inquisitors sent for the defendant again, and cited to him over again Bellarmino, and wrote out what this author said. After that he did not see this inquisitor again, for he died on the 17th of that month. Upon November 4, 1651, one hour after mid-day, he was once more brought out of prison and placed before the table. There he found the Archbishop, the grand inquisitor, the second inquisitor, who was a Dominican named Father Lucas de la Croix, one Observantist father, two or three more Dominicans, and one or two Jesuits, as he believes. The hall was decorated with pieces of silk. The archbishop sat at the upper end of the table, his mitre in his hand. On his right was the grand inquisitor, at his left the second — that is, Father Lucas de la Croix, Dominican. When Father Ephraim arrived close to the table the inquisitor said to him that they had seen once, and then reconsidered, the record of his case ; that they were there assembled to pass judgment ; that if he wished to say anything farther in justification he had but to speak. To that he replied that those who had censured his discourses and his writings had employed [138] sophisms, and had not acted uprightly with him. For he had advanced as the major premiss of an argument that a man consecrated by a heretic bishop (servatis servandis) [with the necessary reservations] received the attribute [of priesthood].
330.1.8
This they had treated as if he had brought forward instances and reasons for proving the minor premiss : ' This man has been consecrated by a heretic bishop, therefore he has the attributes [of priest],' and that he had brought forward, as proof of this conclusion, the history that he told them. This was contrary to right reason, for, since this history was only of human authority, the conclusion could not be otherwise than of the same genus. Suarez affirms that the English clergy have not the [priestly] attributes. But this is a point in defendant's favour, showing that he made no invention out of his own head when he said that they (the English) followed the ancient ritual. For although he (Suarez) denies them the [priestly] attribute, because, as he says, they have not the intention of doing what is done by the church, nevertheless, from the whole of the passage referred to it can be gathered that the father (defendant) had not been rash, for he had invented nothing out of his own head. The inquisitor replied to him that his [the inquisitor's] predecessor was not obliged to show him the censures and criticism made against him.