sufficient. He had used unguarded language; therefore he had no religion: he wanted to go into a country where there were heretics; therefore, he was a heretic. Such was exactly the reasoning of the Inquisition. The Marquis of Almenara had tampered with Diego Bustamente, who had served Perez for eighteen years, and with Juan de Basante, teacher of Latin and Greek grammar at Saragossa, who almost daily visited his prison. Relying on the fidelity of the one and trusting to the friendship of the other, Perez, who besides was naturally indiscreet enough, had used no reserve nor dissembled anything before them. They secretly denounced his words and projects to one of the Inquisitors of Saragossa, Don Molina de Medrano, who, in concert with the Marquis of Almenara, drew up these proceedings, whilst the question of inquiry was being debated between Perez and the king's fiscal officer.* The Inquisitor Don Molina de Medrano examined, moreover, Juan Luis de Luna, Anton de la Almenia, and six other witnesses. When the evidence was ready, the tribunal of Saragossa sent it to the supreme tribunal of the licentiate Molina de Medrano, one of the inquisitors of Aragon; Llorente's Collection, MSS. in the Bibliothèque 1036 Royale, French supplement, No. ; Inquisition d'Aragon. vol. xiii. t. i. fol. 1. 24 the Holy Office at Madrid.* The Inquisitor General, Don Gaspard de Quiroga, transmitted it to friar Diego de Chaves, the king's confessor, to have his opinion upon it as a commissioner. This is the way in which that docile casuist, in order to feed the passions of his master, interpreted the words of Perez. † "Conformably to the order of the most illustrious Cardinal of Toledo, Inquisitor General, I have received, through the medium of the licentiate *** officer of the Holy Inquisitor General, an authentic copy of certain additional articles which have been annexed to the process of inquiry against Antonio Perez, secretary to his Majesty, and the depositions of witnesses relating to them, that I might see and examine the whole, in order to say what I might think of them. After this examination, accurately made, I have noted the following propositions: "Antonio Perez having been told by some one not to speak ill of Prince Don Juan of Austria, the said Perez replied: Since the king has reproached me with altering the sense of the letters which I wrote, and betraying the secret of the council, I must acquit myself without caring for any one: if God the Father wished to put any obstacle in the way, I would cut off his nose, for having permitted the king to prove * Llorente's Collection, vol. xiii. t. i. fol. 66. * himself so disloyal a knight towards me. Interpretation:-this proposition, inasmuch as it says, if God the Father was a hinderance, he would have his nose cut off, is a blasphemous and scandalous proposition, offensive to pious ears and savouring of the heresy of the Vaudois, who pretend that God is corporeal and has human members. It cannot be excused by saying that Christ has a body and a nose, since he was made man; for it is manifest that the question is here about the first person of the very Holy Trinity, which is the Father.† .... "The same Antonio Perez has said: I am quite at the end of my belief. It seems to me that God sleeps in the business that concerns me; and, if God does not perform a miracle in that business, I shall be on the * Llorente's Histoire Critique de l'Inquisition, t. iii. p. 328. See also the declaration of Diego de Bustamente. 6 † "Deciendole una persona al dicho Antonio Perez que no dixese mal de Señor don Juan de Austria, respondiò: 'Bueno es que despues, &c., repare yo en honrra de nadie para mostrar yo mi descargo, que si Dios padre se atravesara en medio, le llevara las narizes, a que qualquiera en el mondo vea quan,...' Esta proposicion, quanto a lo que dize que, si Dios padre se atravesara en medio, le llevara las narizes,' es proposicion blasfema, escandalosa, piarum aurium offensiva, et, ut jacet, est suspecta de heresi Vadianorum, dicentium Deum esse corporeum et habere membra humana. Ni se puede escusar con desir que Cristo tiene cuerpo y narizes, despues que se hizò hombre; porque consta que se habla acuenta de la prima persona de la santissima Trinidad, que es padre." -- Interpretation of Friar Diego de Chaves. Llorente's Collection, vol. xiii. t. i., point of losing my faith entirely. Interpretation:—this proposition is scandalous and offensive to pious ears, because God is here spoken of as sleeping in the affairs of Perez, as if he was innocent and without reproach, he who has been judicially put to the torture, condemned to death, and accused of the most serious offences. "Antonio Perez, on one of those occasions when he was tormented with grief and anxiety, on being informed of what his wife and children had to suffer †, exclaimed: God sleeps, God is asleep! All we have *"Dixò el dicho Antonio Perez: Muy al cabo traygo la fee. Parece que duerme Dios en estos mis negocios, y si Dios no hiziesse milagro en ellos, estaria circa de perder la fee.' Esta proposicion es escandalosa et piarum aurium offensiva, porque parece que dize de Dios que duerme en sus negocios; como si el fuese inocente y sin culpa, un hombre juridicamente atormentado, y condenado a muerte, y acusado de grandissimos delitos." Llorente's Collection, vol. xiii. t. i. fol. 67. See also the declaration of Diego de Bustamente. Ibid., fol. 38. † "Dize Antonio Perez: Duerme Dios, Dios duerme. Deve ser burla todo esto que nos dizen de que ay Dios; no deve de aver Dios.' Esta proposicion, quanto a lo que dize y repite que duerme Dios, junta a las partes siguientes, est suspecta de heresi, quasi Deus non habeat curam rerum humanarum quam sacræ literæ et catholica Ecclesia docent. Quanto a las otras dos partes de la proposicion, la prima, 'Deve ser burla todo esto que nos dizen de que ay Dios, &c.,' . . son partes hereticas, porque, quando le pudiesemos mucho escusar y dezir que lo dize dudando, dubius in fide infidelis est, porque el que duda de una cosa no cree el si ni el no; y el hombre esta obligado a creer positivamente los dichos, y no creiendo los no es cristiano, y el que duda, como hé dicho, no cree." Ibid. been told about the existence of God must be only a joke; there cannot be a God. Interpretation :—this proposition, inasmuch as it says and repeats that God is asleep, and coupling it with the parts which follow, is suspected of heresy; as if God took not that care of human affairs which is taught by the Scriptures and the Catholic Church. As for the two other parts of the proposition: the first, all we have been told about the existence of God must be only a joke ; and the second, there cannot be a God, they are both heretical; because, though we might be able to find much excuse for them by saying that they are advanced doubtingly, yet he who doubts in a matter of faith is an infidel; for he who doubts of a thing, believes neither yes nor no. Now, man is obliged to believe one or the other positively in not believing them, he is not a Christian; and he who doubts, as I have already said, does not believe. "Perez, transported with anger at the manner, unjust in his opinion, in which he was treated, and at the part that was taken in that prosecution by persons whom he supposed to have good reasons to act differently, but who enjoyed no less the esteem attached to irreproachable conduct, has said*: Oh! I deny the milk which I have sucked; and that is being a Catholic! I should no longer believe in God, if things went on so. Interpretation: -this proposition, * See the declaration of Diego de Bustamente, Llorente's |