The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies: Sicily—Naples—Sardinia—Milan—the Canaries—Mexico—Peru—New GranadaLea, Henry Charles
History
The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies: Sicily—Naples—Sardinia—Milan—the Canaries—Mexico—Peru—New Granada
Lea, Henry Charles
Inquisition
There is nothing more connected with the Philippine commissionership
that is worth relating, except to explain the disappearance of its
records. When the British captured Manila, October 5, 1762, these were
not removed from the city. No attention was paid to them at first but,
on March 12, 1763, an English Catholic and Don César Fallet, who had
been penanced by the Inquisition, informed the commissioner, Fray Pedro
Luis de Serra, that he was about to be arrested and the archives to be
seized, whereupon he burnt them all and when the English came they found
nothing. He was taken before the authorities where he told what he had
done; the tribunal approved of his action and sent him renewed
instructions.[577]
* * * * *
Although not directly connected with our subject, there is interest in
observing the zeal with which the purity of the faith was conserved in
the Far East. The commissioner, Juan de Arechederra, in a letter of July
6, 1724, from Manila to Francisco de Garzeron, inquisitor and inspector
of Mexico, encloses a sentence rendered in Canton by Fra Giovanni
Bonaventura de Roma, as delegate judge and commissioner of Giovanni de
Cazal, Bishop of Macao, on Antoine Guigue, a French missionary convicted
of Jansenism. Guigue, it appears, had obeyed orders in publishing the
appeal of his archbishop, Cardinal Noailles, to a future council against
the bull _Unigenitus_, he had maintained that councils are superior to
popes, that popes sometimes erred and other Jansenist heresies, besides
receiving and circulating Jansenist books. Moreover it was asserted that
he had been guilty of solicitation when on missions in the interior. He
had not obeyed the citations and had allowed the trial to go by default,
wherefore his sentence was publicly read, March 1, 1724, in the church
Siaò Nân Muen of Canton. He was suspended from all priestly functions,
he was ordered to leave the province and betake himself to a convent in
which he was to remain, performing certain spiritual exercises, until he
had satisfied the pope, and all this under penalty of perpetual
imprisonment for disobedience.[578] The Emperor of China at the time was
ordering all Christian missionaries to leave his dominions, but the
common danger was insufficient to allay the strife arising from Pasquier
Quesnel’s speculations on sufficing attrition.
CHAPTER VII.
PERU.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account